![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 May 2013. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The article was provided by: Ruth Ann Fay Ref.: ICCF 2000 Publication Updated for Wikipedia 2007
--YoavD 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
References to sources were removed today, on the basis that they are primary sources, not secondary. I think these sources are OK. For instance, it is not the person saying that he won the championship - it is the ICCF-US. That is sort of a primary source, but not directly. And I think the ICCF-US is a reliable source for this. I doubt you will be able to find a true secondary source. I am in favor of allowing those references. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Let me give an example of what is not fine: "Attendees included both US World Champions and delegates and friends from 20 nations <ref>http://jfcampbell.us/congress/2000.htm</ref>." Such a claim needs a secondary source. If an organisation were to claim "we have communicated with aliens", Wikipedia wouldn't state "this organisation has communicated with aliens", but rather "this organisation claims to have communicated with aliens". Toccata quarta (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)