[WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:14:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  
thomas.dalton at gmail.com writes:

There is  no reason to take
reliability of sources into account when determining  notability, just
that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was trying  to make near
the beginning of this thread.>>


--------------------------------
Notability can only be determined from reliable sources.
Websites of local genealogists and local historians are not reliable simply 
 because they exist.
 
That's the point I'm making. "Official" or not, we have to judge their  
reliability based on their own particular authorial prominence.  This is  
especially true of websites which do not even name the authors of a piece.   That 
is a very suspect activity in my view.
 
Once we can establish that a website does actually speak not only *with*  
authority, but *from* authority, then we could move on to determine if it's  
meets the other criteria to be considered reliable.
 
Again, that 12 websites mention a purported fact, does not in and of  
itself, make that fact notable.  It is only notable when the mentions  themselves 
are hosted in reliable sources.  We discount mentions which are  not hosted 
in reliable sources.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=
Aprilfooter427NO62)