This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Isidor George Beaver is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles
Please do not add low quality sources. If a person is notable, you do not need to resort to routine newspaper coverage from the person's own lifetime to cite information. If he is notable, you should be able to find sources that discuss Beaver and his work in depth. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hon, you didn't even bother to read WP:ROUTINE before spouting it. Routine newspaper coverage is perfectly valid to cite in an article to verify pieces of information; it just doesn't, on its own, establish notability for the whole article. What you're doing is petty vandalism, pure and simple: you're removing valid sources from the encyclopedia to make a point and you need to stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. Routine coverage doesn't establish notability, just like you said. But all I see in your sources is routine coverage. Now, you did totally bombard this article so I haven't gotten thru all of them. Do you have a single source that discusses Beaver in depth? If so, show me. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Routine coverage does not establish notability" does not mean "Oiyarbepsy gets free license to vandalise articles by removing perfectly valid material sourced to routine coverage". It is a deletion argument (albeit an unconvincing one) for the article, not for the content, and what you're doing is straight-up vandalism based on either not bothering to read Wikipedia policy or wilfully misreading it to justify edit warring for shits and giggles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your sources are advertisements and won't let me even remove those. Advertisements are never ever ever ever ever reliable sources. They have to go. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a reference for that statement? Surely advertisements would be a reliable source for the address of a business premises. And surely advertisements calling for tenders would be a reliable indication that the advertiser is managing a contract. Doug butler (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
