Talk:FluxBB
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 November 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to PunBB. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 31 January 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Self published sources.
[edit]The following was brought over from my talk page. --Pmedema (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
can you please give us some hints, what exactly is wrong with the FluxBB article and how to solve this issues.
There are several translations of this article, but only the english original seems to be inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.19.108 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- When an article regarding a topic has all the citations and references pointing to the it's own home site, it violates WP:V and WP:RS. I'm trying to avoid brining this article to AfD by giving a chance to provide the sources. This is as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. In short... "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".--Pmedema (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a good point concerning the links to the home site but in this case it's just a small community forum and there really isn't any "...third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking...". I don't think it's written like an advertisement. Eric235u (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
How on earth did you get the idea that news announcements from the project's own site are inappropriate references? Do you really think anything on a third-party website would be more correct? Pure brilliance this. 213.219.134.51 (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- My concern is not my own but spelled out in the Wikipedia policies that I quoted in my last statement being WP:RS and WP:V. The brilliance lies with consensus and your statement is correct... we try. Unfortunately, I still can't see any sources that would satisfy reliable sourcing. --Pmedema (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
OUTDATED
[edit]New versions released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.100.2.176 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)