User:Qazin

Disclosures

... relevant to editing WP

• I am a DMOZ (ODP) editor.
• I own and operate www.sightreadingpractice.com

Bookmarks

Guidelines

• WP:NOTAB
• WP:GUIDE
• WP:ELMAYBE
• WP:WEB
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• WP:SIMPLE
• WP:BRD

Articles

Sight_reading

Arguments

External Links

I'd like to add my support for the addition of an external link to trainear.com.
Arguments for:

1. Satisfies what should be linked # 3 "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due ... other reasons." The "other reason" is that it is an application.
2. Is "proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)" and does not violate any of the restrictions or precautions of WP:EL.

Rebuttal of arguments against:

1. "The site is note notable." There is a common misconception that notability is a requirement of the content and links in an article. This is false: "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles" WP:NOTAB. Notability of web sites (WP:WEB) does not apply to content either: "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia", which is consistent with WP:NOTAB.
2. "If we let this link in, we will have to let other links in." That is not true if WP:EL is followed.
   First, having one link does not require adding other links for the sake of being comprehensive since "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic."
   Second, "Each link should be considered on its merits, using the ... guidelines."
   Third, "As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter."
3. "The site doesn't contain additional research." WP:EL lists that as only one of the possible reasons to link to a site: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." This link qualifies under the third reason. The reasons are all joined by "or", not "and."
4. "The link is not a reliable source..." or some other quality-of-citation argument.
   First, this is not a valid argument unless the link is a citation of a source, in which case WP:EL does not apply: "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources. ... Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources."
   Second, it is specifically not a requirement of an external link per WP:ELMAYBE, and in fact is one of the the types of links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
5. "This is a promotional link." WP:ELNO #4 discourages "Links mainly intended to promote a website." Every link, by its nature, promotes the site it links to. The guideline discourages links which are "mainly intended" to promote, not which merely promote by the nature of their existence. No evidence has been offered that this is the case with this link.
6. "WP is [an encyclopedia], not a directory of helpful links, therefore no helpful links should be added."
   I agree with your premise, but you have offered no evidence that connects it to your conclusion. WP:EL clearly allows the addition of some helpful links: "Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. ... " This link falls under "What should be linked below" as I point out in the Argument For above.
   If you don't agree with the current guideline, please present your case on WT:EL to change it. I've done that on several points with satisfying results.
7. "If one or several helpful links are added, it will risk becoming a directory of helpful links." I addressed in rebuttal 2 above.