Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*If his Misplaced Pages activities have not been covered by reliable secondary sources (not blogs), then they aren't notable. Have the news media covered them? If not then why should we, it's just wikipedia navel gazing. ] (]) 18:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
*If his Misplaced Pages activities have not been covered by reliable secondary sources (not blogs), then they aren't notable. Have the news media covered them? If not then why should we, it's just wikipedia navel gazing. ] (]) 18:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
* Opened this up on the talk page: ] ] (]) 23:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 41 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!
An earlier Prod by Betacommand was removed by an IP. Once a Prod has been removed by an editor it shouldn't be re-added. Just procedural that's all, AfD is the way to go now. RMHED (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
In looking at my section which you deleted, I came to the conclusion that much of my language violated the NPV rule. I have reworked the section, now named "Misplaced Pages Activism" with an eye towards keeping it neutral. I did keep the factual elements with their accompanying references. I'm a bit confused about why they are "poorly sourced". I am providing links directly back to the pages containing his comments, actions, etc. Could you take a look at the section and tell me what comments are inadequately sourced? Also, should we move this discussion to the Robert David Steele talk page?OSC Flunkee (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages isn't classed as a reliable source, you'd need some reliable secondary sources that cover his Misplaced Pages activism for inclusion to be valid. RMHED (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, let me see if I get this straight, you're saying that citing the pages with his specific actions aren't reliable? They are primary sources! I would agree that in most cases one would not want to cite Misplaced Pages as an authoritative source within a Misplaced Pages article, but in this specific case, it is his actions on Misplaced Pages which are the subject of the text. So if I go off and create a blog on blog spot and make the same statements without links to the Misplaced Pages page then you'd accept those in this section as secondary sources? I'm failing to see how that is more authoritative. OSC Flunkee (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
If his Misplaced Pages activities have not been covered by reliable secondary sources (not blogs), then they aren't notable. Have the news media covered them? If not then why should we, it's just wikipedia navel gazing. RMHED (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
