User talk:Jonhan/Archive 1

Undue
I think I have mentioned it quite clearly. If you have a very long article with many sources, a trivial source may be claimed undue like in most real-life military aeroplanes, most trivial appearances in various flight sim games are undue since you can find a lot of sources claiming their notability and appearing in games is not a very strong point. Yet if the article is really lacking in sources, claiming a source is undue is very strange since you have no strong evidence to support the removal of it, since it is adding notability to the article as a source itself. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 14:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See your talk page :) Jonhan (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the inclusion criteria of wikipedia is WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, any sources contributing to the article's notability is important when the article is lacking sources, especially the source used is generally reliable. I did not say that there is a policy or guideline about how long the article has to be in order for you to claim a source undue, I am saying for an article with little sources, it is better to include reliable sources even if they might not be the truth.  This stays inline with the WP:V policy of wikipedia, where The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  Again, I have never read/watch/know about what the particular article is, I only stated what I see in the policies and guidelines in a general basis and what the article status is.  A general rule is applied here that the consensus at the specific talk page is not on  your side, and I did not pull anything out of thin air, you do not claim every single sources undue just because you cannot find another source stating the exact same thing.  Obviously, the article at the time does not have enough sources(and most of the source right now are only sources supporting the release dates, not really supporting the notability)  You have no grounds to say that it is undue, since you don't even try to provide any sources saying otherwise.(undue is about minority views, and you do not have proof to support yourself claiming a majority view otherwise.  The burden of proof is on your side, not mine, since you are the one claiming undue, meaning you think there is a majority/significant view on the concerned subject, not me.)  As is mentioned in that specific talk page,  If you are not satisfy with the consensus there, you can try to raise it in WP:ANIME, which I have pointed you to, or any other place related.  I have no will to discuss this any further since I do not know what the series is at all and have no intention to know it either.  All that I know is that a reliable source is quoted, and whether it is true or not, it is verifiable, and no countering view shows itself as a significant/majority.  Since there are not much sources supporting the overall notability of the article, I would agree to include all of such sources per WP:NPOV.  If you want to play with words, you are at a wrong place, since it will not help your position in the discussion and the consensus at the talk page.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)