Now comes the grotty quibbling over what "third party", "reliable" and "article topic" mean, I guess. And whether the great purge to come will give editors time to fix anything before it's swept aside.
Time? Why should you be creating new stubs that are unsourced at all? I don't create an article unless I have source material available. It kills the need for debate 90% of the time (literally, that's my ratio of creations to AFDs).
On Feb 1, 2008 4:04 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Despite a number of objections, consensus seems to be forming on WP:V to include the line "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." in the policy. This line may be familiar in its more-cited form, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," from WP:N.
It's notable (no pun intended, not that anyone will believe me) that the former does not include the word "significant" while the latter does. That would make WP:V require a weaker form of notability than WP:N. It's not a simple case of WP:N being included into WP:V.
There is that one ray of hope, at least. Find just one third-party source and the topic avoids WP:V.
Now comes the grotty quibbling over what "third party", "reliable" and "article topic" mean, I guess. And whether the great purge to come will give editors time to fix anything before it's swept aside.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l