I just want to address this one quote. <<You also don't have an article if you have a lot of primary and tertiary sources, but very few secondary sources.>>
I think this is a false reading of our intent. The entire structuring of the "rely primarily on secondary sources" and other discussion that primary sources can be included *when* the material was already introduced by a secondary source in some way and especially in those cases where it conflicts, etc etc. Doesn't really address and wasn't meant to address a situation where all you have is a teritary source (an expression I hate by the way). But let's play ball with it anyway. Let's say that you have the "tertiary" (shudder) source EB 1911, "Cleopatra". You are aware that an enormous number of our articles were created *solely* from the 1911 EB are you not? You might say that makes them stubby but not in the normal sense of the WP:Jargon. We might say "they rely on a single source" but really the EB sort of sits above most uses of that condition. I would say that most of us consider is fairly authoritative on a summary view of any subject. So in conclusion, I don't think we have any policy language that would say that tertiary sources without secondary ones would make an article subject to attack, except possibly a "make this better please" tag. Will Johnson _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
