Jump to content

Talk:Remote Area Medical: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
sourcing
Line 6: Line 6:


Removing well-sourced link to article that demonstrates the scope of the project, is well researched, and is approved by Stan Brock, the founder of RAM clinic. Not sure why this keeps being deleted- I'm WP:AGF here, but I'd like some reasoning. It seems to fit WP:RS in that vein. [[User:Ks64q2|Ks64q2]] ([[User talk:Ks64q2|talk]]) 13:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Removing well-sourced link to article that demonstrates the scope of the project, is well researched, and is approved by Stan Brock, the founder of RAM clinic. Not sure why this keeps being deleted- I'm WP:AGF here, but I'd like some reasoning. It seems to fit WP:RS in that vein. [[User:Ks64q2|Ks64q2]] ([[User talk:Ks64q2|talk]]) 13:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
: Anonymous blog posts (and one i increasingly believe represents a conflict of interest for you, Kage) are not [[WP:RS|reliable]] sources on Wikipedia, nor is your [[WP:OR|original]] research. If you want to insert material like this, you will have to find sources other than anonymous blog postings.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 13:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
:That link is not sourced at all. It may very well be accurate and well-researched, but there's no way to tell without researching somewhere else. And what says it's approved?--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 13:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:57, 19 March 2009

This pages deserves to be expanded; I will work on it as a part of Wikiproject Nursing. Ks64q2 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing well-sourced link to article that demonstrates the scope of the project, is well researched, and is approved by Stan Brock, the founder of RAM clinic. Not sure why this keeps being deleted- I'm WP:AGF here, but I'd like some reasoning. It seems to fit WP:RS in that vein. Ks64q2 (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link is not sourced at all. It may very well be accurate and well-researched, but there's no way to tell without researching somewhere else. And what says it's approved?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]