Invalid Source[]
The "source" obviously shows that it is not a first source, and does not include the first source. Therefore it can never be a source.
p-adic 11:19, February 2, 2020 (UTC)
- @Username
- Is the explanation above insufficient? AThey are a personal site explaininng "the author's knowledge" and another similar personal site without souces. If we allow sources by "our knowledge", then we can easily make up fake articles.
- p-adic 22:52, March 31, 2020 (UTC)
- There are a TON of articles that cite clearly "personal websites". At the very least every article about a Jonathan Bowers or Sbiis Saibian number is from a "personal website without sources" and is in effect little more than "made up". Or are you advocating to always find the "original" source of the number? How would we do that for something like googol or million? In summary: No, I will NOT keep this marked for deletion. Username5243 (talk) 23:51, March 31, 2020 (UTC)
- The point is that a personal website can be the first source only when it refers to a number created by the author. For example, if Bowers introduced his own number in his personal website, it can be a source of that number (or at least the fact that Bowers states that it is his own number). On the other hand, if Bowers stated in the same web site "In my knowledge, it is well-known that Goooooooogooooool is 100" or something like that, it can never be a source of that number. So the notion of "source" depends on the number. A website can be the first source of a number, but it does not mean that it is the first source of every number in the website.
- Also, a peer-reviewed publishment can be obviously a source. Say, there are many peer-reviewed encyclopedias on million. On the other hand, almost all online freely-edittable encyclopedias are, by definition, not peer-reviewed. Therefore they can never be the first sources. This is the case. One source is a personal website on a number in "the author's knowledge" which is not created by the author, and the second source is also a list of unsourced numbers (maybe created by referring to the "source"). In that case, it is better to doubt the correctness. Unlike well-known numbers such as million, nobody else knows the actual use of that number, right? What do you think about it? If one of our members (say, I) writes "in my knowledge, milililililion is 100000" or something like that in his or her own website, is it acceptable for you as a first source to create an article in this wiki? I am certain that it should not be.
- If you still think that it should not be marked as a candidate of deletion, then I do not revert it. But if you agree with me, then it might be better to clarify in the policy that a personal website is acceptable as a source only for the author's number. Otherwise, others will make up similar articles. (And actually, someone has made up a fake article which refers to the same site as a source.)
- p-adic 00:49, April 1, 2020 (UTC)
- I moved this argument to the talkpage of Policy.
- p-adic 00:58, April 2, 2020 (UTC)