Talk:Snugburys

Sourcing
The only response here says use the official website as the source, unless I'm missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no-one there commented to say that this was an issue in this article. If there is an issue, then please explain it. However, the WP:DAILYMAILRFC did *not* conclude that we can no longer use Daily Mail sources at all, so without a good reason to remove these references then they can stay here. I have no objections if you want to replace the references with ones that provide the same information, but definitely don't remove these references while adding citation needed tags! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've re-raised this there at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the burden here. The result of the RfC means that DM is considered unreliable rather than reliable by default. That means that we need a good reason to retain, not to remove. It further means that an RSN discussion would need commentary to support, rather than just none to oppose - and in this case, the commenter said to use the official website instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that we had to look carefully at the DM reference to assess its reliability before using it, which is what I did in this case: all of the other facts in the article matched up with existing refs, and it provided some extra information that we could use in the article that was missing from places like the official site (have a look at the mentioned page, its completeness clearly decreases as it goes back in time). As best as I can tell, the journalist that wrote these articles for the Daily Mail did their background work, and if they had been published in any other newspaper then we wouldn't even be questioning it. A few months ago I would have been relying on this reference a lot more than I have here now, thanks to the RfC. TBH, I'd appreciate any feedback on RS/N - but in an absence of clear criticism of the ref I'll AGF. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)
 * BTW, I know that this article is going to appear in the Main Page DYK section imminently, so in case this is an issue that requires holding the hook back a day or so, I'm pinging as the person that added it to the queue, and  as the DYK reviewer. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In the time the two of you have spent arguing over this, you could have just googled and  and found any number of replacement sources from the Stoke Sentinel. (FWIW, I agree entirely with Nikkimaria here; cases like this are exactly where the Mail is at its least reliable and shouldn't be used, given their propensity to make up plausible-sounding figures or reprint press releases unquestioningly rather than check for themselves.) &#8209; Iridescent 10:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, "I have no objections if you want to replace the references with ones that provide the same information, but definitely don't remove these references while adding citation needed tags!" This should be the minimum standard if people are going to go around removing Daily Mail references. I'd rather use the time spent arguing to expand articles instead... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I think this is a broken process, and that we should be able to use our judgement when referencing Daily Mail, but given the current situation I'll replace it with alternative refs here. Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Now done - all of the Daily Mail facts checked out with other references. Wasn't that a fun waste of half an hour? :-( Mike Peel (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing the Daily Mail from Wikipedia articles? Not a waste of time at all :)   &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  12:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Replacing weak references with better references is not a waste of time. I do it often. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't view the references that replaced the Daily Mail ones as more or less reliable in this context. I'd much rather have spent the time/energy working on an article that doesn't have references / doesn't exist yet. Mike Peel (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)