User talk:Kezzran
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Notability of Second Season Pro Football
A tag has been placed on Second Season Pro Football requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of Replay Baseball
A tag has been placed on Replay Baseball requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Second Season Pro Football
An article that you have been involved in editing, Second Season Pro Football, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Season Pro Football. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] afd
hi. i modified my vote at the afd. admittadly the notability is still very iffy, but I hate to put a lot of work to waste. I'm not really a Brewers fan. My first edit was on a Brewers player, so I chose that username. best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Check out Wikipedia:Reliable Sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Of the nine references shown on the Replay Publishing page, six are linked. So I can only speak of those. Only one of them seems to be from a newspaper-type of publisher (and assumingly has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). The one newspaper isn't a well-known newspaper, and therefore, doesn't meet the significant coverage standard. (if you reply, please don't open a new section on my page, use the one section that I set aside. thanks) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- In regard to off-line citations: they generally are acceptable. But when the article is about a company, the on-line given references are iffy, and nothing of substance is found online, then editors won't really trust the off-line citations. Looking at APBA, I see that it also is of questionable notability. But the argument "this-is-no-worse-then-that" isn't generally accepted. See: Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Of the nine references shown on the Replay Publishing page, six are linked. So I can only speak of those. Only one of them seems to be from a newspaper-type of publisher (and assumingly has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). The one newspaper isn't a well-known newspaper, and therefore, doesn't meet the significant coverage standard. (if you reply, please don't open a new section on my page, use the one section that I set aside. thanks) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:BBChartBook.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BBChartBook.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Shogun.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Shogun.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
