User talk:PeterWacks

Notability of Peter Wacks
A tag has been placed on Peter Wacks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. The Anome (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Hi there Peter. I can't help but notice that you have the same name as the article you have created. To avoid any problems down the road, I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest when it comes to creating and/or editing articles. Cheers. Prince of Canadat 23:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Article
What exactly are you trying to do with Peter Wacks? It is clearly your name, so unless you are a notable person as outlined here, the article will be deleted by an administrator (of which I am not)  C t j f 8 3 Talk 23:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

response
I'm trying to keep it as factual as I know how. Yes, it is my page. I'm a published author and game designer, and linked to on the Cyberpunk CCG page. I do have a 30,000 person international mailing list of fans, as well as referenced publications, so I figured it would be enough to construct my wiki page. I'm just not the most web savvy person, so I'm trying to figure out how to build the page correctly.
 * Hi Peter. Have you read the information about our conflict of interest and notability policies?  You really need to address those, especially notability, if you want a page about you to stay up.  Further, recreating an already-deleted page is a big no-no, and raises a lot of red flags.  I am not saying you are acting in poor faith, but it is considered a warning sign when that happens.  Also, please sign your talk page comments with four tildes, like this: ~ .  Cheers. Prince of Canadat 00:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because there was nothing in the page to show any kind of notability. Like most of us who write for the gaming industry, you fail to meet our standards of notability. Gygax gets an article, Steve Jackson gets an article; you do not. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC) former underpaid TSR writer in S.E. Wisconsin; aren't we all?
 * I have read them. the only one I don't meet is 'independent of the subject'.  But all I site is the isbn of my novel, the wiki page which already mentions me that I didn't construct, and the magazines which have published me.  I was reposting to reference and rebuild, trying to meet the guidelines.  My major quandry is that I'm already linked to on Wiki, so why the page about me not postable?  Orangemike - I'm not falling back on my game industry writing as 'notable'  being the major designer of a game that was referred to as a hit by industry sources is one reason..  the second is that I am now a novelist, with nothing to do with the game industry. ((Heh.  All the writers I know who worked for TSR..  yep.  I dodged working for them luckily)) PeterWacks (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)PeterWacks
 * Peter, can you please provide links to substantial coverage in reliable third party publications? Many people publish single books; that does not make them automatically notable.  Hell, I've been published in an anthology, and have released several club tracks.  I'm not, however, notable. Prince of Canadat 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I live off the royalties and have books 2 & 3 underway, with a 30,000 e-mail fanlist.  Shall I wait until the other books are out, or should I send an e-mail out asking fans to construct the page?  I'm not sure on how to proceed, and I appreciate the feedback you guys are giving me. PeterWacks (talk)PeterWacks
 * Um, Peter, you're still missing the point. Congratulations on your success, that's great. But you are not quite understanding what 'notability' means; perhaps we are being unclear.  Are you able to provide substantial third-party coverage showing that you are notable? Prince of Canadat 00:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you mean. I've been reading other author pages and for a wiki page what is needed is half a dozen or more links to outside wiki showing me, correct? PeterWacks (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)PeterWacks
 * Close. The number of the links is not as important as the quality.  One link each to, say, the NY Times and the BBC would be much more reliable than multiple links to less well-known and -respected publication sources.  Please read this for a guideline as to reliable sources.  Bottom line: you need to prove that according to reliable third-party sources (that does not generally include: blogs, forum posts, fansites, corporate promotional material, press releases, or anything similarly self-published) you are a noteworthy individual.  Even simpler: do you make news? Have you been reported on in reliable news sources or scholarly publications?  If the answer to these questions is 'no', then generally you will not pass the notability bar. Prince of Canadat 01:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice.. so all of a sudden, the cyberpunk cgg becomes a 'candidate for deletion'??  I added one sentence of editing (and then removed it) yet after a long stretch of time on wiki it goes up within hours of this discussion... and then OrangeMike targets it for deletion.  WTF man? You're in the game industry as you claim then you know the CCG still has a cult fan base..  how can you say its not relevant?  And saying that its a conflict of interest..  uh..  yeah, I'm not a major contributor. And now, I'm not a contributor to it at all. PeterWacks (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)PeterWacks
 * Hi Peter. The article was nominated for deletion because it doesn't appear to meet the guidelines for notability.  If you disagree, remove the template, and add sources to the article which show how the subject is notable.  This requires third-party independent reliable sources. I have also placed below a convenient menu of important Wikipedia links that should help explain where we are coming from.  If you have any questions, please feel free to ask; I think we can all see that the subject is important to you.  We just want to be sure that the subject is important (notable) in a wider sense as well.  After all, when you look for information on Wikipedia, you want to be sure that what you are reading is both accurate and important (in an encyclopedic sense), don't you?  That's all that's going on here. Prince of Canadat 15:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, But I'm confused. If I contribute to the article, wont that be a conflict of interest, even if only citing a couple of sources?PeterWacks (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)PeterWacks
 * Not necessarily. conflict of interest policies ask that you exercise great caution when making edits to articles with which you are intimately involved.  Finding independent and reliable sources, and maintaining a neutral point of view means you're unlikely to end up in any conflict.  Example: "The CCG was created in 2003 and sold 1.5 million units in its first year of production" (apologies for incorrect details) is fine. "The CCG, which is still the best of its kind, had amazing success after its launch" is not.  Stick to verifiable and sourced facts--even more than the average WP editor--and you should be fine.  I'm sure that anyone who has commented here would be more than happy to back-check your edits for you before you make them live.  If you click here, you have a sandbox you can use for testing edits. Prince of Canadat 16:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you're not certain about the conflict-of-interest thing, just post suggested edits on the talk page of the article, and let other editors judge for themselves whether to incorporate them in the article. The Prince is making a lot of sense here. (I assure, there's no agenda behind my deletion nomination; but "still has a cult following" isn't much of an assertion of notability.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Prince is making a lot of sense here."
 * Your cheque is in the mail ;) Peter.. to comment further on the notability issue: Rocky Horror Picture Show has a cult following and is notable; collecting decks of cards from casinos also has a cult following, but isn't.  Does that help? Prince of Canadat 16:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha.  Thanks again Mike & Prince, I'll get some references up.  PeterWacks (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)PeterWacks