Talk:Raherka and Meresankh

References etc
This article needs reliable secondary source(s). And it is basically an orphan. Not sure why this was created with so little going for it. --AB (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think we should have article about him, he was a person of some importance being an inspector. We know only this what is written, however.--Mychele (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that every person with a title that ever existed should be given a wikipedia article. The problem here is that this article is isolated. There are no other places where we can link to this article (except maybe his wife). And notable does not mean that someone had a title. The page on notability mentions: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." And that's the problem here. There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Maybe there is, but one link to a museum webpage does not show that in any way. --AB (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTE for guidelines about when an article is appropriate or not. --AB (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I found one reference from google books that has some detailed coverage of the statue, so I added that information to the page. --AB (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Solution
Maybe we should try this: redirect Meresankh on Raherka and then write something about their statue. We would get a little longer article, with several sources - websites, and I will try to find encyclopedic sources.


 * We would have:


 * their biographies
 * their statue
 * translations of names

What you think? - Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.179.227 (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is much better. But note that websites are not reliable sources and should be avoided. The page from the Louvre can be an exception because that one has a bibliography and so is verifiable. Encyclopedic sources are tertiary sources and what we really want is secondary sources: reliable books, reliable articles published in peer reviewed journals.--AB (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)