User talk:ColaCock

Speedy deletion of CockyTalk
{hangon}

Entry is regarding a popular sports message board and forum for the South Carolina Gamecocks.

A tag has been placed on CockyTalk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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.  Acroterion  (talk)  16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of CockyTalk
A tag has been placed on CockyTalk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. Dekisugi (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has not been marked for speedy deletion because of any possible obscenity -- it's because the topic is not considered to be notable. What would be required is independent third-party expert reliable sources that state that the topic is notable in a verifiable way.  If you have any questions about Wikipedia policy, leave me a note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded: I tagged it for notability only - there's no problem with the name.   Acroterion  (talk)  16:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So the direct link to the site wasn't enough of a source? It is a sports forum with over 9,000 members that is notorious among the Gamecock community for providing information, stimulating discussion, images, articles, and video regarding Gamecock athletics.
 * No, you'll need to establish notability by reference to third-party sources. Just linking to the site doesn't establish much beyond the fact of its existence.  In general, the person, goup, website or whatever needs to be notable enough that someone else has written about it in an independent publication of some stature.    Acroterion  (talk)  16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've received your note on my talk page and quote it here for your convenience.
 * I tried creating this site 3 different times. It was deleted because it wasn't notable...can this be explained? I provided a direct link to the actual web site. It is a notorious forum among Gamecock fans who seem up to date news, videos, images, and stimulating discussion regarding University of South Carolina athletics. Do you want an actual e-mail from the creator of the site or something? I find it hard to believe this doesn't belong on Wikipedia with all of the junk that I have browsed in the past.
 * First of all -- we're not talking about "all of the junk" on Wikipedia, we're talking about one specific page. (See WP:WAX for an explanation of why that isn't considered a valid argument here.)  No one wants an actual e-mail from the creator of the site -- what we want, as was mentioned twice above, is THIRD PARTY EXPERT SOURCES that demonstrate the notability of the site.  What you yourself say about your own site is largely irrelevant -- it's what experts have to say that counts here.  That would be references to the site in newspaper articles and magazines, but not, for instance, blogs or forums, because they're not considered reliable sources.  If you read the policy guidelines at WP:WEB, or any of the material at, for instance, WP:Your first article, you'll understand what notability means in Wikipedia terms and why three separate administrators thought this article was not notable.  I hope this makes it more clear for you.  Again, if you have any further questions about Wikipedia policy, leave a note here and I'll explain however I can.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)