2009/8/19 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>: > 2009/8/19 <wjhon...@aol.com>: > >> Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only >> source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for >> AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the articles could be >> fixed, but the previous point was that a single tertiary source isn't >> sufficient for an article and I think it probably is.. depending. > > I remember copyediting one article on a now-obscure 18th century > British parliamentarian. Basically I just rewrote for style. And, > y'know, I'm pretty sure it'd be a reasonable start on the article, and > certainly not a deletion candidate just for having 1911EB as its sole > source.
I've found that a lot of our material tagged as from EB1911 has now pretty much vanished entirely under three or four years of editing - it might be instructive to dig through them and see what needs rewriting anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:1911 -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
