On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:47:01 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Not really. If
there are no reputable sources for a topic, then that
topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia. For example, if the only
source for a subject is a bunch of USENET postings or a couple of
blogs, the subject may not pass the threshold of notability.
[[Spoo]] is a featured article whose references are mostly Comuserve,
GEnie and Usenet forum postings. Those postings turned out to be
reputable sources for information on Spoo, after intense scrutiny by
large numbers of editors. There are even articles that are about
entities that are solely or primarily confined to Usenet itself;
[[Kibology]] for example. It'd be hard to have any sort of article there
at all without basing it on Usenet postings in some way.
Which is, I presume, why Jossi used the word "may".
As usual the exception proves the rule; the vast majority of things
verifiable solely from blogs are indeed uttery unsuitable.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG