Revision as of 17:41, 1 November 2024 edit Void if removed (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 3,280 edits Undo - I would suggest not making drastic changes to 10-year-old consensus content on a core essay while its very meaning is in the middle of a fairly even discussion. An RFC on the meaning of SPS has been proposed. Consider settling that before changing the explanation. Tags: Manual revert Reverted ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:18, 2 November 2024 edit undo Alpha3031 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers 15,049 edits Restored revision 1254657713 by Alpha3031 (talk): Per discussion on RSN, the addition of independent here is clearly a mistake, and also not 10 years old Tags: Twinkle Undo Next edit →
Line 139: * It is appropriate for the material in question, i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing. * It is a third-party or independent source. * It has asome ~~professional~~form ~~structure~~of inreview ~~place for deciding whether to publish something~~process, such as ~~independent editorial oversight~~editing or ~~independent~~ peer review ~~processes~~. A self-published source can have all of these qualities.

Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works: Difference between revisions