Talk:Jalna, Maharashtra

Reliable sourcing

There's a lot of sourcing/or on this page, but let's focus on the one section: I remain unconvinced www.dattamaharajkavishwar.org is a reliable source: someone could have invented everything there. You also do not source most of what is in the section: it's just the one bit. It also says almost nothing on the website: no community information, no proof of reliability. Also, the webpage you link is a redirect; the page is actually www.dattashram-jalna.org. So you'll forgive me if I say that unless we can get some kind of reliable source, that entire section has to go. SUPER skeptical. It's also connected with a page that was just deleted as a blatant hoax. This is going to need some actual work, not a half-baked website link. Ogress _smash! 23:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You continue to re-add the material without commenting on talk. Ogress _smash! 23:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Ashram's own web page is a reliable source if it talks about itself, makes no extraordinary claims, etc. (see WP:SELFSOURCE). There is little doubt that the Ashram exists, as there are at least three YouTube videos of its activities, here (a puja), here (puja), and here (chanting Rudra mantras). I don't have any problem accessing the page; there is no redirect, other than having to access the English version. There are several subpages with a considerable amount of information, enough volume certainly, although I haven't checked that it supports every detail, to source what was there before. I don't know what you regard as a hoax page linked to it; could you be more specific? Dhtwiki (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Anna dāta was the page deleted as an obvious hoax.

You are sourcing to www.dattamaharajkavishwar.org, but going to that web address redirects you to www.dattashram-jalna.org. Yes, I am aware that it doesn't inhibit reaching content, but you are sourcing to a redirect. dattamaharajkavishwar isn't the website; dattashram-jalna is, whether in English or not.

As for WP:SELFSOURCE, you are wrong. It clearly states, "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 the following criteria are met: [...] The article is not based primarily on such sources." I would say that in this case, the section is based entirely on this single source. We cannot put an entire section about an ashram in if there's no reliable source. Ogress _smash! 05:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: It was I who linked to the article "Anna Dāna" here, changing the original spelling. If that page was a hoax, I did not see it. I haven't found any deletion discussion or reasons given for its being a hoax. The changed URL shouldn't be worrisome, as you're not being directed to, or through, a completely different site, one not implied by the URL name. URLs are changed regularly. I would merely give the more direct URL. As for WP:SELFSOURCE, you are holding Dattashram to the standard it has to meet to have its own article. Is that the standard what any mention in an article has to meet? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: If you cannot provide corroborating sourcing, we cannot use it as the sole source. It's an entire section on the page about the ashram and the only source is not reliable. It's not that it's "any mention", it's that it's the only mention. If it is truly notable there should be something, anything, somewhere else to cite. If we can only find a self-published webpage, then absolutely not. Ogress _smash! 00:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)