[Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 03/07/12 17:09, Delirium wrote:
> The biggest angst producer in my view is actually the opposite case:
> something that seems like it "should" be covered, since it's notable,
> but for which the extant sources are really lacking, making it
> hard/impossible to write a well-sourced article. People get very angry
> when something they view as clearly notable (a programming language,
> say) is deleted due to lack of 3rd-party sources. I think the root
> problem here is a feeling that sources "should" or even "must" track
> notability, so given that something is clearly important (at least in a
> community), the lack of sources we consider acceptable is unexpected.
> Imo the problem is just that the literature sometimes lags and sometimes
> has blind spots; journalists, sociologists, historians, etc. don't cover
> everything important in full detail, instantly. I wrote a bit about that
> last year:
> http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability.html

I always imagined that Wikiversity would be the place where this could 
be done. If you can't find a source on something, write it yourself, 
then it could be peer-reviewed, by professional scientists and 
university professors if possible, formally published and used in Wikipedia.