The subject of [[Nemosine]] is Nemosine pens, not fountain pens in general. The author of a review of Nemosine pens in Fountain Pen isn't independent of fountain pens in general but is independent of Nemosine pens.

What Wikipedia guideline page says that? The page I see says "The term published is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online."

There are plenty of countries where you can be thrown in prison for doing that to your kids. Germany is among them.

Then it's time to look for a common cause behind low standardized test scores and unavailability of high-speed home Internet access.

Or they are balanced for the same speed in a different direction. On a two-way street whose signals are timed for 30 mph eastbound at a particular part of the day, westbound traffic is going to have a problem.

Or perhaps they are balanced for a different speed, the speed of the type of vehicle driven by the majority. Most signals are timed for people who drive cars, which means cyclists tend to hit more reds.

If you can find two other authoritative sources that have reviewed it, then go ahead and write the article citing these sources. Are these sources pointed out by Camael any good?

Where does that appear in policy? All I see is "independent of the subject". In your example, so long as Fountain Pen has developed a reputation for fact-checking in the field of fountain pens, and Fountain Pen's publisher isn't owned by the maker of Nemosine's pens, this counts as an independent reliable source. Two more of those and you have notability.

I haven't seen that. Articles in scholarly journals and in other specialist periodicals get cited all the time.

Try these steps. First, find sources for a new article on the Internet. There may already be a list of such sources in the entry on the requested articles page. Second, write a new article that site's feeds reliable sources. Third, ask for a history-only undeletion of the previous article "behind" the current one. Finally, integrate the information that was in the last revision of the deleted article.

That's not how it works. Something becomes notable when unaffiliated reliable sources have covered it. This notability, if established, does not decrease over time. Such a decrease would require the existing reliable sources to stop existing. The reason Wikipedia has a notability requirement in the first place is that an article about a non-notable subject has no reliable sources that it can cite about anything.

So can cyclists use this to proceed through an intersection with miscalibrated vehicle sensors without having to wait several minutes for a motor vehicle to pull up behind? I don't know about other countries, but not every US state has a dead red law allowing one to proceed with caution through a malfunctioning signal.

You have a point about a libertarian source. But a communist source would be considered leftist by both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. What you're looking for is opposing perceptions of bias from other media.

True, but UPS MI passes parcels to USPS for last mile delivery.

The high up elite (administrators) want to implement the consensus that the end users have reached. The higher up elite (WMF staff) are the ones boisting feta on readers.

Thanks. I have submitted your comment to the record.

Is there substantial coverage from several people who are "unaffiliated" (part of the Nimrod team)?