 | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 October 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dynamic Sport article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Sourcing
editI share the concern voiced by User:Piotrus at AfD. User:Ahunt refimprove is a valid one - this is claiming to be a Start, with 1 primary, 1 commercial, 1 other. It's on the weak side, and was noted as such. As creator that's my feedback. I've compromised with the primary tag, but it's refimprove - one of the sources is WP:UGCish but that's rs tag has been removed too. Huh? Widefox; talk 19:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- The "other" is in fact the World Directory of Leisure Aviation, an independent third party ref, a global publication with an editorial board. It doesn't get much more "RS" than that. This AfD deals with the acceptability of the WDLA as a ref. Primary refs are reliable when about themselves and the one cited outlines a relationship between the two companies. All-Aero has oversight (ie it isn't a wiki) but is only used as a ref for the founder, founding date and location, which is fairly non-controversial. Which facts are in dispute? - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- (ec)My point is it's weak sourcing, 2 non-primary. Am I right that all-aero is UGCish - is it a mix of UGC and curated like IMDB?
- From AfD: "Keep clear precedent is any aircraft manufacturer is notable for inclusion, it could do with more reference but that shouldnt be a reason for deletion, I also dont see anything wrong with the World Directory of Leisure Aviation as a source it certainly is not a "sale catalogue" but a directory as it says on the tin." User:MilborneOne. Not being aircrafty, a link may help. Precedent on one hand, but (AFAIK) policy on the other. Seems borderline WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:GNG, although I can understand logic of a presumption of notability for aircraft manufacturers. Widefox; talk 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you have now tagged this as relying too much on primary refs when only one sentence is sourced to a primary ref and they rest are third party refs. - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- (I explained it above "compromised".) Widefox; talk 19:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you have now tagged this as relying too much on primary refs when only one sentence is sourced to a primary ref and they rest are third party refs. - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I don't understand why you added that tag. I have now added another independent third party ref (in Polish), including criticism, and so now everything in the article except one sentence is sourced to third party refs, so i will remove the tag as it is not longer justified. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- And I have now added more independent third party refs and expanded the article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)