Garion96 wrote:
A counter example. I recently requested a source on the fact that a person (living person) is blind. (Not Stevie Wonder). But it was deemed so obvious that it was ixnayed. Correct or wrong? My sentiment is that even if it is so obvious, why not source it anyway.
The fact that the person is blind may be common knowledge, but it's inadequate information. A proper treatment would need to address whether they were born blind, or how they became blind. That kind of detail needs a source, and it follows that it also serves as a source for the more general fact.
If all you've got is obvious information that doesn't require a source, then you haven't got an encyclopedia article.
--Michael Snow