This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no...
Click to read more »Delete per nom. And even if he was notable, the article is one big WP:ORIGINALSYN. Also, six months ago he was still a rapper called Pullout.[1] I'm beginning...
Click to read more »individual. Sources are largely primary and unreliable. Copious amounts of WP:ORIGINALSYN and WP:UNSOURCED material. Fails criteria listed in WP:BIO. — Nearly...
Click to read more »Fails WP:GNG. Even if not, it needs to be rewritten as it violates WP:ORIGINALSYN. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Delete - Nothing special...
Click to read more »WP:SYNWP:SYN WP:SYNTHWP:SYNTH WP:SYNTHESISWP:SYNTHESIS WP:ORIGINALSYNWP:ORIGINALSYN Do not combine material from multiple sources (or different parts of...
Click to read more »consensus to use it. That said, I would be very cautious about avoiding WP:ORIGINALSYN, as some may have concerns about aggregating polls. I would encourage...
Click to read more »December 2013 (UTC) Delete. Interestingly, I just finished reading WP:ORIGINALSYN and came to the same conclusion myself. Give me a few weeks to find some...
Click to read more »"How to live" article Bleeding Rainbow photo in infobox Threshold of WP:ORIGINALSYN: Vague dates Changing a username Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2013 April...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) A lot of WP:ORIGINALSYN used here, no independent third party sources. Also fails WP:GNG JMHamo...
Click to read more »"well-sourced" article. Which technically is also a violation of WP:ORIGINALSYN. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Delete unless or until we...
Click to read more »from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion according to WP:ORIGINALSYN, so there is no synthesis of published material as he accuses me of....
Click to read more »there" as most editors agreed. It seemed to fall into WP:HOAX and / or WP:ORIGINALSYN I happened to be the last commentor and the strongest against his proposal...
Click to read more »synthesis}}, {{Original synthesis}}, {{Inappropriate synthesis}}, {{Originalsyn}} → {{Synthesis}} {{Cleanup-technical}}, {{Technical edit}}, {{Tech}}...
Click to read more »so often (for an essay-under-construction with some examples, see WP:ORIGINALSYN). If the connection is valid, someone will have made it; if no one has...
Click to read more »Dream Focus 15:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Delete: as indiscriminate, WP:ORIGINALSYN, and against our list selection criteria which makes it completely unmaintainable...
Click to read more »is why, in my opinion, the argument is original research. Also see WP:ORIGINALSYN. JN466 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC) To avoid any suggestion of synthesis...
Click to read more »Wikipedia has a core policy, No original research and the subsection WP:ORIGINALSYN makes clear the problem here: "Do not combine material from multiple...
Click to read more »"well-sourced" article. Which technically is also a violation of WP:ORIGINALSYN. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Delete unless or until we...
Click to read more »backhanded nature of the phrase, it also appears to be a combination of WP:ORIGINALSYN AND WP:CHERRYPICKING, as the source actually says "Much as Oxford's rash...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) A lot of WP:ORIGINALSYN used here, no independent third party sources. Also fails WP:GNG JMHamo...
Click to read more »December 2013 (UTC) Delete. Interestingly, I just finished reading WP:ORIGINALSYN and came to the same conclusion myself. Give me a few weeks to find some...
Click to read more »Delete per nom. And even if he was notable, the article is one big WP:ORIGINALSYN. Also, six months ago he was still a rapper called Pullout.[1] I'm beginning...
Click to read more »sources specifically makes the broad agreement or consensus claim. Its WP:ORIGINALSYN because you are trying to show by a number of sources that the agreement...
Click to read more »Dream Focus 15:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Delete: as indiscriminate, WP:ORIGINALSYN, and against our list selection criteria which makes it completely unmaintainable...
Click to read more »Fails WP:GNG. Even if not, it needs to be rewritten as it violates WP:ORIGINALSYN. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Delete - Nothing special...
Click to read more »individual. Sources are largely primary and unreliable. Copious amounts of WP:ORIGINALSYN and WP:UNSOURCED material. Fails criteria listed in WP:BIO. — Nearly...
Click to read more »suspected sock, I planned an experiment, and it worked. I removed the WP:ORIGINALSYN added by WeyburnFarm[248] (in 2014) and now that I had successfully defended...
Click to read more »i want to post a comprehensive article or info about our school so that it will appear everytime they will search for it.. how? — Preceding unsigned comment...
Click to read more »There is a dispute as to if the inclusion of a comparison to Likud's platform to the Hamas charter at Hamas. The difference in views can be seen in this...
Click to read more »is why, in my opinion, the argument is original research. Also see WP:ORIGINALSYN. JN466 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC) To avoid any suggestion of synthesis...
Click to read more »