![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Banknotes of the Australian dollar along with all the banknote articles from $5 to $100 have a nickname section. Occasionally another nickname is added, usually by an anon. None of this is properly referenced. There is a link to an ABC radio poll from the $20 article but how reliable is such a poll? Concerns have adready been raised on the talk pages for the $10 and $50 note articles. I propose to delete all of this. JIMp talk· cont 05:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
It's policy. None of this has had any more back up than an ABC poll & that is just not enough. JIMp talk· cont 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Are they reliable sources? If so, by all means put them back but please don't give us Internet forums & radio polls. JIMp talk· cont 13:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
If you're turning up so many Google hits, surely you'll be able to show us at least one that could count as reliable. Until then let's stick to facts we can back up. JIMp talk· cont 11:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Banknotes of the Australian dollar along with all the banknote articles from $5 to $100 have a nickname section. Occasionally another nickname is added, usually by an anon. None of this is properly referenced. There is a link to an ABC radio poll from the $20 article but how reliable is such a poll? Concerns have adready been raised on the talk pages for the $10 and $50 note articles. I propose to delete all of this. JIMp talk· cont 05:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
It's policy. None of this has had any more back up than an ABC poll & that is just not enough. JIMp talk· cont 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Are they reliable sources? If so, by all means put them back but please don't give us Internet forums & radio polls. JIMp talk· cont 13:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
If you're turning up so many Google hits, surely you'll be able to show us at least one that could count as reliable. Until then let's stick to facts we can back up. JIMp talk· cont 11:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)