User talk:GoldenChamp

Reply
Hi, and welcome. Thanks for message. I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, as defined in the link, or they will be deleted. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or their organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Although you gave references, most, if not all, don't meet our definition of independent third-part sources. Instead you used links associated with him, social media and YouTube (there is actually a bot that eventually removes YouTube, Twitter and Facebook links!)


 * It's not clear how this meets the notability guidelines. You quote numbers of views and subscribers, but that lacks independent third-party referencing, the rest of the content is just gossip column stuff or plot summariea. I see that an experienced reviewer had declined your draft because it did not show notability
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. That's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to affiliated sites, his own videos and announcements and so on, clearly promotional


 * Much of the text is content summaries of YouTube material that seems to be just advertorial for the channel
 * Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: ''The channel is known for having a rather close cult following... only available if you buy the album.


 * You seem to be very well informed about this obscure channel. If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it.

I've seen worse than this in terms of promotional content, and removing the in-text url links and a bit of clean up would fix that. I think your real problem is establishing notability in our terms. You need to please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read this important guidance. You must also reply to the COI request above.

If you still wish to proceed and have responded to the COI query, and I'll see if there is a way I can restore the text without it being immediately deleted again. Alternatively i could just restore the time-consuming tables and infoboxes. Have a think about what I have said, Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Put anything you want to say above this. I'd like to keep the bellow as a reminder to my self to consider all of Wikipedia's policies before editing anything.

November 2017
There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Widr (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked? PhilKnight (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Edited appeal to include how I would contribute if unblocked. GoldenChamp (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)