Jump to content

Talk:Tenby Schools Penang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further reading

[edit]

I won't remove them while there's an AfD in process, lest it be thought underhand, but the articles currently in "Further reading" look like churned press releases, and are not sufficiently significant to be included in the article long-term, should it not be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you're exagerating to be quite honest, though the New Straits Times artilce looks like it doesn't contain much 'journalism', I agree! However, I do notice that at least one article is not about the Penang school at all, for example this one (Miri). I think it is fair to remove it. Sionk (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are reliable sources. I like to add extra sources that aren't integrated into the text into the further reading section so editors quickly see them and know they can expand the article with them. If you prefer, you can move them to the talk page. I worry that editors might not always check the talk page, especially if it's a stub. But then I spoke to a different editor and he said he wouldn't check the further reading section but would check the talk page, so maybe it's good to duplicate them. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are reliable if they're published by the press. Presumably any reliable source will check a press release stands up to scrutiny, before they publish it. Sionk (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[reply to both] I didn't comment, here, about the suitability of these articles as reliable sources. They're not suitable to be in a "further reading" section, per WP:EL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]