Part of our definition of "commonly available" means accessible to the general public. If a website is members only, then it is not commonly available. This is part of the principle behind which Stack Exchange itself was founded. It was originally meant in part to be an alternative to the subscribers only Experts Exchange service. We also provide a list of commonly available resources in the text of our closure reason as 1006a.

Do a search on google, show us some of the things that turned up and if something promising turned up, explain why it is not adequate. In all likelihood your question will remain open if you do at least that much, since we then have reason to believe that a commonly available answer is not easily found, or

Also, generally speaking, if you look and show us that the best results were inadequate, we'll give it a pass because part of the Stack Exchange's goal to aid in the dissemination of good information.

I would advise against asking for resources on meta. It is off topic. If it was within our jurisdiction to set the policy like normal like normal, it would not be off-topic, but our proprietors do not allow us to dictate the scope of meta-websites. I have explained most of the reasons I believe this here, and though it is not a popular opinion I still believe it to be the correct one, especially considering that Stack Exchange has a history of removing features to curtail abusive use such as harboring otherwise out of scope questions. The lack of reputation point gains on meta is not a valid excuse for asking out of scope questions.

Imagine a future where Stack Exchange decides that to curb P.O.B. resource requests that they require all meta posts to be made on the main S.E. wide meta where people more judiciously vote to shut down off-topic questions. We would lose our ability to autonomously legislate, which would be a great detriment to our ability to decide our own scope. Moreover, the people who visit a section of any website have the right to expect that posts will be germane to that section, and too many off-topic posts will drive them away. That much is basic internet etiquette and a major reason why we decide to allow some questions but not others, and the lack of irrelevant chit-chat is a such major predeliction of Stack Exchange that it is in every website's tour, including ours. I fail to see what makes a resource request any better here than on the main website.

With that having been said though, certain kinds of resource requests may be asked on Language Learning, because unlike us their community decided to make such questions within scope on the main website.

We also have a list of commonly available resources that 1006a already provided.

Part of our definition of "commonly available" means accessible to the general public. If a website is members only or the answer is only found in some offline book, then it is not commonly available. This is part of the principle behind which Stack Exchange itself was founded. It was originally meant in part to be an alternative to the subscribers only Experts Exchange service. We also provide a list of commonly available resources in the text of our closure reason as 1006a.

Do a search on google, show us some of the things that turned up and if something promising turned up, explain why it is not adequate. In all likelihood your question will remain open if you do at least that much, since we then have reason to believe that a commonly available answer is not easily found, or

Also, generally speaking, if you look and show us that the best results were inadequate, we'll give it a pass because part of the Stack Exchange's goal to aid in the dissemination of good information.

I would advise against asking for resources on meta. It is off topic. If it was within our jurisdiction to set the policy like normal like normal, it would not be off-topic, but our proprietors do not allow us to dictate the scope of meta-websites. I have explained most of the reasons I believe this here, and though it is not a popular opinion I still believe it to be the correct one, especially considering that Stack Exchange has a history of removing features to curtail abusive use such as harboring otherwise out of scope questions. The lack of reputation point gains on meta is not a valid excuse for asking out of scope questions.

Imagine a future where Stack Exchange decides that to curb P.O.B. resource requests that they require all meta posts to be made on the main S.E. wide meta where people more judiciously vote to shut down off-topic questions. We would lose our ability to autonomously legislate, which would be a great detriment to our ability to decide our own scope. Moreover, the people who visit a section of any website have the right to expect that posts will be germane to that section, and too many off-topic posts will drive them away. That much is basic internet etiquette and a major reason why we decide to allow some questions but not others, and the lack of irrelevant chit-chat is a such major predeliction of Stack Exchange that it is in every website's tour, including ours. I fail to see what makes a resource request any better here than on the main website.

With that having been said though, certain kinds of resource requests may be asked on Language Learning, because unlike us their community decided to make such questions within scope on the main website.

We also have a list of commonly available resources that 1006a already provided.