Talk:Historia Normannis
 | Reenactment Stub‑class (inactive) | ||||||
| |||||||
Sources / Notability edit
I'm concerned that this page does not meet the standards for WP:significant coverage as per WP:ORG / WP:NORG. Many pages for re-enactment groups end up flagged for deletion (eg. look at edit history for List_of_historical_reenactment_groups to see the casualties), so should be seriously looked into by the authors of this page. I've included the Source Assessment Table for working within Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Blaene (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "Knights in shining armour battle on Southampton Common" |  The source is not authored by the group, or group members
|
The source is a reputable local newspaper
|
 As per WP:IV, the Echo article is mainly an interview with members, without analysis or commentary from the interviewer. Therefore it counts as a primary source. The other references all seem to be primary or not WP:significant coverage.
|
✘ No |
| "Weekend Warriors" | The source is not authored by the group, or group members
|
The source is a UK TV Network
|
This source is trivial coverage rather than significant coverage: the group is not mentioned on the linked page, and only in passing on other pages.
|
✘ No |
| "Historia Normannis Official Website" | The source is official media, not from a reliable secondary source "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
|
Cannot be independent as it is written by the group the article is about
|
Is a primary source. Does not meet WP:SIRS
|
✘ No |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
Untitled edit
Left a skeletal and unbiased framework- given the group have been featured on TV on at least two occasions, are mentioned on other pages and have multiple published mentions in media I believe the page is now justified (versus simple self-promotion). More media references to follow as we find the dated articles. Any objective statements and similar welcomed; -DF