[WikiEN-l] Sourcing "popular culture" items

[Anthony]

I'm going to copy the article here, just so we're all on the same page
in case it was deleted or edited or something:

----
'''Jellica Marie Mateo''' (Born April 10, 1983) also known as
'''"Jeli"''', is a [[Philippine Idol]] Finalist for the show's first
season.

She is a lounge singer by profession doing part-time modeling and
hosting as side jobs after her schooling in [[University of Asia and
the Pacific]].

Some of her musical influences include [[Ray Charles]], [[Diana
Krall]], and [[Michael Bolton]] among others.
----

Reading this and reading your analysis it seems to me that you are
talking about a completely different article.

On 11/9/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Jeff Raymond wrote:
> > Because a verifiable stub isn't worth it?
>
> I did not say that.  The point is, it is NOT verifiable.

It all seems verifiable to me, save perhaps for a clarification that
*she says* that her musical influences include...

Now there aren't any sources listed, and that's certainly a problem,
but it doesn't seem an insurmountable one assuming the information is
in fact true.

> It is likely a
> copyvio,

This part makes me think that the version I'm looking has been
altered.  Because there is no image in the version I see (not even a
link to a deleted one), and the text is all pretty much factual and
non-copyrightable.  But the version I see is from 16:01, 27 September
2006, which leads me to believe it is the original version.

Icidently, the first two paragraphs of [[Philippine Idol]] are likely
plagiarized from http://www.philippineidol.org/about.html (I say
likely, because possibly they plagiarized from Wikipedia).

> and the amount of information known about this woman from
> reliable third party sources is about as close to zero as you can get.
>
You could certainly get a lot closer to zero.  But admittedly the
amount of information is likely to be small.

Not that I think that in itself is a reason for deletion.  I don't
have a problem with short articles.

> It was written by someone who appears to have a serious problem with
> respect to uploading copyvio images and claiming he took them.  I see no
> reason to trust anything about the article at all.
>
Googling her name brings up a few blogs which seem to present similar
information.  So that's a reason to trust some of it.

> In the meantime, we have an article that is most likely a copyvio, and
> in any event contains a number of totally unverifiable sources.

The version I see doesn't have any sources at all.

> And any
> movement to do something about this sort of nonsense is met with the
> view that people are out to censor pop culture or something like that.
>
{{citequote}}

Who has that view?  It seems like a minority view at best.

Anthony