User talk:LogicalCreator: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:06, 11 January 2012

Welcome!

Hello, LogicalCreator, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Facethejury, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Facethejury for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Facethejury is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facethejury until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. removing deletion templates from an article, before the discussion is completed. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I demand that my article stay.

According to WP:BOLD I made an article that was sorely missing from Wikipedia and no one is helping me improve the article and only trying to delete it. This is against Wikipedia's policies of "being bold."

Being bold does not mean you get to be bold and cannot be reverted. It means be bold and see what happens. What is happening is your article being deleted. Please read WP:Reliability WP:Verifiability and specifically how they relate to WP:Notability, particularly WP:CORP. You do not get to 'demand' anything. That is not how wikipedia works. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To delete this article would be disturbing.

There are many listings for obscure dating sites on Wikipedia and this one is definitely notable. I am adding more references as we speak and have donated money to Wikipedia. There is something very wrong with Wikipedia users who are more concerned with deleting entries rather than helping to build on them, especially when it is obvious that the entry I made is legitimate and "noteworthy." (About as noteworthy as "vampirefreaks.com." Now, someone help me or feel disgusted with yourselves for being abusive towards new CONTRIBUTORS to Wikipedia and being more of a detractor to this wonderful website.

Making WP:PERSONAL attacks is a good way to get yourself in trouble. Other sites that perhaps should not exist do have pages. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you feel those sites should be deleted, you may nominate them for deletion. It is not obvious that your site is legitimate and noteworthy, which you need to prove using WP:RS as I mentioned before. Please show specifically how you have complied with the policies I posted to you previously, and you will get a lot more help than attacking everyone. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding is disabled for some reason?

I was attempting to cite another source, but it is being blocked for some reason. It doesn't make sense, because that website seems to compare, very logically, all different types of websites online. I'm baffled as to the types of "moderators" or whatever are trying to delete my article rather than help me. It is very upsetting to see people being so un-academic.

What site are you trying to link to? Some sites that are well known for being problematic are blocked pre-emptively. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find(the) best (dot) com is for some reason being black-listed. Looking over the site, I have no idea why it would be black-listed. I am simply being logical, I have used Wikipedia for many, many years, and a website such as FTJ should be listed on Wikipedia. For a dating site to be listed ONLY because it has a news story about it, doesn't make sense. That's not logical. What about a new website that is launched? It has to somehow make the news before it is granted an entry on Wikipedia? This is not logical, at all.

you can find more information about why that site was blacklisted here Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist. Regarding needing a news source - yes, that is exactly the policy of wikipedia. We are not a site to be used to promote a website. We are site to find information about topics which are ALREADY notable (by someone else noting it). Please read the policies I have linked to you several times. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job finding the herald reference. Unfortunately that article is not actually about facethejury so fails the portion of the notability guideline. Specifically ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." You would need to find some sources saying what a great resource FTJ is etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lack of sources for facethejury

So, I did some sdearches to see if I could help you out, and I must say I think your outlook does not look good.

There are 0 google news hits for facethejury (compare to match.com, eharmony.com etc which have many many google news hits.

in the main google results here none of the source are major editorial websites that would meet WP:RS. They are all blogs, or website directory sites, or sites like alexa that report on every website, and do not help contribute at all to WP:V WP:N. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entry now should stay; here's why.

I have no produced the same exact amount of "notability" as the entry for VampireFreaks.com. So, logically speaking, if VampireFreaks.com has not been deleted, nor should FaceTheJury.com. I provided a link to a crime that was committed and attached to FaceTheJury.com, similar to VampireFreaks.com and its killings reference.

Vampirefreaks has been associated with multiple events, and had 5 or 6 WP:RS links discussing it. You have one. Find a bunch more articles talking about you, and then you can approach notability. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that this article is not about "me," right? This article is about a dating website, not a human being. Why would you say "find a bunch more articles talking about you"? This place is beginning to look very, very anti-academic, and that truly disappoints me, seeing as how I donated money to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.142.131 (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for saying "you". I had assumed that you are in some way associated with the website. I think you and I have very different definitions of "academic". Expecting special consideration because you donated? Yah. thats academic. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How on Earth is VampireFreaks.com still here and FaceTheJury.com is up for deletion? It's just a double-standard, I suppose. I have given enough criteria (big-boards.com) to justify keeping my legitimate, yet small, article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.142.131 (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirefreaks has multiple multiple WP:RS references to it. If you want you could try to get bigboards judged to be a reliable source by going to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but I believe you will not be successful in that effort. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seven references to basically the same exact story, that's not really "notable" to me at all; so, who's to judge what is and is not "notable" on Wikipedia? You guys? It seems that way, since you are the ones trying to delete this. I just don't have the time and energy to figure out a way to get an obviously legitimate website to stay on Wikipedia. I mean, the sheer size of its membership database should be enough to have it listed here, I'm just confused as to the entry process of websites here. I mean, if I had a few hours, I'm sure I could find many websites on the list of social networks that, other than casual mentions on random news articles, don't belong here at all (according to your view that each article needs news articles as references). It's just disparaging, that's all, and I think instead of immediately trying to delete things, you guys should improve Wikipedia by fixing articles to make them acceptable, rather than just immediately deleting them. I mean, what if I am researching dating sites for a school project and I miss FaceTheJury (a definite for my list) and it's not on Wikipedia? Sure, Wikipedia isn't really perfect for school projects, but it SHOULD be a better choice than winging a project with just ones on imagination. Anyway, I digress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.142.131 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very right that there are many sites with pages that probably shouldn't. WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. If someone notices them they may be deleted in the future. You may nominate them for deletion yourself if you feel like it. Who is to judge is via WP:CONSENSUS. I am just one opinion, which is why the article is currently up and receiving a deletion discussion. You are making assumptions regarding "obvious" though. We have very clearly spelled out standards, which I have linked you several times. If you think you meet those standards, please link to the specific passages of the guildelines and policies, and indicate how you satisfy them.

Luckily, WP: Notability states that "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." It also states that popularity does not preclude the inclusion of an article. My question is, how can one have an article made when it has somehow gone "under the radar" of popular culture? This is extremely disconcerting to me because I know for a fact FaceTheJury is a very active, online community with many, many members (reported by itself and by Big-Boards.com) to have more than 500,000 members. That alone should fit the criteria of being notable, no? Help me to understand how an article can be added when it has, like I mentioned, "flown under the radar" by some odd reason.

Revision as of 17:56, 11 January 2012 edit Gaijin42 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 20,866 edits →‎This entry now should stay; here's why.: r ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:06, 11 January 2012 edit undo 108.87.142.131 (talk) No edit summary Next edit →
Line 70:		Line 70:

	:You are very right that there are many sites with pages that probably shouldn't. [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] exists. If someone notices them they may be deleted in the future. You may nominate them for deletion yourself if you feel like it. Who is to judge is via [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. I am just one opinion, which is why the article is currently up and receiving a deletion discussion. You are making assumptions regarding "obvious" though. We have very clearly spelled out standards, which I have linked you several times. If you think you meet those standards, please link to the specific passages of the guildelines and policies, and indicate how you satisfy them.		:You are very right that there are many sites with pages that probably shouldn't. [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] exists. If someone notices them they may be deleted in the future. You may nominate them for deletion yourself if you feel like it. Who is to judge is via [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. I am just one opinion, which is why the article is currently up and receiving a deletion discussion. You are making assumptions regarding "obvious" though. We have very clearly spelled out standards, which I have linked you several times. If you think you meet those standards, please link to the specific passages of the guildelines and policies, and indicate how you satisfy them.

			Luckily, WP: Notability states that "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." It also states that popularity does not preclude the inclusion of an article. My question is, how can one have an article made when it has somehow gone "under the radar" of popular culture? This is extremely disconcerting to me because I know for a fact FaceTheJury is a very active, online community with many, many members (reported by itself and by Big-Boards.com) to have more than 500,000 members. That alone should fit the criteria of being notable, no? Help me to understand how an article can be added when it has, like I mentioned, "flown under the radar" by some odd reason.