On 4/26/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
Mark Wagner wrote:
*90% of these articles have neither footnotes nor
references.
*About half have only links to official or fan websites.
*25% have nothing that could be considered a source under even the
most generous definition.
You do realize that many of these were likely sourced to the "official"
biographies on the official/fan websites, right?
-Jeff
If the article in question can only be sourced to such websites (university
bios, musical group bios, fan websites) or can only be sourced to current
newspaper articles, and there are no other sources available, no matter how
hard we look (no traditional encyclopedia entries, no who's who, no "music
of the 1990s" book entries, no printed bios or interviews in magazines, etc)
then that seems like a reasonable point to consider whether we need the bio.
Remember that short official bios and newspaper articles rarely give a
person's life in complete, npov detail... but without more sources, neither
can we. Providing a duplicate of the Internet at large is not our goal here.
Also, remember the historical long-view. If the person does turn out to be
truly notable, or recognized as being an innovator in some way, I guarantee
we'll get an article on them eventually. There are plenty of respectable
reference works who only include people who have passed away; it's much
easier to judge what their historical impact was with hindsight.
-- phoebe