Today's example is the Vice Chancellor of the University of Southampton, Bill Wakeham. Minimal article, but it did say he was V-C. Prodded--by someone from the UK. Maybe it will be on AfD tomorrow. DGG
Proddedportted by me, On 6/9/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Dunno i actually struck 251 - myspace -blog -answers. neologism have a frame of 40,000 i think. but if the guy can find 50 notable newspapers (I coundn't) would be cool. I'd pass his on the grounds that it could be merged. (Wikipedia is not a place for neologism but I think its so boom it works.)
On 09/06/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 2007, at 9:52 AM, John Lee wrote:
As I anticipated, the only reason the article was deleted was a lack of sources. That's perfectly fine.
What's not perfectly fine is how lazy people are when it comes to looking for sources. I often see quotations tagged with {{fact}} that have sources readily available on Google (I just select a random phrase from the quote, plug it in, and the search results nearly always yield something useful).
Likewise, http://www.google.com/search?q=Glurge yields more than enough sources on the phrase's etymology (though that's more for Wiktionary) and background. Is it really that hard to Google something?
Though in this case I have trouble finding many sources that meet stringent standards of reliability. 644 unique appearances on Google, though.
For me, this points to another problem with stringent standards of reliability. Yeah, we only have 644 independent sources on Google, none of which may be the most reliable of things. But we're dealing here with a neologism, and any source that uses the word, regardless of some ontological notion of reliability, is giving us significant information. Of course, the most stringent NOR monkeys will still cry foul over this.
This is, for me, the really disheartening thing about the deletion debate. If people had approached the subject as reasonable, thinking editors there would be a really interesting discussion of how best to source this article. But people approach it as robots and we get "Delete, neologism."
-Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l