Talk:Chariots of Fire (play)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Chariots of Fire (play). 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 tag to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24032072-theatre-to-run-chariots-of-fire-with-vangelis-tracks.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512070123/http://www.hampsteadtheatre.com/news/2012/april/when-sport-was-fun-chariots-of-fire-is-back/ to http://www.hampsteadtheatre.com/news/2012/april/when-sport-was-fun-chariots-of-fire-is-back
 * Added tag to http://www.camdennewjournal.com/reviews/books/2012/may/theatre-pre-olympics-blaze-glory-chariots-fire-hampstead
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527184631/http://www.whatsonstage.com:80/roundup/theatre/london/E8831337871078/Review+Round-up%3A+Chariots+of+Fire+takes+the+silver+.html to http://www.whatsonstage.com/roundup/theatre/london/E8831337871078/Review+Round-up%3A+Chariots+of+Fire+takes+the+silver+.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Reviews, particularly reviews by notable critics, do not fall under WP:DAILYMAIL.
Note to and IP hopper: Reviews, particularly reviews by notable critics (such as Quentin Letts), do not fall under WP:DAILYMAIL. The Daily Mail is neither banned nor blacklisted on Wikipedia. Please see WP:Deprecated sources and WP:Deprecated sources. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Fails to meet the policy WP:UNDUE, failure to show you've met the policy WP:BURDEN in this particular case. Picking sentences out of RFC discussions - not even the conclusions - that you think give a general out on these policies can't override these policies, and you're failing to meet it by such general assertions.
 * Why is this particuar review so overwhelmingly necessary to meeting the policy WP:NPOV that you need to use a source that is prima facie an Unreliable Source, failing to meet the guideline WP:RS as requred in the policy WP:V?
 * You need to make your case, not just keep edit-warring the deprecated source into articles.
 * I realise I'm proposing a high bar there. But in the face of an RFC, WP:DAILYMAIL that reached a strong general consensus that the DM is generally prohibited, that the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, and nor should it be used as a source in articles, it's the sort of level of evidence that would be needed.
 * If you want a more general principle that says "oh, but this reviewer is OK" - a general exception to the two RFCs, one that is not in fact in the RFC conclusion - then you would need to take that to WP:RS and get it established by an RFC there. When someone tried this recently, it noticeably failed to convince people, and has now been archived - but if you think you can make a general case, you know as well as I do that's where to do it, and not on a particular article talk page - David Gerard (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)