| Revision as of 08:23, 3 July 2006 editWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits relevent policy← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:20, 3 July 2006 edit undoSte4k (talk | contribs)3,630 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ::], see item #1. The purpose is so that readers wishing to learn more have an authoritative link. It's not true that we can't use a subject for a source. They have just as much significance as a source as any other. We don't exclude autobiographies as sources, we just recognize that they are another POV. -] 08:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | ::], see item #1. The purpose is so that readers wishing to learn more have an authoritative link. It's not true that we can't use a subject for a source. They have just as much significance as a source as any other. We don't exclude autobiographies as sources, we just recognize that they are another POV. -] 08:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Yes, I see that now in the Style Guide, however, according to the ] guidelines: {{spam}} ] 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:20, 3 July 2006
Please feel free to place any comments, suggestions or questions regarding Endeavor Academy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottperry (talk • contribs)
Does this school meet WP:CORP or WP:BIO?? Ste4k 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the importance of this article, are there any headlines, or anything else of national recognition that show the dispute between this school and its student to be on the scale of perhaps Waco, or otherwise notorious? If not, then this page looks more like some sort of troll bait. I removed both the self-advertising link, as well as the unsourced anti-advertising link. This school may indeed exist, but it doesn't appear to be as notable as say, Columbine High School, or any other media breaking school. It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG either. Ste4k 01:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can't answer your questions, but it is standard to include a link to the official website of any subject, be it a person or institution. So far as I can see, there's no reason to adopt a different standard for this article. -Will Beback 01:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever standard you are mentioning is news to me. It may be standard for people and/or organizations to add one without a sufficient review of policy, but that doesn't change policy at all. What could be the purpose for such a link, especially since anything on pages there couldn't be used for any content? Ste4k 01:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- WP:EL#What should be linked to, see item #1. The purpose is so that readers wishing to learn more have an authoritative link. It's not true that we can't use a subject for a source. They have just as much significance as a source as any other. We don't exclude autobiographies as sources, we just recognize that they are another POV. -Will Beback 08:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now in the Style Guide, however, according to the WP:SPAM guidelines: 
Hello, I'm Ste4k. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Ste4k 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)