Talk:Eugène Neefs

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edmond Neefs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917184255/http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/ne/edmond-neefs-1.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/ne/edmond-neefs-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability

@Jahaza: "Biographie Belge D'outre-Mer" is clearly a passing mention; the paragraph focuses on Van Saceghem and only mentions Neefs. I don't have access to the 94th volume of Annales de médecine vétérinaire; could you please quote the relevant section, per WP:RSUE? BilledMammal (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I can't quote the relevant section because it's not immediately available, just the fact that there is an obituary available there. Calling "Biographie Belge D'outre-Mer" a "passing mention" misses the meaning of that phrase. The paragraph contains an additional claim of notability. The fact that that claim is made in the biography of someone else is besides the point. There are a number of other sources listed in the Dutch Wikipedia version of the article, along with some of the facts that are likely to be confirmed in Annales de médecine vétérinaire. --Jahaza (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The point is that it doesn't count towards WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSCRIT, and can't be used to support keeping the article. The same is true of the Annales de médecine vétérinaire; if neither of us can access it, and no editors has claimed that it counts towards WP:GNG, then it cannot be used to support keeping the article.

I noticed you have now added the source 185 jaar Belgische Militaire Diergeneeskundige Dienst to the article; does that contain WP:SIGCOV? BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"The same is true of the Annales de médecine vétérinaire; if neither of us can access it, and no editors has claimed that it counts towards WP:GNG, then it cannot be used to support keeping the article."

No, this is incorrect. Sources don't have to be available online to support GNG for deletion purposes. In general, the way you are applying the "rules" is overly rigid.--Jahaza (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You're correct; sources don't need to be available online. However, that doesn't mean that editors can use them without having access themselves; you can't presume it contains WP:SIGCOV, you need to be able to say that you've reviewed it and confirmed that it does. Not having access also means you cannot meet the requirements of WP:V, which says that if there is a dispute about whether a source supports something, editors should provide direct quotes and other relevant details. BilledMammal (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)