Talk:Internet Draft
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Primary sources[edit]
User:Kbrose - wrong logic, against policy so I'm being bold to revert you - discuss it here but leave the tag until then - see WP:GNG we base all articles on secondaries not WP:PRIMARY. Widefox; talk 00:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong. Many subjects on WP use primary sources, because the subject is primarily or only covered by primary sources, as is this one. Subjects that are rarely discussed in secondary sources include many technical fields, and are no less notable than subjects widely described. A stubborn policy is a stupid policy, and preaching the cause is no less so in these cases. Kbrose (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Removing the primary tag again without adding a secondary? Refimprove is not the issue.
- Without secondaries, this fails WP:GNG despite WP:ILIKE WP:USEFUL. Without being addressed, it makes it weak to the obvious merge to Request for Comments (per WP:SPINOUT). I'd prefer to leave with primary than merge to RfC. I won't merge proposal it, as it's WP:POINT. Which means I will ask for more opinions (rather than edit war over it).
- Argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't strong, despite that, which ones? Widefox; talk 15:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what the fuss is about but I have added a WP:SECONDARY source to help demonstrate notability. Hope this helps. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Kvng It's just about the obvious - an article with only one secondary, so fails WP:GNG, and a section without a ref. There's no doubt (in my mind) that it's notable, and the refimprove would be OK at least, fancy restoring in the meantime?
- Kbrose - (I repeat) which other articles? Widefox; talk 17:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Articles don't fail WP:GNG for not citing multiple reliable sources. They fail if such sources don't exist. If you think this should be deleted, please do some research WP:BEFORE taking that step. If you're trying to scare up some uncertainty to get the article improved, congratulations, that has been somewhat effective. ~Kvng (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- User:Kvng, correct, I do know that. I just added a primary source tag that's all and now we've gone round in a circle. As that was removed, we're here. It was (and still is) valid. I see no counter argument above based on policy / guideline, and no example of other articles despite my request. As such, I go back to my only point - I will put a primary source tag on unless there's a policy based reason. The claim that "Many subjects on WP use primary sources" may be factually correct, but doesn't mean it is valid (similar to WP:OTHERSTUFF). It is a fallacy and against policy. User:Kbrose what other articles? (and yes I did look for sources myself but discriminating use of the draft from ones about the draft took some time) Widefox; talk 09:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Articles don't fail WP:GNG for not citing multiple reliable sources. They fail if such sources don't exist. If you think this should be deleted, please do some research WP:BEFORE taking that step. If you're trying to scare up some uncertainty to get the article improved, congratulations, that has been somewhat effective. ~Kvng (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what the fuss is about but I have added a WP:SECONDARY source to help demonstrate notability. Hope this helps. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)