On 3/31/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 2007, at 6:58 AM, doc wrote:
- Any biography *totally* lacking sources (other than the
subject's own pages) may be tagged as such and deleted after 7 days.
2b) Any page on an organisation or corporation lacking sources (other than the subject's own pages) may be tagged as such and deleted after 7 days. 3) Any article *totally* lacking sources (other than the subjects own pages) may be tagged as such and deleted after 7 days
Gah. #1 was sensible. #2-3 are terrible. People's own sites are reliable sources for information about them. It's perfectly reasonable to use a person or company's own site as the primary or even sole source for a stub or relatively short article. Yes, when they get to good and featured length they'll need more, but it's perfectly possible to have an embryonic article that relies entirely on the subject's own pages. The sole useful effect of #2 and #3 is to make it possible to do incontestable deletions of articles that some people have notability problems with. Absolutely not.
Which is exactly why only sources from the subject are not enough. People and companies are notoriously bad at determining their own notability, so to do that (and avoid uncontestable deletions of good information) you need at least one outside source to determine notability.
Mgm