[WikiEN-l] The Economist on "notability"

[Todd Allen]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:46 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/03/2008, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:40 AM, White Cat
>  >  <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  >  > Reliable sources? For an episode? Let me think how can we get that... Hmm...
>  >  >  Hmm... Oh RIGHT! How about the episode itself? Its quite reliable and
>  >  >  verifiable. Each time you watch it it is the same story, same plot.
>
>
> > That is not a reliable, independent, secondary source.
>
>
>  And sourcing is not a bureaucratic checklist. The source text being
>  discussed is obviously relevant to an article and, if objectively
>  checkable, certainly citable.
>
>
>  - d.
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  WikiEN-l mailing list
>  WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

While true, it is not in itself sufficient for an article.
Independent, reliable, secondary sources decide if a subject is
significant enough to write a significant amount on. If they say no,
we follow suit and say no, and make a quick entry on a list. We don't
second-guess them. Though the list entry can certainly cite the
primary source.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.