User talk:Futurama Fan Forum

Futurama Fan Forum
A tag has been placed on Futurama Fan Forum, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. If you can indicate why Futurama Fan Forum is really not blatant advertising, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Futurama Fan Forum. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11 under General criteria. You might also want to read the guidelines on spam. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert why the article is not blatant advertising, please affix the template  to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How can i prove i am not advertising it?
 * Well, the thing is, your name pretty much says it all. You may not be the creator of the site, just a member, but your name tells me you have a conflict of interest. Articles should be written about things that are well known enough that an independent third party is motivated to write the article. In any event, if this wasn't deleted under the tag I used it would be deleted under a different tag, db-bio, since there was no assertion of notability (how can you make such an assertion; it's a brand new site with (if I remember correctly) 47 members). Here's the rub: even if you were to repost the article with claims of notability, it would still likely be deleted by a different process, AFD, where we debate whether a page meets our policies and guidelines for encyclopedic content. Some of those guidelines are that things must be notable (not good or worthy or useful or well made, etc.) in order to have an article about them. This is because an encyclopedia is not for the announcement of new things but is a tertiary source, synthesizing data from primary and secondary sources, about things that are already known and written about in the world. Some of our policies and guidelines that would be implicated are WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEB, WP:CORP and WP:NN. Please explore the site, don't less this sour you. Wikipedia is a worthy endeavor, but it is an encyclopedia. Meanwhile, go make pages about this on myspace, geocities, Youtube, etc. It is not fit content for here.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)