Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio

Lengthy comments from DaleLeppard
The attacks on the sources continue by one user in particular. Can someone explain:
 * Why a source is acceptable elsewhere in Wikipedia but not for this article?
 * Why this source was challenged without the user even looking at it?
 * Why one user can repeatedly state a decided negative opinion against the subject matter in question and then accuse a defending user of being the only one with a conflict of interest?
 * Why the shifting definition of reliability as applied here now apparently means that a source organization can have no membership crossover with the organization in question?

The answers are that a different standard is apparently being applied to THIS article by at least one user. The Wikipedia standard is clear. A source is NOT independent if it is a part of the original organization, or if it is controlled by the original organization. For example a chapter could not be the source for a parent group. Nor could the same President sit over two organizations without some question as to his or her influence over the source organization. Neither relationship exists here between the RCST and either royal house cited. Wikipedia policy does not insist on speculating about nefarious motives of the sources. That is best left to conspiracy theorists. DaleLeppard (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to your questions (in order): HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You have presented no information on where and how these sources are used in a way that is "acceptable elsewhere in Wikipedia", so there is no basis for this question.
 * 2) You have not referenced specific content in any of these references for specific information in this article, so there is nothing specific to be "look[ed] at".
 * 3) It is not "one user" -- (i) Yopie was the first one to challenge the Spanish source, (ii) Yopie, dougweller & Guettarda all agree that there is a lack of reliable independent sourcing (implicitly challenging the reliability & independence of the sources that you are promoting) and (iii) nobody but you is defending these sources.
 * 4) The standard here, as elsewhere, is WP:RS -- whose basis for assessment I have quoted to you on occasion.