Talk:Collusion Syndicate

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 January 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus, keep as default.

Bearian (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a number of Media clips from both TV news and newspapers. I'm new to this so I'm not sure what is considered legitimate verification/validation.
I've reviewed these articles and everything seems like I'm doing it right:
Please elaborate what the concerns are regarding this article. As I see it:
- "Written like an Advertisement" - I've reviewed these rules and this article abides by all in that it is firstly, NOT a business and secondly, NOT promoting or recruiting for the group.
- "Notability" - it seems that on the tag explanation Talk page you are conceding that the media coverage is sufficient but that it is covering the TexorcisT not the group. I'm having trouble understanding how this guideline is applied as all of that media coverage is from when TexorcisT was leader and spokesperson of the group. The television coverage in particular clearly mentions that the footage was taken in the Collusion Syndicates HQ and denotes TexorcisT as a member thereof.

~~In what way is this article less substantiated then other similar groups such as the Cult of the Dead Cow?~~

I've added referential dates for the items of notoriety so as to demonstrate more clearly that this is a HISTORICAL RECORD and NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT

Okay...I did a bunch of work on the article and added a bunch of references. Please advise if more is required. Thanks to everyone that offered constructive advice! - Operknockity (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More work

You have done a bunch of work but it may need more. The first thing I would do is to make clear in the article that the organization was historical, not current. Add the disbanded date. Change all the "is" to "was". That will help make clear that it is not an advertisement. I think also that you'll get more leeway demonstrating notability and references simply because people know that it is harder to find information from years ago.

Done - Operknockity (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing you could do is improve/add references. Access each of your references and verify that they work or find current urls for those that don't work. Identify the specific references to the subject in each reference. Many of those references mention TexorcisT or collusion.org, not Collusion Syndicate. So add notes explaining the connection. If you can find any other references add them. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start working on this. I think I'll start by reviewing some other articles to see how different references are written.

Boy! Who knew this was such an involved process? I had no idea when I registered to add my little tidbit of historical knowledge that the process would be so challenging but it has really been a gratifying and educational experience and I'm glad I did it! Most of all: THANKS FOR THE HELP! EVERYBODY! REALLY! - Operknockity (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collusion?

What is the relevance of the "Collusion" section which provides a definition of the word? Sbowers3 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the group chose that name for a reason so I thought it might be worth a brief definition that the reader can drill into the article on the word if they want more?

Ahh! assumption. Well, that probably qualifies as original research. Articles should be based on reliable sources, not guesses. Not a big deal, though. Sbowers3 (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operknockity (talk • contribs) 03:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Collusion Syndicate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921025019/http://jya.com/irs121098.htm to http://jya.com/irs121098.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080105035335/http://www.irqconflict.org/ to http://www.irqconflict.org/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://machinima.com/news/view%26id%3D179
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.machinima.com/article/view%26id%3D62

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]