On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
SJ wrote:
On 11/30/05, Walter van Kalken
<walter(a)vankalken.net> wrote:
The Soi case.
On the Dutch wikipedia I wrote the article [[soi]]. It was also written
on the english wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soi)
According to the CITE principal this article should be deleted right now
Actually, a quick google search turned up a few relevant citations
(one from Wikitravel, in fact). I added them to the English article. It is
very very hard to find articles which are at once encyclopedic
and verifiable, but have no suitable reference either online or in
print. I cannot think of an example atm.
++SJ
Hoi,
I find it remarkable that this CITE thing may break one of our fundamental
reasons for success. It will drive people away when it is used as a tool to
justify deletions. Why will it drive people away, because it raises the entry
This should *never* be used to justify deletions. Ever. But it should be
used to justify tagging articles as unsourced; or marking them for
cleanup... just as we tag articles as stubs, or as unwikified blobs of
text, when that is what they are. Of course, writing more than 2
paragrapyhs, or wikifying raw text, 'raises the entry level' -- so we do
not require it.
But we *do* require it for 'good style' and acceptance into the circle
of enlightened articlehood.
Having citations is a good thing but please realise
that it is best used when
controversies arise.
Having citations is fundamental to being a good reference work.
This is *not* ( I say it again ) related to deletion policy.
SJ