Does the source of a claim need to be freely accessible?

Question

A millionaire football club owner of a smaller local team in Belgium claimed in an interview that champagne makes grass grow better (he frequently waters his own castle grounds using the drink), and I want to ask if there is any truth to that. The problem is that I read about this through a small excerpt in an editorial in another newspaper, and the newspaper he made the claim in was from a couple days ago and the article itself is currently behind a paywall (though the wall has an option for a free month of access if you make an account).

AFAIK it shouldn't be a problem that the claim is translated from Dutch, but is it a problem that it is not freely accessible?

Answer 1

The fact it is behind a paywall is not intrinsically the problem; the hurdle to cover is whether it is widely-believed enough to be worth the effort.

The fact that the claim is only available behind a paywall, and hasn't been reproduced more widely would suggest the claim isn't widely believed. It sounds like one crackpot with a silly idea that no-one else believes (after all, even if it were true, there are cheaper and better fertilisers.)

If you do refer to a source behind a paywall, please quote generously enough that we can understand the context and be sure it isn't a joke or misunderstood claim.