Talk:Linda Bradford Raschke

Wikipedia Policy Against Questionable Sources
The two books cited in the Bibliography of the article represent a potentially sound source for writing an outstanding article (as well as for substantiating the Notability that some editors otherwise might challenge).

One of the references I've removed from the article (and which one contributor had replaced) is a dead link, and the others seem primary or promotional, rather than objective, independent, secondary sources in keeping with Wikipedia quality standards for source material.

You weaken your article each time you contaminate it with anything less than excellence as a source for your article in an encyclopedia.

Kindly stop replacing those defective references.


 * — Wordsmith (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________
 * That same contributor reverted — for the second time — my removal of a dead and defective link to a questionable source,
 * and rationalized doing so by citing a Wikipedia guideline with a conditional acquiescence to a questionable source:
 * "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves,
 * especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 * 1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."
 * There are three defects to this contributor's rationale for that 2nd reversion:
 * The link I removed is dead and defective.
 * The questionable source is an interview of the subject that violates the first and the last of those five conditions:
 * I'm intimately acquainted with the interview of Raschke to which that dead link refers, and it is an uncritical puff piece that encourages her to serve herself and her array of advisory, management, consulting, and trading-related services to the prospective customer as if she were clearly a valuable commodity — and she does just that (as, I suspect, she quite probably is, among relatively few others among all those in the industry, but truth is not the issue here, but rather verifiability with objective, independent, established sources from the mainstream financial press with reputations for checking the facts),
 * and
 * this and the other questionable sources I had deleted were and always have been the only (let alone the principal) sources cited by those who've created and contributed to this article since its creation, its nomination for deletion, and its vote for retention without much substance in the arguments in its favor nearly three years ago.
 * I think I may have mentioned that the two books I've placed under the proper heading of Bibliography seem to be the products of reasonably reliable, independent writers who may have supplied quality sources themselves in each of those publications, and if so, then this article ought to have been founded on just such sources — with documentation — at the instant of its creation. I am not challenging notability here, nor arguing in favor of deletion. I am wondering why none of those so clearly in favor of this article have taken the time to produce the substantial and sustained, reliable, independent and intellectually objective sources to describe, and to substantiate, this subject's notability in the three years elapsed since that early and perfectly rational challenge. In the absence of that, the article leads us to understand no more than that the subject is one of millions among billions who go to work and do one's job well, without any credible claim to notability.
 * — Wordsmith (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * __________________________________________________________________

No References
I don't see any references for this page, only external link type links. Wikipedia's current policy states that all BLP's must have at least one reliable source. Although this article was created before the policy was implemented, it should still have cited reliable sources to support information in the article. This is especially important because the article is about a living person. See WP:BLP. Thanks & Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 21:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)