| Revision as of 18:28, 2 November 2006 editElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,960 edits Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:36, 2 November 2006 edit undoPostdlf (talk | contribs)Administrators91,184 edits →MergeNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| :Could you please use <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> for specific statements in the article? The last two paragraphs about the lawsuit are in fact referenced. ] 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | :Could you please use <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> for specific statements in the article? The last two paragraphs about the lawsuit are in fact referenced. ] 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :: Right now there are no references on the page, aside from the organization's own website. There need to be further references which prove notability, such as newspaper or magazine articles. A link to a legal document is what's called a "primary" source. We need secondary sources. See ] and ]. --] 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | :: Right now there are no references on the page, aside from the organization's own website. There need to be further references which prove notability, such as newspaper or magazine articles. A link to a legal document is what's called a "primary" source. We need secondary sources. See ] and ]. --] 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::It's not a "legal document," it's the reported opinion and decision of a court. The court's summary of the conduct and history of the parties in that opinion should be considered a secondary source, because it was derived from primary sources—the documents and arguments submitted by the parties. Furthermore, WP:RS states "Misplaced Pages articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims." This is the only reference to any court-derived source I could find in either policy page. If a court ''stenographer'' is a reliable source, a federal judge acting on behalf of a federal court certainly is. ] 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:36, 2 November 2006
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the FatWallet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Merge
I am not convinced that the term App-O-Rama is independently notable, and I recommend that its information be merged into this article. I would also like to see additional references for "FatWallet", to verify notability, as right now this article smells a lot like self-promotion. --Elonka 18:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please use {{fact}} for specific statements in the article? The last two paragraphs about the lawsuit are in fact referenced. Postdlf 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Right now there are no references on the page, aside from the organization's own website. There need to be further references which prove notability, such as newspaper or magazine articles. A link to a legal document is what's called a "primary" source. We need secondary sources. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and WP:RS. --Elonka 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a "legal document," it's the reported opinion and decision of a court. The court's summary of the conduct and history of the parties in that opinion should be considered a secondary source, because it was derived from primary sources—the documents and arguments submitted by the parties. Furthermore, WP:RS states "Misplaced Pages articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims." This is the only reference to any court-derived source I could find in either policy page. If a court stenographer is a reliable source, a federal judge acting on behalf of a federal court certainly is. Postdlf 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Right now there are no references on the page, aside from the organization's own website. There need to be further references which prove notability, such as newspaper or magazine articles. A link to a legal document is what's called a "primary" source. We need secondary sources. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and WP:RS. --Elonka 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)