With some articles on clearly NN people with a local reputation, it is usual to try to claim the sources are either local-only, or in some way are primary rather than secondary, or are not truly independent, or or in some way not recognized as being reliable. Often these arguments have some basis, but they would not have been raised against something people thought intrinsically more significant.
It's similarly frequent to see the argument : "it is obvious that this study is extremely important" -- and if it seems so to the predominance of the people there, it is accepted.
Frankly, I've learned how to use such arguments in either way myself. But I'd rather we had a more direct way of judging that said what we really mean. There is a difference between
I) You need sources to write an article. And it also has to be on something notable. and II) If you have sources to write an article, it's noteworthy.
DGG
On 5/11/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
I think the problem is that people want to remove it for some reason that has nothing to do with lack of sources. The sources are just an excuse. So when a source finally turns up, they have to grasp at straws for a reason to discount it.
I've seen this plenty of times myself. An article that someone disapproves of survives AfD so they launch a "death by a thousand cuts" campaign instead. Once it gets down small enough a merge suggestion often ensues, which subsequently allows for even more information to be pared away. The [[Friedman (unit)]] article is currently in that stage, though the thousand cuts haven't been primarily reference-related in this case.
It's incredibly frustrating to see these good-intentioned guidelines and policies being perverted into a weapon with which to remove otherwise reasonable content.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l