On Friday 18 May 2012 19:42, Dimitrios Glentadakis wrote: > I did nt understand the reason of the delete.
There was not obvious from the article, why Mageia is notable. And the only outside sources, that I can see, was two Distro Watch links. Using Mageia sites and sources in the mageia article is not wrong per se, but it's wrong if those are the only sources. > There is a doubt of Mageia existence ? There is no-one who doubth that it exists. The fact that something exist is largely irrelevant when determening whether something belongs in wikipedia. The importantfactor is, is it notable. Wikipedia articles are all about notability. You cannot use your own research and websites as sources. And in Wikipedia, using the Mageia pages as a source in an article about Mageia is using original research. Meaning it is not verifiable and should not be trusted. To use an example: If I were to write an article about you in, say. Washinton Post, I would not rely on what you tell me and write on your blog and your site. I would use the information and see if I can verify it, by finding third partys that I can cite and use as references. And the sources must be credible. if I didn't use external sources, I could end up writing what some would see as an advert for you. So my opinion is that if there is no way to cite/reference the Mageia article other than from Distro Watch and the Mageia websites then it is not something that belong in Wikipedia. -- Johnny A. Solbu PGP key ID: 0xFA687324
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
