User talk:Craig Watson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

It's not so much my approval[edit]

It's not so much my approval you have to worry about, but general approval. I don't have any special power here at wikipedia but to note stuff to administrators and to edit pages. Just a normal plebian like everyone else. ;) My opinion alone isn't enough to delete it. Deletion usually involves the review of admins and other community members, so just in case I'm crazy I won't be able to do anything bad. But check out the Criteria for notability for webpages. For a webpage to be consided notable:

  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following:
      • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
      • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
  2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
  3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

It's harsh, I know, but your website doesn't meet these criteria. Most websites don't. A website would have to like, affect a huge swath of culture to meet this criteria - as in, it would have to be almost historical.

I'm not doing this because I'm trying to be mean; I have a website too, and I love thrash. The entire punk genre is great stuff, and a touch of metal really does give punk music a good jolt. But consider that this is an encyclopedia, or at least a tool for learning. Is this the kind of huge thing you'd see in an encyclopedia? Or the kind of thing you'd look up in an encyclopedia?

I'm going to ask that someone take a second look at it, because I'm not sure whether my pair of eyes is enough. If they agree, the article will probably be deleted. That said, I don't mean to scare you off and make you think everyone here is bad and mean and obsessed with rules. I'd suggest you check out Recent Changes page and click some of the 'diff's to see the kind of changes other people are making (and catch any vandals :D ) or just skim some of Contributing to Wikipedia. --Monk of the highest order 05:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Is the UK Thrash website notable?[edit]

Hi, I have expanded the UK Thrash entry to hopefully show that UK Thrash is of suitable noteability to be included in Wiki, and hope you approve.

Thanks, Craig

Is the UK Thrash website notable?[edit]

Hi Craig, I posted this on the article's talk page, but I'm also writing a copy of it here so you're more likely to notice.

Now, your website looks like a fine site, but Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia. That means it should only contain content that is of interest to many people. That is, the only things which "deserve" an article are things which are notable, or already important to many many many people. I'd suggest you look at the Wikipedia Guideline on Notability and the criteria page for Web Notability. If you can prove in the article why it fits at least one of those criteria (and is thus important enough to be included here), please do so.

However, otherwise, I'd advise we put this article up for deletion. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. If the site becomes so huge and popular that it becomes some sort of giant influence (so much that it reaches the criteria for notability), why sure, then it'd be fine to include, but until then, the page should probably be deleted.

I'm not going to nominate the article for deletion yet. I'm going to give you a little time to correct me on this in case I've made a mistake. Maybe it is a big part of the UK underground scene, or the article is otherwise important, but the article should only stay on if you can prove that. -Monk of the highest order 21:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi there. I'm just dropping in after seeing a request from the above editor to look at the UK Thrash page, and unfortunately, I would have to agree that he's correct; it does not meet the notability guidelines set out by WP:WEB at present. The guidelines as he posted above indicate that a website must have multiple, non-trivial reliable sources indicating its notability, must have won a major award, or distributed through a large entity. It would appear that your site doesn't meet those guidelines at present. If you have any references indicating that it does, please note them in the article ASAP. I'll give you a couple of days to do so, but at that point it will have to go through the deletion discussion. I also see you haven't received the standard welcome note, so I'll add it below; please take some time looking through the various guidelines. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Hello Craig Watson! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig2.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
Wikimedia.png

UK Thrash - Noteability[edit]

I know my view may be slightly biased, but I think that UK Thrash is noteable. The thrash metal scene is underground as it is, and there are even less websites and communities promoting it. The website was started as a personal project between myself and a friend who wanted to change the way thrash metal is viewed (or at least have some hand in that change), and so far has been a success, to the extent of getting interviews with some of the most respected people in thrash (Onslaught and the director of the new movie Get Thrashed - A History Of Thrash Metal).

I say it again - there is no other site out there which is actively doing something for the promotion of thrash metal. In general, UK Thrash aims to both promote the genre so that more people are aware of it (it has been somewhat downtrodden in recent years and so is very much underground) and also to bring the few (in comparison to other genres) thrash fans together.

UK Thrash may not have won any "major awards" or affected "swathes" of people, but there are no "swathes" of people to affect. As I've already said, the thrash metal scene is very underground and is not part of popular culture and our aim is to try and reverse this and make people more aware of it.

Craig Watson 08:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you feel it's important to the genre, but the issue at hand is that Wikipedia has guidelines for inclusion of articles, and generally they require that the topic of an article is notable before the article is acceptable for the site. Articles here are not designed to make something notable, they're to report on topics that are already established. Please read through what Wikipedia is not for more on that topic. Again, I'll reiterate that the WP:WEB guidelines are the ones your article must meet. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately, someone else has decided to move to the next step on this; it's currently up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Thrash. You may want to weigh in there regarding availability of sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ukt-header.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ukt-header.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)