User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/0017

This page was nominated for deletion on January 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was Nomination Withdrawn.

Hi hope this page is ok with Wikipedia, if it's not please tell me what I can do to make it better and to Wikipedia's satisfaction.

Jerry

Firstly there are no reliable sources to show how they are notable (for the article to make it into mainspace this must be included). For this you should read WP:RS, the reliable sources should be URL's added to the page. They should be things like online news articles about the group, youtube is not a reliable source, neither are blogs or things like myspace or mentions on peoples user homepages, likewise, the articles should be neutral. Without these, the page will get deleted again. Also, these reliable sources should show the article meets WP:WEB, a simple comment like many people like it on youtube is not accepatble, if you read WP:WEB you will see exactly how to meet the criteria. RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your response, I think I got it ok now, if not tell me what I have to change and I'll do so. Also could we change the title of the page "OO17" instead of "ryanpostlethwaite/OO17" I think it would be easier to remember.

Jerry

And how have you made them notable? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Could you explain? I don't really understand

(Jerry571 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hey do you have a hotmail account if you do tell me and add me and we can IM each other instead of all of this. Mine is jerry_571@hotmail.com and add me to you Messenger account and we'll talk ok. (if you have MSN messenger)

Jerry

You need to put URL's (web addresses) in this page to show that OO17 meet WP:WEB, as I've already said, they need to be neutal to 0017, e.g. a newspaper article talking about OO17. The source must be reliabile and factual (not opinion based). These URL's must not be You tube, myspace or any other blog (as previously discussed on wikipedia, they have specifically been rejected as valid sources for articles). The following is the criteria for inclusion that OO17 must meet for inclusion (Copied from WP:WEB;

Web-specific content^[1] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

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.^[2] except for the following:
  - Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.^[3]
  - Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization.^[4]
The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.^[5]

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

Are you going to be able to meet this criteria? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 21:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ohh ok thank you I'll try (again) to fix it thanks.

Dear Faithful Fans,

We are sad to inform you that we have been banned from Wikipedia for putting up a page called "OO17" and then once they deleted us we made a page called "Wikipedia Sucks Ass" then they banned us, but you can help get a OO17 back, you can try to make a OO17 page yourself, just email us and we'll tell you enough info to write a page. Here's my email address, if you tell any one you'll be executed.

OO17_youtubers@yahoo.com

Your Heroes, OO17 I'm now nominating for speedy deletion RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 22:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What does that mean?

Basically it means that I'm not playing ball anymore if thats the attitude of OO17, They've been banned from wikipedia so they're getting their little friends (AKA you) to write it for them. Sorry mate, but I've requested the article be deleted RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 23:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry they said that to you Ryan, but is there any way I can talk to them so they apologize? They never asked me to make a page I just wanted to, honest. But I'll talk to them ok.

Jerry

(Jerry571 02:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ryan can you tell me what else I can do on this page? I think I fixed everything! I'm pretty new to Wikipedia I need a little help.

Jerry

There is not one reliable source listed here to show they meet WP:WEB, list the sources you found here (URL's) and I'll look at them. REMEMBER THESE SOURCES MUST MEET WP:RS, that means no youtube, no myspace and no page OO17 have creted themselves RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 02:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for answering me and I'm sorry for what they said. Is the fan-based website a reliable source?

Jerry

Nope, they created it themselves, seriously read WP:RS (just click on that link) for what you can use RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 02:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I can't find anything else that site is the only source i could find could you tell me a reliable like is google a reliable source? and I don't think they made that site by themselves because they told me they are not so good with computers. Ha and they make like the best videos on YouTube!

google is a search engine not a reliable source, and the fansite says they made it themselves, anyway, even if they didn't, its not a reliable source. I'm going to bed now (Its 02:28 am in the UK) so try and find sources if you wish, however, theres not going to be any as I've searched a hell of a lot, will put it up for deletion in the morning if there aren't any. AND PLEASE PLEASE READ WP:WEB and WP:RS - you'll see exactly why they fail if you do RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That guy in the Vendetta shirt is David and Tim's other brother Daniel who is their camera man. They gave the me URL when I told them about the reliable source and I think it is, is it?

Jerry

Why would that make OO17 notable? Their not mentioned in the article once! And its quite funny that their so called brother has a diferent last name to them. You need hard fact, in reliable webpages, not an article on some random guy READ WP:RS AND WP:WEB - you obviously havn't done yet RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 18:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What is a reliable sorce? Give ma an example

A feature in a local newspaper, BBC news website, an article on a TV network website, an independant award RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 19:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What if I can't find any?

(Jerry571 19:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'll ask them for another reliable source.

(Jerry571 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

They gave me The Fergus Falls Daily Journal ad they were in. They were the Kids of the community.

(Jerry571 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Alright Fergus Falls Daily Journal is a reliable source, that means it ok right? could we change the title of the page to "OO17" instead of "ryanpostlethwaite/OO17" I think it would be easier to remember and it would be easier to tell other people, please?

Jerry

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/misc/print.php?artid=1021838

(Jerry571 23:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What does that mean

That is the very bottom line for reliable sources. It is from my first ever page that I created (Wild beasts) that originally got deleted but last week got reinstated (after 5 months!). Another example of notability for this article is found here, you need a few reliable sources to meet the criteria for WP:WEB and wikipedia:reliablesources. So far, you have not provided me with any. The link you just gave me is not a reliable source, it is from a web site that anyone can create a page from RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 23:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What do i do if I can't find any "reliable sources"

Give up - it is probably the best thing to do with this article RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 00:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

ok, but if they do get a reliable source can I make the page again? Thanks Ryan your a good guy and a great wikipatroler!

Your Friend, Jerry

By all means, but wait a while till they become more notable, I'll leave this page open so it doesn't get deleted for the time being. Try editing some existing pages as they won't get deleted - and if you screw up, its not a problem as it can always be sorted RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks Ryan.

(Jerry571 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OO17 just emailed me saying that they're going to do a video for you in appriciation for helping me make this page. they said it sould be out in a week or so, so check their youtube channel for it or i'll email you. http://youtube.com/profile?user=OO17 (YouTube file)

Jerry

well, you've got my email address havnt you? Added you to MSN yesterday and I would be honoured, I'll add them to my youtube channel (btw, I have never disputed the vids r funny!) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jerry571 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hey Ryan, I found a website that mentions OO17 ( which I think is reliable ) and could not be edited by someone. I know that there is suppose to be more sources but I was just wandering if this would pass and it would not be nominated for deletion?

Jerry

^ Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.
^
Examples:
- The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.
- The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.
^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
^ Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies or Webby Awards. See Category:Awards for more. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.
^ Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial.

[1] Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.

[2] Examples:
The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.

The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.

[3] The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.

[4] The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.

[3] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

[4] Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies or Webby Awards. See Category:Awards for more. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.

[5] Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]