User talk:B-Snow 11
Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Concordia Clippers.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Concordia Clippers[edit]
Good morning,
I am having trouble understanding how the page I am trying to create, Concordia Clippers, is being declined each time. I have looked at other athletic pages like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYIT_Bears http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast-10_Conference
and all they have are links to their own site or no reliable sources listed on the pages.
All of the information comes from our "official" athletic site, http://www.concordiaclippers.com/landing/index so I am unclear on how I can provide additional "reliable sources" when our site is the source for all of the information. Any other source would not be credible because they would, in theory, have to cite my site as the source.
If you could help me get past all this and help me to get the page published it would be much appreciated.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Snow 11 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hiyas there B-Snow 11,
- Your definitely right that the other athletics pages could use some improvement, and seeing some of those has certainly caused me to sigh at them at more then one instance. In theory every article should be entirely supported by reliable sources that verifys the article's content. In practice article's often lack the required amount of sourcing (but as we always say, Wikipedia is a work-in-progress). One particular reason why these article's are entirely unsourced is because they are old. Most were stared around 2006, when Wikipedia was quite a bit smaller and less structured and geared for checking all the new content. As of such those old pages can at times be less then optimal.
- However, the state of another article is not an argument for another article (to be in the same state (Also WAX argument), sinec this would mean that the list of " Article's to fix" would only grow larger. As of such the AFC process requires the article's to be up to standards before accepting them - it is definitely more challenging, but once accepted you can be assured that it is a quality article that shouldn't be at risk from deletion or other issues.
- Finally, you definitely have a point regarding the "Our source is the only primary source, so other sources would be based on it", but the requirement for secondary sources over primary sources has another purpose as well. First, the availability of secondary sources is used to determine notability for inclusion. I can write an entire website about myself stating how important i am, but if no reliable secondary source has even mentioned me, my importance would of course be questionable. At the same time reliable sources are those sources that are reputed for having decent quality content, which means that they are likely to check if what a primary source writes is true. Suppose that i am a writer that would actually be notable enough for an article; If i were to add that i won three Olympic medals in Swimming to my site it would be extremely unlikely that any decent journalist would pick that up in an article since it would be nonsense. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Concordia Clippers.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the