Guy Chapman wrote
We have WP:V and WP:NPOV
and WP:NOR - we absolutely must have a decent, working definition of
what defines a source, so that we can apply these.
It's the carpet we sweep the dust under. Which makes the rest of the place look a damn
sight tidier. Remember, though, that it is the wikilawyers who run this 'you
haven't defined your terms' riff into the ground, for their own sordid
'gain'. I'm happy enough that articles which, after best efforts to add
reliable sources, do not have much to show, should be deleted at AfD.
I think we should admit that the pool of 'reliable sources' is dynamic, and
certain things that are premature creations at the moment will in the future be much
easier to source. This kind of argument helps keep us straight on celebrity (Warholinan
900 seconds) versus notability; and that WP cannot, be definition, itself be the pioneer
reliable source on anything.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit
www.ntlworld.com/security for more information