WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 12:06:59 PM Pacific
Daylight Time,
doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com writes:
You are missing the point. I should not have to.
If we have reasonably
trustworthy information on something that commonsense tells us has some
level of enduring significance, then finding a book should be unnecessary.>
--------------------
How can you have "reasonably trustworthy information" without a citation?
Maybe what you mean is, "I have a citation, it's just not on Google
Books".
If that's what you mean, than of course you can use it. You have to show
that the subject is notable, that is still up to the contributor.
Commonsense is notoriously slippery.
Human life is slippery and subjective - and encyclopedia that wants to
record and reflect it needs to take that on board.
The initial scenario was an article, created from sources connected with
the subject - sources that common sense tells us are fairly reliable -
yet lacking "multiple third party sources" (or at least ones produced by
an afd).
To be precise, the case study I had in mind was (and I can't find the
afd - it was some years ago) an old village church. The sources were 1)
a write-up on the church's website giving its history and some
architectural details. 2) A similar page on the local village website.
Now, the chances of those sources lying are fairly low. Yet, because no
one could produce "multiple third party sources" we got people wanting
to delete. There are quite likely to be written sources of local history
- but they may not appear on the internet, in any case we have neutral,
verifiable information of a building which will have some level of
sustainable significance.
Common sense says this is verifiable, neutral and accurate - indeed more
so than the average borderline BLP with 25 hits on googlenews.