On Saturday 19 May 2012 14:24, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > The guy (or gal) who decided about notable or not must be either a > very bad researcher or did not try at all
That's not the issiue. it mus be apparent from the article itself why it is notable. If it is not apparent from the article why it is notable, then it is not notable. It really is that simple. > even if you look with half an eye only you can't miss > international reactions and notablility of Mageia. That is of no help if neither is used as sources for what's written in the article. It can be compared to what happens in court. It's not what you know, but what you can prove in the court. > Of course wikipedia pages in other languages > must be very hard to find for this person. You can't use another wikipedia article as source. That is original research. If one could one culd write an article about X and use the article about Y as source, and in teh Y article use X as source. Then you have the circular argument problem. -- Johnny A. Solbu PGP key ID: 0xFA687324
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
