Talk:Madfly

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted because this band is fairly notable and this page has a variety of sources that help provide readers with thorough knowledge of the band.Shaneymike (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give a word of friendly advice: Though it may not look like it on first blush, there are strict policies on what subjects and content can and cannot be included in Wikipedia. In very general terms, before a person, place, thing, organization, or idea can be included in Wikipedia it must have

already been recognized
as important or significant
by objective, independent, and provable third party sources
with a established reputation for fact-checking
which are independent of both the subject of the article and of Wikipedia itself.

That's just a plain-English generalization of the actual rules to give you an idea of what's going on here, so don't rely on it but refer to the actual policies instead. (For a great analogy illustrating these concepts, see WP:SCRABBLE.) Without a working knowledge of Wikipedia policy it can be very frustrating to try to write an article that won't be deleted. I've tried several times to write a better introduction to editing than can be found at the Article Wizard and Your First Article and I can't. Don't be tempted to skip past sections of either one, they're full of solid gold information. Also, if you've not done so already, you need to read the Notability, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Conflict of interest policies from beginning to end. Even if this article survives the speedy deletion process, it is going to need to meet the standards set out at WP:BAND in order to survive in the long run. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that most of the sources used here are not independent of the subject, which may be the undoing of this page. However, I do think some of the details, specifically those from the Get the Silver review, could be used on William DuVall's page. Would you agree? And how about the Neon Christ article I started this week? Is it acceptable? Or will that have to go as well due to a lack of sources independent of the subject? Shaneymike (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Madfly. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 22:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]