Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Dmcq in topic Notability
Things to think about
I do like the idea of noting that "secondary is not always good"... but I think it more important to note that "primary is not always bad". Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have added something to that effect. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
What excellent work! One note: I'd recommend avoiding getting into the article deletion stuff. For starters, it's a different subject. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- If by "article deletion stuff" you mean "don't discuss how primary/secondary sources impact WP:Notability", I disagree. I think that is something this essay should discuss. To me, the focus/topic of this essay should be inclusive... "Primary/secondary sources - what they are used for and how to use them appropriately - also how they can be misused and how to avoid doing so". Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think that we need to address secondary-for-notability directly, because the odd, non-standard definition in play at AFD is where most editors get their first training on what a secondary source is. Then they wander out to the rest of the encyclopedia and get completely confused and often upset when someone points out that yesterday's 'eyewitness news' story actually isn't a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Notability
The major use of secondary sources in Wikipedia is to show something has been noticed. As it is currently written a yellow pages directory of companies would be considered a secondary source, do we really want to consider that as source of notability? Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)