Talk:You Wouldn't Steal a Car

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the You Wouldn't Steal a Car article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Notability

Hello! I know that I'm an amateur, but could you please help me point the errors in the article which need to be repaired? I have worked a lot with this and I would be sad if it lost. Thank you! Csimma Viktor (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Csimma Viktor - it's simply a matter of notability. You can look at the guidelines at WP:GNG. It's rare that a PSA would garner enough media attention to warrant an article. But for you to show notability, you need sourcing from independent, reliable sources which go in-depth about this particular PSA. For example, YouTube is not considered a reliable source, neither is know your meme. The BBC article is perfect. If you can find 2 or 3 more like that, it would definitely meet notability criteria. I searched, but the fact that the actual PSA's name is unknown made it difficult and I didn't find anything. If you come up with sourcing, hit me up on my talk page and I'll take a look. Oh, and by the way, we are all amateurs.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Thank you very much, I will try to find some better sources. Thank you again, Csimma Viktor (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Hello! I'm sorry for disturbing, but I have found these sources:

I'd just like to ask you whether these articles are a good base to start. Thank you, Csimma Viktor (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Csimma Viktor - you're not "bothering" me, you're doing the absolutely right thing: you're new, you're asking questions, you're being polite. Editors ask for nothing else. Bravo. Now about this article. Not only do I think you have enough to show notability, I think it will be a fascinating article. An anti-pirating PSA which actually pirated the music used in it? Brilliant. I'll revert my redirection. Then you can add the sources, and work on it. Definitely add in the troubles about the music, that's what makes it fascinating. NICE JOB. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Thank you very much! Soon I will start adding the new part about the music. Thank you again, Csimma Viktor (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflation

@Peterl: Thanks for your edit here [1]; I completely agree with your wording. However, can you clarify what's still dubious? I agree "A source close to the Dutch film industry" is not a reliable quote. However, the article in question does point out the anti-piracy ad that stole music was created in 2006 (also confirmed by this source here: [2]), whereas the sources in this Wikipedia article clearly back up that this ad was created in 2004. Accordingly, I don't see anything dubious about the statement attributed to TorrentFreak that the advertisements have been conflated. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a clear indication the sentence about the music being stolen needs to be removed. They're clearly unreliable sources which didn't properly fact check before writing articles and we shouldn't be linking or using that kind of thing on wikipedia.--222.109.91.138 (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piracyisacrime.com

The Web-URL Piracyisacrime.com is now linking to "The IT Crowd" parodie. 2001:650:E9CC:65:FC2B:D100:C8E2:D475 (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha that's amazing. We'll probably need secondary coverage of that to mention it in the article though. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]