Autochecked users, Bureaucrats, Editors, oversight, recentchangescleanup, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
19,746
edits
No edit summary |
|||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:::2. There isn't really much of an article. We can't separate individual sentences into sections, so really all we have is an 8-sentence stub. | :::2. There isn't really much of an article. We can't separate individual sentences into sections, so really all we have is an 8-sentence stub. | ||
:::3. Both sources cannot be used. The first one is a Hindu site and is not a reliable souce. The second one clearly says "We chanced upon her blog. Can’t be sure if it is really her", and links to a dead blog that no longer exists (#3 is the biggest problem). [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:59, 18 March 2014 (PDT) | :::3. Both sources cannot be used. The first one is a Hindu site and is not a reliable souce. The second one clearly says "We chanced upon her blog. Can’t be sure if it is really her", and links to a dead blog that no longer exists (#3 is the biggest problem). [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:59, 18 March 2014 (PDT) | ||
::::Yea, #3, there are no reliable source. They're all blog/misc sites as far as I can see. | |||
::::MyMagics, the right thing would be to remove that information from Wikipedia and create a section on the talk page there asking people to use reliable sources (her personal website if any, or notable news organizations etc) for that information. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] <span style="font-size:88%">([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]])</span> 15:04, 18 March 2014 (PDT) |
edits