Talk:Podtacular
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why was this article deleted? I believe that it s notable to warrent a page. the cheat 01:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Remaking
I remade the article. Right now it's crap and requires major cleanup. We need to mention the awards the show has recieved, as well as describe the community surrounding the show. We need a logo in there as well. Mentioning tidbits like how Bungie challenged the Podtacular crew at the Humpday challenge, or that Foo Mo was interviewed by Bungie might keep this article from being deleted again.the cheat 05:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I added in a section for other things from the site (porridge, PodTV) and the Clans, but I'm not to sure how up to date my info is. Someone should probably double check, especially the overlords for the clans. Epmatsw 1:19 7 January 2007
[edit] Vandalism
Too bad TollB00thWillie is able to vandalise the page. I hope he gets his IP blocked due to vandalism.
[edit] Cleanup
Please avoid adding material and that makes the article read like an advert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
--- I must disagree. Podtacular's community and website are just as important as the podcast surrounding them, our Wiki should reflect that. I read it before the cleanup, and strongly disagree with the assessment that it read like an advertisement. We merely gave information about the different parts of Podtacular, I detected no hints of bias in it. - QualityJeverage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.171.3 (talk • contribs).
- You may want to take a look at our content policies, in particular WP:V, and WP:RS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, the Verifiability could be a problem, but it does seem to say that you should give us need to be sourced tags rather than just deleting most of the article. If you want it would even be preferable for you to put the invisible until sourced tags on parts of the entry. However, I see almost no point of view in the article. Everything listed is fact, but most of it does need sources. I'm sure that we will be able to find the necessary sources if you give us a chance rather than removing our work. User:Epmatsw 22:23, 8 January 2007 (EST)
- The material is all there in the article history, and can be re-added at such time in which you can provide verifiable sources. Note what WP:V says: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.. Happy research and editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
