User talk:Dagdamor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. This account was created for you. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme|your question here}} on this page, and someone will be around to help. Again, welcome! --AccReqBot 02:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons Realities

A tag has been placed on Simpsons Realities, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Simpsons Realities. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. Gak Blimby 17:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I know it might be upseting, but it has to be done. The same thing happened to me when I made my first article, too. Gak Blimby 17:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read the talk page, I explained my reasons there. Dagdamor 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the tag because of your argument. Just remember, you MUST include verifyable sources for your assertions that the article is "#1" (being that it is one of the main points of your argument), and any official recognition of the site. If not, I'll have to put the page up for deletion again.Gak Blimby 17:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't refer to any official recognition of the site (i.e. in the books, newspaper, from the Simpsons trademark owners or such), because the site itself is unofficial (as the article says). I can, however, refer to some unofficial mentioning about SR, on other unofficial sites and/or forums. Would be that okay? Dagdamor 18:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:

In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libelous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources...

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources [That includes forums]. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

What I recommend is to use any reliable unnoficial sources that you have. If you happen to come across an official mentioning of the site, that would be great. By the way, "Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves" so you can site the website for something it has said. Just remember, don't site forums unless what you're editing is about the forum. Thanks, Gak Blimby 19:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons Realities

I have responded at my talk page. As I said before you are encouraged to take the deletion to WP:DRV --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For some reasons, all articles on that page were either kept deleted (red links), or deleted and protected from re-creation (blue links). :/ Thanks for suggesting, but I don't believe that would help me much... Dagdamor 10:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The red links are because the articles were deleted and editors take the case to WP:DRV to decide. The article is usually recreated in a user space to be discussed. --Steve (Stephen) talk 03:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)