User talk:Ben Wobbles

Tree Frog Radio

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tree Frog Radio, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.blogger.com/profile/11844836902833974013. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Tree Frog Radio

A tag has been placed on Tree Frog Radio, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Redfarmer (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tree Frog Radio

I have nominated Tree Frog Radio, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tree Frog Radio. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Paste (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Your recent edit to Tree Frog Radio (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. Please do not add email addresses/phone numbers, Imageshack/Photobucket/Flickr, or related links to non-talk pages if possible. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Tree Frog Radio (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. Please do not add email addresses/phone numbers, Imageshack/Photobucket/Flickr, or related links to non-talk pages if possible. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tree Frog Radio

The issue here is whether it is notable or not, and it seems to fail several Wikipedia policies, especially WP:N and WP:V. To be considered notable, a subject must have received independent, verifiable coverage in secondary source material. You need to establish this to save the article. Redfarmer (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to your questions regarding notability but not to your attacks on me or any other editor. Wikipedia requires verifiable secondary sources to establish notability. As a regular encyclopedia would require the existence of secondary source coverage, so does Wikipedia as we are a tertiary source and not a primary source, meaning we do not accept original research. It's not being snobbish; it's simply the price paid for being verifiable. While the concept of micro powered radio can (and probably is) notable, that does not make the station itself inherently notable. Also, the fact that other articles exist cannot be used effectively for the inclusion of a particular article, as the other articles may be notable for another reason, or they may not be notable and may eventually be deleted themselves.

I am sorry you feel the rules here are snobbish and you are considering not contributing to the encyclopedia. If you change your mind, I would encourage you strongly to read our notability requirements and verifiability requirements before creating another page. We are not trying to be snobbish; we are simply not an indiscriminate collection of unverifiable information. Redfarmer (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tree Frog Radio

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_radio_stations_in_British_Columbia&oldid=154755112#Denman_Island since this page began (List_of_radio_stations_in_British_Columbia) in aug of 2007 there has been mention of tree frog radio, I happened to read this page and decided I had more information to help fill in the gaps of knowledge on this page (List_of_radio_stations_in_British_Columbia)regarding ctfr, I am adding to the pool of info that someone already deemed "notable"(and wikipedia accepted since aug 2007). this is not a vanity thing I am enhancing the amount of verifiable and true and meaningful info on this page(List_of_radio_stations_in_British_Columbia) by creating a page about tfr, someone was/is obviously interested enuf in radio stations in bc to have listed the existence of ctrf since aug 2007, think about it for a minute, how can it be "notable" and ok for someone to talk about radio in bc since aug 2007 (and mention the reception of tfr) and a half a year later when I add to the info you can think it is "not notable". I am directly enhancing information that already exists on wikipedia. this style of thinking ("non notable")is nonsense, and frankly I am surprised that you and (a few) others want to kill this article from day one. what may appear "not notable" in the beginning to some may be historically valuable (significant) info to others, it is a matter of perspective and acceptance. an encyclopedia is for subject that you already know about, it is also (maybe even more so) for subjects you don't know about yet. Let's keep the article and see where we can go from here, how about ? Ben Wobbles (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not advocating deleting the article because we don't know anything about it--no one has ever said that. We are advocating deleting it because it does not seem to meet the notability requirement for Wikipedia, a policy whose requirements are listed at WP:N. The fact that someone added the station to a list does not indicate notability. Secondary sources indicate notability. Redfarmer (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]