User talk:LateToTheGame

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brotherhood 2.0

A tag has been placed on Brotherhood 2.0, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Brotherhood 2.0. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. Realkyhick 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost all the source citations are direct from your website/vlog, and the handful of others do not address your vlog or its notability directly, as best as I can tell. It's also a violation of conflict of interest guidelines. No matter how well-written your article is, a subject that is not notable will still be deleted. If you continue to post articles which are continually deleted for not meeting guidelines, you will be blocked from further editing. Realkyhick 21:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to ignore our policies by introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Realkyhick 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, nor do I want to be. But the fact that this article has been deleted three times already should tell you that there is a consensus that the subject — your vlog — is not notable by Wikipedia standards. Again, you also have a conflict of interest, plus it is obvious that you are engaged in self-promotion, also not allowed. When someone continues to post the same article over and over after being deleted, it is considered vandalism and is dealt with by blocking. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes nothing but chaos, which it is always one small step away from as it is. Realkyhick 21:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What it tells me is that the early versions did nothing to provide citations, which I painstakingly did. I read the reason cited for removal and one of the reasons was lack of justification, so I attempted to provide that. Second, your assumption that I'm self-promoting is acutely false. I have no affiliation with the site other than I enjoy its content. Furthermore, I do not appreciate your accusations. I'm simply a new user attempting to familiarize myself with the Wiki methodology and I'm unclear how to access histories of deleted content. For that, and that alone, I apologize. -Mangler 21:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you typically threaten removal of users for adding one page, one time, and then attempting to debate the relevance that you've adjudicated? You say that none of the citations directly speak to the project, and yet the two non-vlog references that I've entered (so far) indeed reference it. http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/hank_greens_harry_potter_song_tops_youtube/C8/L8/ and http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6421036.html both discuss the site. The latter was even quoted within the article itself. -Mangler 21:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brotherhood 2.0

Hi LateToTheGame: I proposed deletion for the page based on significance. It is an impressive work, and I hesitated to nominate it, and I noted that an admin declined to speedily delete it earlier on those grounds, so you're on the right track, I think. What it needs is some objective indication of the significance of the project. I wouldn't have proposed deletion if the project had been referenced in the popular media. The refs you had seemed to be private web page and video. I also wouldn't have nominated the page if you demonstrated that it had attracted a substantial following, e.g., its like a published book. In the end, the section at the conclusion about a fictitious charitable organization tipped the scale toward deletion. You might take that out. Best, --DRTillberg^Talk 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice (btw, is this the best place to reply to you, or should I respond elsewhere?). Not all of the citations go to their site; two come from outside news sources (albeit one from a local news channel, the other from a magazine). Would it be better to remove some of the citations to the original vlog? I was just trying to giving markers into the storyline where those occurrences took place.

As for the reference to the Foundation, I thought it worth noting that they are a charitable bunch and give money to certain causes. I know the section wasn't quite filled out yet, but was it really so bad as to tip the scale? -Mangler 00:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A second question: Why do you keep correcting a spelling error that is within the title of a citation? I thought we had to refer to those exactly as they exist. Are we supposed to correct spelling errors in quotes? -Mangler 00:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, good revisions. You satisfied my concerns, so I removed the PROD tag. No one else appeared to have commented on it while it was up. The reference to the foundation wasn't bad, per se; just because the foundation is fictitious it made the entire article appear questionable. It just sounds, well, not serious. Sorry about correcting the spelling error. I wasn't targeting your page specifically. I was just going through a number of different pages using a utility that locates potential spelling errors in recent changes. I didn't see that the error was part of a links. Sorry. Best, --DRTillberg^Talk 01:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)