Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fawm: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Fawm: reply to Kesstrel |
|||
Line 21:
** I'm also sorry to see according to rules of use that my comment will almost certainly be ignored because I have made few other edits. This may be because I know something about this, as I am involved as a participant. I am not confident enough using Wiki to post normally, and so haven't done so. I hope that you will appreciate that I am not acting maliciously. What sort of "reliable sources" do you need that would validate this article? If Wiki is for everyone, and FAWM is getting a high number of hits on google (regardless of whether they are blogs or otherwise) surely keeping this is not harming anyone? I'm happy to try to find validating sources, but two are already listed (pitchfork and madison) in addition to the several thousand google hits. What else do you guys need? Thanks. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kesstrel|Kesstrel]] ([[User talk:Kesstrel|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kesstrel|contribs]]) 13:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*** '''Comment''' Blogs are not considered to be reliable sources because there is no editorial control, people can say what they want regardless if it's true whereas content in Wikipedia needs to me [[WP:V|verifiable]] from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. I'm sure you're here in good faith but it's important to understand Wiki guidelines regarding articles. This article may be kept, we don't know yet. <small>'''TRAVELLINGCARI'''</small>'''<sup>[[User:Travellingcari|My story]]</sup>'''<sub>[[User talk:Travellingcari|Tell me yours]]</sub> 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
** How long do I have to provide a source? BBC Radio York plan to do a piece on FAWM on monday morning. Thanks.
| |||