Talk:Centre for Conflict Resolution
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Centre for Conflict Resolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005190736/http://www.cdainc.com/publications/rpp/casestudies/rppCase23SAfrica.pdf to http://www.cdainc.com/publications/rpp/casestudies/rppCase23SAfrica.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I had originally merged this article as the newly created Coornhoop did not appear to meet notability guidelines. But the merge was reverted, the page creator desiring discussion first. Ifnord (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I was not too sure about the notability too when adding the maintenance tags. If Coornhoop is not notable enough it should not be merged into this page either. The page creator was correct about it being different topics. On a related topic this page's notability is also questionable as it appears there are fewer sources cited in this article compared to Coornhoop (and I could not find other reliable sources either through a simple search).
- If this page is considered notable, Coornhoop should be considered notable too if not more notable. ~ Araratic | talk 13:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Notability of articles are considered on their own not compared to others, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. However, rather than throw them both out, combining them allows the information to be retained and would increase the odds that someone could find the necessary references to rescue them as a whole. However, if the consensus is to keep them separate, I would not be opposed to deletion for them both. Ifnord (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I originally translated the page from the Afrikaans wiki af:Coornhoop and was lazy and didn't do enough work to provide inline citations. I've done that now, and I think this article is now shown to meet the notability requirements to be a self standing article. Wayne Jayes (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Closing stale merge proposal, given the undisputed case for notability (including references added to the page). Klbrain (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I originally translated the page from the Afrikaans wiki af:Coornhoop and was lazy and didn't do enough work to provide inline citations. I've done that now, and I think this article is now shown to meet the notability requirements to be a self standing article. Wayne Jayes (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)