Anthony wrote:
On 6/11/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So to not be speediable, you have to assert that the subject might have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent
of
the subject?
Such a humorous CSD criterion.
Well now I know you're not a wikilawyer Anthony, since a wikilawyer would have realised that the existence of independent reliable sources merely raises a presumption of notability, it does not establish it, and this state of affairs is compatible with the word "might".
Huh?
First of all, I will admit that I thought until this point that the existence of multiple independent reliable sources established notability. I find it strange and confusing that you say it merely raises a presumption of notability. But that's yet another topic, except as it applies to CSD A7.
As it applies to CSD A7, well, I don't know. I'm going back to my first answer: Huh? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Generally, it would be an assertion that indicates sourcing is likely available. For example: "The Flailing Hairnets had six number one hits in Great Britain during the 1960s." Or "John Doe was the CEO of Mega Corporation from 1991 through 2003." Even if unsourced, these give a clear indication of what the article's about, and where one might look for verification and additional material-in the first case one would look in music magazines and British hit databases from the 60s, in the second, one might look at Fortune, Forbes, or Business Week from that time period. They also provide a clear indication that it's likely someone would indeed have written about the subject. On the other hand, "The Flailing Hairnets are planning to release their demo really really soon" or "John Doe is a 10th-grade student at Somewhere High School" gives no indication of where one would look for sources, and indicates that they probably don't even exist.
(Of course, even with the first two examples, if sources can't -actually- be found to confirm it, the articles should still be prodded or sent to AfD since they're unverifiable.)