Wikipedia talk:But there must be sources!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 Low  This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

Merge discussion[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#There_must_be_sources – czar 19:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


Contentious sentence[edit]

   Wikipedia policy puts the responsibility on the editor who adds the material to reference it, not the person challenging it.

I think that's a little contentious. Going through WP:N we have:

  • "Article content does not determine notability"
  • "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable"

A lot of the verifiability policy applies to the content of an an article, and only really the contentious content of an article. I feel as though the verifiability policy here is being incorrectly applied to notability. There are good reason for standard to article deletion to be different for those of content deletion.

The idea that "no one's going to trust your sources unless you go find them", is eminently sensible. But I think the concept of not *providing complete and detailed documentary evidence for every statement you say immediately* is defensible. There's always a degree of work imposed upon the reader when you communicate with people, the aim is to pick an optimal midpoint (how can I get someone else to understand in the minimal amount of work)

I've seen a couple of cases of topics that are really obviously notable for people working in a field being nominatored for deletion: e.g. Taylor Spatial Frame - go to an orthopaedics outpatient clinic and you'll probably see one or two of these during the course of the day.

If you work within a particular field it can feel like really really obviously notable things that you and everyone in your profession comes across all the time are going to get listed for deletions. It can feel a bit like people claiming badgers, or spanners or kettles don't exist.

I suspect what's really going on is that there are common types of problem articles - and an article gets too close to this type of article, a harried and case-hardened editor is going to file it for deletion without that much thought. Under these contexts pointing someone at a list of results from google books, or google scholar is understandable and perhaps defensible as an initial step in a discussion.

(Talpedia (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC))