On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:13:45 +0000, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
It's the carpet we sweep the dust under. Which makes the rest of the place look a damn sight tidier. Remember, though, that it is the wikilawyers who run this 'you haven't defined your terms' riff into the ground, for their own sordid 'gain'. I'm happy enough that articles which, after best efforts to add reliable sources, do not have much to show, should be deleted at AfD.
Yes, that is reasonable enough, although the idea of allowing spammers to get us to waste time working up their drivel before finally deleting it is profoundly unattractive.
I think we should admit that the pool of 'reliable sources' is dynamic, and certain things that are premature creations at the moment will in the future be much easier to source. This kind of argument helps keep us straight on celebrity (Warholinan 900 seconds) versus notability; and that WP cannot, be definition, itself be the pioneer reliable source on anything.
Absolutely. For many subjects, the best sources of all are not traditional treeware. It's the authority of the source that matters, not the medium, in my view.
Guy (JzG)