Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Steve Bennett wrote:
There is a small ski area in some mountains not terribly far from a helipad by the side of a road. The ski area sells ski packages that include helicopter transport to and from the ski area. There are no roads directly there, but one can safely presume that it's possible to hike to the area - as you point out, you can pretty much hike anywhere if you want to badly enough.
And you think that saying "accessible only by helicopter" is a non-neutral opinion.
It's pretty obvious that he doesn't actually object to the article on the basis that the helicopter reference is POV. He objects to the article because he sees this kind of article as cruft and is grasping at straws for a reason to delete it without saying "I want to delete it because it's cruft".
The system constantly gets abused in this way. The stricter we get about out policies, the easier it is to use the policy as a tool to get something else.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's cruft!
Oh, were we waiting for someone to say that?
But that aside, it should still be deleted. There's a good reason to require a significant amount of independent sourcing. First-party sources may be biased, promotional, inaccurate, incomplete, technically correct but deliberately misleading, or any combination of the above. Good secondary sources check for those things, cross-check one another, aren't interested in promoting the subject, and look for non-obvious details. When we've got quite a few reliable, secondary sources on something, we can be pretty sure we've got a good, complete picture of it. And that's how we build neutral, verifiable articles without using original research.
That, is why we do and should require such sourcing.