` ::The fact is we link resources managed by individuals that could theoretically be subject to capricious change all the time. The first bullet is extracted from a point at WP:ELNO that refers to a ``site that misleads the reader,`` which doesn't seem to apply here. The second one seems overcome by the fact that it's specifically cited as supplementary information in the article's best RS (Steel's bibliography, p. 281). The third one, from my experience at Wikipedia, doesn't work by consensus as the big sledgehammer it appears to be; Aristotle (an article critically watched by orders of magnitude more editors than this one) can link the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles as supplements to imperfect WP coverage, valuable because even a highly developed Wikipedia treatment has not (in this case) yet covered all the same nooks and crannies. ::Consider that before I ever visited this article, it referred only to two genealogical publications. I'm sure these two publications are far below the highest levels of scholarly excellence, too, and I'd suggest that their basic similarity to the Rootsweb report be weighed in favor of this EL (which in all likelihood simply makes available online what we could read there - a classic appropriate use of an EL). ::Of course I'd like to hear from more editors on this question. I'll add a label that I hope may constitute truth in advertising at least for now.   `