Talk:Glen Duff

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Glen Duff. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090130103900/http://iomtt.com:80/TT-2009/Circuit-Guide.aspx to http://www.iomtt.com/TT-2009/Circuit-Guide.aspx

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) 15:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Multiple issues - lack of Notability, Original Research and poor references cited
The establishing editor has used just one reference, added in the lede sentence: "(from black or dark glen) "

This editor has established many, many similar articles and added the same source to many of them, IMO to promote the Manx Gaelic language, even when there is no direct connection - see 2nd Milestone where the nearest geographical area with a Manx Gaelic name has been added.

The reference is simply a passing mention and does not meet the criteria needed for Notability: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject

A link to a transcription of the book used to cite this article can be found here - scroll down to Glen Duff. A link to the website's index page can be found here. The copyright situation at this website where the entire book may have been transcribed is uncertain, but is of no concern to Wikipedia provided no links are made in mainspace.

The same editor regularly engages in disruptive editing and Wikilawyering, including the shortcut WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. As there is no online link one has to assume that he has, or had, the book in his possession, and that no further relevant information is available from that source. This presumption is corroborated by the transcription which is presumed to show the full text, and the conclusion is that it is a very poorly-supportive citation for the main body of text, which seems to be entirely personal knowledge/original research.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)