User talk:Dancepartyusa

I/we read Orangemike's reason for indefnitely blocking dancepartyusa. Still not sure what the reasion is -- our name (dancepartyusa, if we changed it would that really solve the problem?) or because the various verison of the article was deedmed as self-promotion (please read "reason for unblocking" below as much of what was deemed inapprorpiate was removed from the article, both or something else? Would appreciate if Wikipedia would be more specific. thanks.Dancepartyusa (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the articles themselves, or why they were deleted - I'll have a look. The block log indicates that your username was blocked because it does not comply with our username policy. Among other things, usernames that represent multiple individuals (including a company) are prohibited. The name of your account, coupled with the fact that it edits an article matching its name, and the fact that you refer to yourself as "I/we" and to the account as "our name", would confirm this fact. So, changing the username is a good first step. For your convenience, I'll post the warning template below - you're not blocked again!, but this should provide some guidance. As Corvus notes, below, you'll also want to have a look at our Copyright problems page and our conflict of interest policy, which will provide additional guidance. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it has been identified as an account used for promotion of a company or group, with a username that implies that this has been done by that company or group. See Wikipedia:Business' FAQ and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. In addition, the use of a username like yours violates our username policy.

You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

Your reason should include your response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy (specifically, understand that accounts are for individuals, not companies or groups, and that your username should reflect this). Usernames that have already been taken are listed here.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dancepartyusa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

reason below

Decline reason:

See above. You'll want to review WP:USERNAME and consider a new username, then request unblocking with {{unblock-un}}. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request for Unblock[edit]

8/1/08 unlock: If you still have a record of all the communications between us, you'll see that I've tried to comply with each and every request and all guidelines and instructions -- which, when I read them, I got so confused.

I respectfully and kindly appeal this "block" for several reasons:

First, in “Talk,” I repeatedly asked for help. I have been respectful and courteous.

Second, your site claims to strive for, and requires, accuracy. We, as the executive producer and owner of DANCE PARTY USA and DANCIN' ON AIR, are the only ones who are really entitled to "tell" the story. Information that is currently posted under DANCE PARTY USA is still inaccurate, as is information posted in your Kelly Ripa article and other articles related to DANCE PARTY USA and DANCIN’ ON AIR.

Second, I/we never refused to comply with any requests from your editor(s). I/we never gave your editor(s) a hard time. Each and every time your editor(s) made a comment about what I/we wrote, I/we always and IMMEDIATELY revised text. I requested them to cite the text so that I could understand what was the objection and fix it to comply. They did not always cite specific text, but rather generalities, which made revisions difficult to do in order to comply. If they did not agree or like the re-edits, I/we re-edited the text again and again in order to comply. I/we spent over 40 hours trying to comply with your editor's requests.

Thirds, and most importantly, to be fair, there are other articles that contain those items and information that I/we were told were a violation of Wikipedia’s purpose, rules, policies and guidelines. Trying to compare apples to apples, compare the Wikipedia’s articles for AMERICAN BANDSTAND, SOUL TRAIN, CLUB MTV, to the text I/we wrote for DANCE PARTY USA and DANCIN’ ON AIR. I say this in the kindest way I know how, these article contained the very “violations” and “non-compliance issues” for which DANCE PARTY USA and DANCIN ON AIR” articles were removed, and we have been “blocked.”

Just a few examples of Wikipedia articles for similar TV shows:

One violation cited was that our articles contained celebrity names, and we were asked to remove all the celebrity names – which I finally did. However, AMERICAN BANDSTAND, SOUL TRAIN, CLUB MTV articles (and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dreams) all contain celebrity names. Yet, our article was deleted, and we are block while these articles – and a=many other on Wikipedia – contain names of celebrities.

One violation/criticism was that our articles were self-promotional and flagged as “peackock” for inclusion of the words, “great,” “greatest,” “most popular,” “famous,” and the like. I re-edited accordingly several times. However, AMERICAN BANDSTAND, SOUL TRAIN, CLUB MTV articles all contained phrases and words including , “great,” “greatest,” “most popular,” “famous,”

EX: AMERICAN BANDSTAND article on your site which reads, “The show's popularity helped Clark become an American media mogul and inspired other similar long-running music programs, such as Soul Train and Top of the Pops.” Also refer to the following in the American Bandstand article on your site, “Eddie Kelly and Bunny Gibson—one of the most famous couples to appear on American Bandstand in the Philadelphia years—were the only two to make cameo appearances on the acclaimed TV series.” And “In 2005, rapper Bow Wow came out with the featured single Fresh Azimiz from the album Wanted. The song, produced by Jermaine Dupri mentioned the popularity of American Bandstand in the line, "I'm goin' down in history like American Bandstand." Also refer to “List of accolades… Dick Clark has received the following awards” on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Clark_%28entertainer%29AMERICAN BANDSTAND.

Another violation cited was that the articles mentioned BANDSTAND, SOUL TRAIN, CLUB MTV in the articles. They were cited to be show’s competitors, which I/we were told is a violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines. I revised the text as requested. However, AMERICAN BANDSTAND, SOUL TRAIN, CLUB MTV articles all contained names of shows that could be considered “competitors.”

When the DANCE PARTY USA and DANCIN’ ON AIR article cited facts such as “DANCE PARTY USA is still is the longest running national cable TV teen / young adult dance show in the history of television… anywhere in the world,” it was cited as a violations of Wikipedia’s guidelines as being self-promoting and without citation to verify its source. I revised the text, and still the articles were removed and I/we are blocked, yet refer to similar text in Wikipedia’s SOUL TRAIN article, “ The show is known for its animated opening title featuring the popular cartoon train. As a nod to Soul Train's longevity, the show's opening sequence (during later seasons) contains a claim that it is the "longest-running, first-run, nationally-syndicated program in television history," with over 1,100 episodes produced from the show's debut through the 2005-06 season.” There is not citation or source for this text. Yet the article stands, and ours was removed. There is not citation or source reference for this quote, yet this article stands.

I/we were instructed to provide footnotes and citations to verify information in our articles. Refer to Wikipedia’s AMERICAN BANDSTAND, SOUL TRAIN, CLUB MTV articles, and many many other Wikipedia articles on a wide variety of subjects.

• A link to SOUL TRAIN’s website is contained it the SOUL TRAIN article “references” section. I/we were told that we could not put a link to our website anywhere it the article. I/we were told that we could not cite “ourselves” as the source of information in the article. To do so was deemed self-promoting on our part. Yet this article and other Wikipedia articles have those same things I/we were told were violations. Unlike SOUL TRAIN, AMERICAN BANDSTAND, DANCE PARTY USA, DANCIN’ ON AIR does not have movies, books and articles published about them – so we are the only accurate and true source. In the alternative, does Wikipedia only accept information about TV shows and other topics that have movies, books and articles published about them? When Neilson ratings was cited as a source, I/we was told that this was not acceptable as a quote or as a source.

• Wikipedia’s SOUL TRAIN and AMERICAN BANDSTAND article, “References in popular culture” contain a “bulleted” list of facts. When I/we provided “bulleted” list of similar facts, it was deemed in violation. I/we were requested to re-state the facts in prose form. I did so, and our article was deleted, and I/we are blocked.

• Wikipedia’s SOUL TRAIN and AMERICAN BANDSTAND article, “References in popular culture” do not have any footnotes or specific references cited. I/we were told we were in violations of Wikipedia’s guidelines because the articles lacked do not have any footnotes or specific references cited . Unlike SOUL TRAIN, AMERICAN BANDSTAND, and other TV shows, DANCE PARTY USA and DANCIN’ ON AIR do not have movies, books and articles published about them – so the executive producer is the only source.

• When I /we referenced “OMNI” or Michael Nise, executive producer, or some other person(s) as the source, I was told that I was not allowed to do that. Refer to quotes by others listed in your AMERICAN BANDSTAND article under “References in popular culture.”

• When I/we wrote about the connection between the 1988 movie Hairspray, John Waters, and Dance Party USA, I was told that I was not allowed to do that Refer to your AMERICAN BANDSTAND article states, “In 1988, the popular John Waters film Hairspray's The Corny Collins Show is a mix this quote or this information. When I quoted the executive producer, Michael Nise as the source for the Hairspray quote and information, I was told that I violated a rule and had to remove the quote. I removed the text as requested, and the article was deleted anyway, and I/we are blocked.

• DANCE PARTY USA and DANCIN’ ON AIR articles were removed for not citing proper references that could be verified. See “References in popular culture” in your AMERICAN BANDSTAND article. It states the source of the information as “Main article: American Dreams” clicked on American Dreams . I did not find the any of the quotes attributed to the American Dreams article listed in this section. Yet these “facts” and the article remain on your cite, our articles were deleted and I/we are blocked.

• The following text for DANCE PARTY USA and DANCIN’ ON AIR was deemed objectionable for several reasons. It was immediately revised as requested by your editor(s), and then deleted from both articles all together.

o DANCE PARTY USA was more than "just another dance show" like American Bandstand, Soul Train or Dance Fever. It was a reality, unscripted soap opera, variety, music, theme, comedy, dance and lifestyle show that featured famous people from all walks of life including TV, radio, music, politics, the news, cartoons, sports and film... against the backdrop of everyday kids dancing while having good, clean fun!!! It was a program that parents watched with their kids. It turned the USA Network's Sal

o “DANCIN' ON AIR If you’re one of the millions between currently 22 and 45, you may remember rushing home after school to hear the latest music, learn the coolest dances, to see the hottest stars and watch your heartthrobs (the show’s “Regulars”) on the highly rated, regional TV dance show, DANCIN' ON AIR.” Please compare the above text with similar text contained in Wikipedia’s SOUL TRAIN article, “During the heyday of Soul Train in the 1970s and 1980s, the program was widely influential among younger black Americans, many of whom turned to it not only to hear the latest songs by well-known black artists but also for clues about the latest fashions and dance trends. Moreover, for many white Americans in that era who were not living in areas that were racially diverse, Soul Train provided a unique window into black culture. Some commentators have called Soul Train a "black American Bandstand", another long-running program with which Soul Train shares some similarities. • Back to, “DANCIN' ON AIR If you’re one of the millions between currently 22 and 45, you may remember rushing home after school to hear the latest music, learn the coolest dances, to see the hottest stars and watch your heartthrobs (the show’s “Regulars”) on the highly rated, regional TV dance show, DANCIN' ON AIR.” It was deemed a copyright infringements. Per my communications in the “Talk,” section, this is not a copyright violations, as this is text I/we own. I was directed to read the GNU Free Documentation License section. I did, and, per my communications in the “talk” section, I was and still am very confused, and still do not understand what I’m to do in order to comply. So, I/we finally deleted the text all together, and was still cited as being in violation of someone else’s copyrights. (????)

Finally (bold added for emphasis), “Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. … This is a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources. The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, and additional restrictions in biographies of living people. Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.” DANCE PARTY USA, DANCIN’ ON AIR, Michael and Frank Nise are not as famous and as well-known as SOUL TRAIN, DON CORNELIOUS, AMERICAN BAND STAND, OR DICK CLARK. You and anyone else will be hard pressed to find “use reliable, third-party, published sources,” because there is none. All there is “us,” and anyone else ”out there” who were part of the DANCE PARTY USA, DANCIN’ ON AIR experience. It is Wikipedia’s guideline, not mandatory policy that articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. But what happens in a case such as ours – there are none except for ourselves, and articles written during the 80’s and 90’s that – except for a few including the reference to Club MTV – no longer exists except as re-typed as part of the story?

Wikipedia states, “Even if you don't know what formatting to use, someone else will often come along and fix it for you, as long as they perceive your edits to be an improvement to the encyclopedia…. Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution… The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter. … while Wikipedia has its set of various rules and guidelines, there is one "unofficial" rule that should be observed by all who participate in the project: The Reasonability Rule.. . The Reasonability Rule: if an action cannot be considered "reasonable" or "acceptable" by an objective third person, that action should not be performed..”

As stated on your site elsewhere, “articles will be re-written” after they are published. Therefore, once dancepartyusa articles are written and published on Wikipedia, the article will draw input from other sources, some will be reliable, and others will not.

With that in mind, the information in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_Party_USA and the information regarding Kelly Ripa and DANCE PARTY USA is inaccurate, does not have a reliable source or references. Yet is stands "as is," and we are unable to change it which is a contradiction of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines.

Therefore, I/we are requesting that Wikipedia please lift the block and work with us. As you said, “You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry. Even the worst mistakes are easy to correct. . . if we disagree with your changes, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do.” Then why were we blocked? I/we still don’t know the reason why we were/are blocked?

Your own rules state“ So don't worry. Be bold, and enjoy helping to build this free encyclopedia. … You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating. … Most of the time when editing Wikipedia, you really don't need to know what the rules are. Just be bold, use common sense, and follow the style you see being used by other editors, and your contributions will usually be welcomed.” By the examples I cited hereon, I thought that that was what I/we were dong. I don’t know why the articles were removed, or why I/we were/are blocked?

Thank you for allowing me to plead my/our case. Look forward to working with you. If having a phone conversation is quicker and easier for you, please feel free to call me at our office, 856-963-6400, or I’ll call you if you provide your number.

Thank you. Chrystel Eberts Dancepartyusa (talk)````}} _______________________________

AS OF 12:24 pm est, I completed all revisions requests, and taht I hope will satisfy your temrs and condtions. thank you. chrystel dancepartyusaDancepartyusa (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7/10/08 6:01 PM, now I am confused. I just typed my repsonses to the comments hereon, and now there are nto herre, and I don't know where to go to find them.

The current article on your site, is inacurate. Encylcopedia's are not suppose to be inaccurate. EX: "Dance Party USA is an American Bandstand style music and dance television program" It was not like American Bandstand.

"Starting in 1988 the program was taped at E.J. Stewart Video's Studio A in Primos, a suburb of Philadelphia." Not true.

"with dancers standing in as host towards the final months. Not accurate.

"The series was based on a local program on WPHL-TV, Dancin' On Air, which was produced from 1981-1987 by Michael Nise and his father, Frank." Not accurate.

During 1986, the same studio set was used for both Dance Party USA and Dancin' On Air, and both shows were taped / broadcasted live on the same days. As a result, some dancers and guests appeared on both series which caused some confusion for the fans of the shows.

Please help. Thanks, Chrystle Eberts, dancepartyusa, aka omni 200 inc, PH 856-963-6400 corporate@omni2000.com Dancepartyusa (talk)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did on Dance Party USA. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia. If you feel the material in question should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Dance Party USA, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Accounts used solely for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warning.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. Thank you. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding commercial material to Wikipedia. It is considered spam, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Dance Party USA. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gtg204y 20:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Party USA[edit]

You are welcome to contribute to this article even if you have a conflict of interest, if you follow the guidelines. However, additions like "against the backdrop of everyday kids dancing while having good, clean fun!!! It was a program that parents watched with their kids.", "The roster of stars reads like a "Who's Who" in the entertainment industry from the 50's through the 90's" and the general "we are better than show x" tone are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use IPs to circumvent warnings. If you continue adding promotional material to Wikipedia without discussion, you will be blocked from editing. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 00:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the changes you made again. -- Whpq 10:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of this writtng, Ill remove all the comments you suggested, and will submitt a revised version for your approavel. thanks, dancepartyusaDancepartyusa (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to DANCIN' ON AIR[edit]

Message posted on Monday, April 23, 2007[edit]

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to DANCIN' ON AIR. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.tv.com/dancin-on-air/show/28727/summary.html in this case) 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:DANCIN' ON AIR with a link to where we can find that note;
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:DANCIN' ON AIR with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:DANCIN' ON AIR saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your original contributions are welcome.

Whpq 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nise[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Dancin' on air, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.cooljunkie.com/forum/philly-junkies/88272-dancin-air-reunion-11-19-04-a.html. As a copyright violation, Dancin' on air appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Dancin' on air has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Dancin' on air and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Dancin' on air with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Dancin' on air.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 20:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understand your concern - got it. Willcomply . tahnks, Chrystlr 02:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008[edit]

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Dance Party USA. Thanks. Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to comply with your conditions.

dancepartyusa is OMNI 2000 Inc, the copyright holder and producer of Dance Party USA. Michael Nise was the creator, producer, executive producer of DANCE PARTY USA. He is currently President of OMNI 2000 Inc. Therefore:

1) Any text that is quoted in this article, that you've cited as being quoted elsewhere, was written by danceparyusa. I'm only quoting from our own work. Therefore, the material you cited is NOT violating anybody's copyrights. This also applies to the article we posted for Dancin' On Air. However, if you still want me to change the text so that it is not a direct quatoe, I can comply. Pls let me know.

2) the only citations and references regarding the accuracy in this article comes from dancpartyusa. What do you need as “proof accuracy” of the facts and figures included in this article? Pls help me understand your request.

3) I thought I removed all the text I thought you consider to be advertising. So I don’t understand what to what text you are calling “advertising.” (???) pls help me understand wwhat this text is that you call "advertising"?

4) I’ve removed all the links that I thought you cited to be in violation of your terms and conditions. If I’m wrong, please let me know what links are still objectionable?

Thanks, Chrystel Eberts

Please read Wikipedia:CP#Copyright_owners_who_submitted_their_own_work_to_Wikipedia and WP:COI. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Category talk:Wikipedia copyright[edit]

Category talk:Wikipedia copyright, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:Wikipedia copyright and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Category talk:Wikipedia copyright during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. OlEnglish ^(Talk) 05:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of One House Street[edit]

The article One House Street has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable TV show, chronically unsourced, no independent sigcov provided to establish notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jdcooper (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]