Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical integer
I agree here with Trovatore.  erifiability does not say that we just include anything that we can verify, it's necessary that the sources be reliable also.  Here we have an article whose contents are backed up by ''one'' source (it's unfortunate that Schroeppel's email, posting, etc., can't be used, but that's how it is); this one source is an encyclopedia, a source whose authority and reliability is supposed to rest on the sources it cites.  In this case, it's clear that this source's standard are not as stringent as Wikipedia's.  Not only that, but no, we don't just trust the author and publisher.  In particularly contentious cases (as in this one), what is usually done is that we look into whether the author is reliable.  This reminds me of the time Weisstein claimed (and still does) that geometers don't use 2-sphere to refer to a 2-sphere.  He apparently got this idea somehow (from looking at outdated books, I imagine) and then goes on a whole long spiel about how topologists and geometers differ on what to call the 2-sphere.  In my experience also, his error ratio is quite high, and his goofs can be quite bad.  What's funny is that he goofed on the entry under discussion, but I suppose that's not really going to change your mind as to reliability
— User:C, 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:V (Wikipedia:Verifiability)