[WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!

Tue Nov 28 21:16:38 UTC 2006

>From: "Jeff Raymond" <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:10:41 -0600 (CST)
>
>
>Steve Summit wrote:
>
> > Have there really been *twelve* more attempts?  (The fact that it
> > took that many has got to say something...)
>
>Most of them were speedy kept.  For whatever reason, we speedy deleted
>this instance, which puts the whole operation in question.
>
>This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as an organization when we
>delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well
>know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves to
>trust a source that isn't available in dead tree form somewhere, we won't
>have the article.  Doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
>-Jeff
>

I think it looks pretty good that we have a standard that we don't accept 
original research, even if said research can be easily done online.  That 
standard makes us more professional and more worthy or trust and respect.

The question isn't whether "dead tree" sources exist, but whether *any 
non-trivial coverage* in *any independent source* exists.  It turns out it 
doesn't, in this case; at least nobody was able to pony it up.  There are 
certainly articles that are well sourced without any dead trees being 
involved; this wasn't one of them.

Tony/GTBacchus

_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now. 
http://ideas.live.com