In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:40:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com writes:
If we can agree something is the sensible thing to do, then we do it. That's what IAR is all about, and why "multiple third-party sources" may be a good rule of thumb, but, like most rules, must never become Holy Writ. (See WP:IAR).>>
-------------------------
So we let creep in such chestnuts as "King Arthur is the ancestor of the present Queen Elizabeth" because this is repeated on 12 websites of "local genealogy" societies.
If there is some specific case about which you're on, maybe you might bring it up directly. Otherwise the proper place to thrash it out would be on the Reliable Sources discussion board maybe.
For the examples given so far however, I'm just not seeing it. If some architectural marvel is so marvelous, then it would be written up, outside of some amateur enthusiast's web page.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=http... Aprilfooter427NO62)
2009/4/27 WJhonson@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:40:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com writes:
If we can agree something is the sensible thing to do, then we do it. That's what IAR is all about, and why "multiple third-party sources" may be a good rule of thumb, but, like most rules, must never become Holy Writ. (See WP:IAR).>>
So we let creep in such chestnuts as "King Arthur is the ancestor of the present Queen Elizabeth" because this is repeated on 12 websites of "local genealogy" societies.
That's completely unrelated. Using a source to establish notability is very different to using that source to establish facts. That King Arthur is mentioned on 12 local genealogy society websites might well be enough for him to be notable, but some other source would need to be used for actually writing the article. There is no reason to take reliability of sources into account when determining notability, just that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was trying to make near the beginning of this thread.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/27 WJhonson@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:40:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com writes:
If we can agree something is the sensible thing to do, then we do it. That's what IAR is all about, and why "multiple third-party sources" may be a good rule of thumb, but, like most rules, must never become Holy Writ. (See WP:IAR).>>
So we let creep in such chestnuts as "King Arthur is the ancestor of the present Queen Elizabeth" because this is repeated on 12 websites of "local genealogy" societies.
That's completely unrelated. Using a source to establish notability is very different to using that source to establish facts. That King Arthur is mentioned on 12 local genealogy society websites might well be enough for him to be notable, but some other source would need to be used for actually writing the article. There is no reason to take reliability of sources into account when determining notability, just that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was trying to make near the beginning of this thread.
No. That's worse. The reliability of the site is precisely the point. Lot's of popular culture stuff will be discussed over multiple sites, but may have little verifiable substance (see e.g. internet rumours of Richard Gere and his hamster). Where if my exampled 18th Cent village church does have an internet presence it may be limitted - but if it has concrete reliability that should be enough.
Let me give an example: Barry Mill (for which we have no article) is a working watermill It is on the National Trust's website (but that's not a third party source, because they own it) http://www.nts.org.uk/Property/10/
Now, it does actually appear on other websites, http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/features/featurefirst111.html
However, even if it did not, I'd say that the National Trust's website alone is a sufficiently reliable source to verify existence and content. And the information given on the NTS site is sufficient to convince any reasonable party that this property is notable enough to merit inclusion, regardless of whatever other web presence it might have.
Now, there are fairly likely also to be mentions of this in written sources - but it is equally the case that no-one may locate them during a 5-7 day afd.