Revision as of 01:31, 20 December 2011 edit Pnm (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 14,752 edits →Graphics Layout Engine: How does WP:USERG not disqualify all three sources? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:57, 21 December 2011 edit undo Kvng (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers 116,060 edits WP:COMMON Next edit →
Line 25: '''Keep''' - Changing vote. Czarkoff refs establish notability. My reading of [[WP:USERG]] does not disqualify them. People out there clearly think this is a useful utility. --[[User:Kvng\|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng\|talk]]) 01:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC) :[[WP:SPS]] says "self-published media ... are largely not acceptable" and offers only two exceptions: (1) published experts and (2) sources writing about themselves. How does [[WP:USERG]] not disqualify all three of the sources Czarkoff posted? – [[User:Pnm\|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm\|talk]]) 01:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC) *::I do not read the list of [[WP:USERG]] exceptions as exhaustive. The refs are a bit better than a blog or a forum. My personal criteria for [[WP:RS]] establishing notability is more permissive than for citations. --[[User:Kvng\|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng\|talk]]) 03:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphics Layout Engine: Difference between revisions