On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:04:27 -0700, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> Indeed. Absence of any claim to validity is
what is at issue, and the
> absence of any sources is one of the diagnostic factors. very few
> sourced articles are flagged for A7.
But even then it's still not not a remotely
_reliable_ diagnostic
factor. For example, if there were an article whose text consisted of:
"Marty McFoo was a German actor who won several national awards for his
portrayal of Julius Caesar on TV."
This article would be completely unreferenced, but nevertheless it
asserts the subject's notability just fine.
This is arse about face though. Marty McFoo is an actor who has played
in some things[reliable source] which have been popular[reliable
source] is unlikely to be tagged, whereas with no reliable sources it
might well be (we have any number of deletion candidates which make
vague unsubstantiated assertions, after all).
Of course we now get so far into wiki-lawyering that we have to
explicitly say that things are "popular" enough to get into the
"popularity" based wikipedia.
Peter Ansell