User talk:Tube bar

Speedy deletion of Digital press
A tag has been placed on Digital press, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

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. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Digital press requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or 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. 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 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 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. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Digital press
I placed the following on the article's talk page:
 * WP:WAX Not a valid argument. I nominated for speedy deletion on the basis that I could not find any evidence of notability (see WP:N) on Google and can only assume it is spam. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically I nominated because I can find no evidence of notability of the website. There are plenty of fansites out there, you need to prove that this is notable in some way. Googling you returns very few hits in the first 5 pages. Googling your URL only returns links to forums, other wikis, etc. You need coverage from notable sources to prove notability on here. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave you an example of another website that is very similar to Digital press - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtariAge. When I Google "Atariage" I get the same number of 'notable' links - 2. But if you do a search for DP founder Joe Santulli you pull up a whole page of links. I just don't understand how one page can be valid and the other not valid, when both are essentially the same. Either both should be allowed, or neither.
 * Again, please read WP:WAX, unfortunately your argument is not a valid one. I will have a look at AtariAge and see if it is worth nominating for deletion, although given its longevity on Wikipedia would have to go to WP:PROD or WP:AFD BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

BlinkingBlimey, I have read the WP: WAX page. Digital Press had a page on Wiki for at least 2 years because I originally put it up (in 2005)! (in fact, there's still a 'mobi' file page for it at Wiki - http://wapedia.mobi/en/Digital_Press). It was only today that I noticed it was removed. Again, please investigate the AtariAge example I keep giving you (which btw, SELLS games - http://www.atariage.com/store/index.php - so that could certainly be construed as a for-profit site. Otherwise your reason for removing it is invalid, and unfair.
 * It is neither invalid nor unfair. WP:WAX states quite clearly that you cannot use the existence of an article on a similar subject to justify your article. It has also been pointed out on Talk:Digital Press that AtariAge has the involvement of notable Atari programmers. You need to justify the existence of your page on its own merits, not on the merits of another page. WP:WEB will give you some pointers on this. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your WP:WAX should not apply in this case. Every example you've given me for removing it so far has been proven invalid. First, the page was "blatant advertising" for a (profit) company (which it's not), then it was a nobility issue (even though the first 2 links on Google are for the site - same as AtariAge), now you're telling me I can't use AtariAge as an example, even though it fits all the same criteria (precendence means nothing??), and that AtariAge's page won't be removed b/c it's been up too long, even though Digital Press' original Wiki page was up several years before being removed for whatever reason (which I was never told). Now you want examples of Digital Press being involved with programmers. Fine. We've interviewed DOZENS of classic programmers: http://www.digitpress.com/library/interviews/ Both Garry and Dan Kitchen (2 former Atari VCS/2600 programmers) recently stopped by our store: http://www.digitpress.com/images/store/index_28.htm  If that isn't enough, Digital Press is closely involved with the Classic Gaming Expo (http://www.cgexpo.com/) - an annual show that celebrates classic video games and the people who made them (I see the Wiki page for CGE has been removed as well.. nice). AtariAge's involvement with programmers is limited to getting their permission to sell copies of unreleased games -- that's it. As I said, if Wiki allows the Atariage page to exist, then it should allow the Digital Press page to exist for the same reason(s), otherwise it should be pulled.
 * Can you please re-read and understand WP:WAX? If you can, can you explain why your page should be exempt?
 * Moving on, you need to prove notability for your website. You cannot do this by simply pointing to another website that has a page and saying "they are on Wikipedia, so we should be as well." You must prove notability of your own site. This is generally done by having significant coverage in independent sources. It is not done by having a Google search for your site returning your site as the first hit. Again, please re-read WP:WEB.
 * Finally, please assume good faith. Looking at the logs of the various pages you have created there have been at least three editors and a further three administrators involved in the deletion of these pages. Instead of assuming that there's an orchestrated effort to locate and delete pages related to your site it might, instead, be that they all are trying to improve Wikipedia and have independently concluded the pages in question do not meet Wikipedia's standards. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Blimey.. are you even checking any of the links I've given? Did you even go to the website? Digital Press has been around since 1991! There's so much information and material on that website alone that it would take me all day to even list it all. I've given you the best example of why the page should stay up, citing a similar page, and you tell me that's against policy. I've given you links to sections of DP that no other site has anything remotely similar to. Look at it from my point of view - what on Earth do I have to do, to prove to you the importance of Digital Press in the classic video game community when every example I've given you gets "overruled". Your very first reason for removing the page was ("I could not find any evidence of notability (see WP:N) on Google"). NOW you're telling me the number of references on Google means nothing. How can I possibly win here? How is Wikipedia improving itself by removing one page while leaving an identical one up? That is as valid a question as any. What kind of example is Wiki setting when a single user can remove a page without even fully investigating the website in question, on a subject he or she clearly knows very little about? If you knew *anything* about Digital Press and Atari Age, you'd realize just how absurd your arguement is; in fact, the exact opposite situation would be in effect, because you'll never convince me that a site like Atariage has more "nobility" or worth to a community than a site such as Digital Press.
 * Please, try and re-read WP:WAX, because you clearly have not understood it. And also, I am not, technically, the one who deleted your page. I was the one who made the first nomination, since then another editor nominated and two administrators concurred with the nominations. I am not the only one who feels your page does not meet Wikipedia's standards.
 * Again, please assume good faith I spent a lot of time looking into the site, and the Google hits. You cannot use self-references as evidence of notability, you cannot use references on an internet forum. You need to have references from notable sources, national media, for example.
 * Finally, I'm not trying to convince you that AtariAge has notability. It is actually for you to prove that Digital Press has notability. I have been trying to help you do that, by pointing you to the relevant policies with which you need to comply, most importantly WP:WEB. I have copied the relevant criteria below so you don't need to follow the link:


 * 1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
 * 2) * This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following:
 * 3) ** Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
 * 4) ** Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
 * 5) The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
 * 6) The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for:
 * 7) *Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)
 * Unfortunately repeatedly pointing to AtariAge is not one of those criteria.BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's start with the books. Here's links for the latest books available, from Amazon:

Collector's Guide: http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Press-Video-Collectors-Guide/dp/0970980701/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201108396&sr=1-1

with independent review: http://2600connection.atari.org/dp.html

Advance collector's guide: http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Press-Video-Collectors-Advance/dp/0970980728

with independent review: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/26/170153.php

The Digital Press store, which has been in business for over 2 years: http://www.digitpress.com/store/

The Digital Press online store, which has been in business for over 9 years: http://stores.ebay.com/Digital-Press-Videogames-LLC

Theh Digital Press YouTube page, with over 400 videos and 150 subscribers: http://www.youtube.com/digitpress

scans of Tips and Tricks magazine articles for which DP founder Joe Santulli wrote a regular column: http://www.digitpress.com/archives/collectors/index.htm

If you want more outside links, simply Google "Digital Press Santulli"

Btw, I'm still waiting to hear why the page was removed to begin with. The original page was over 2 years old, so.. why am I being forced to jump through all these hoops in order to restore it??
 * Doesn't matter. Shoudn'thave been here in the first place.  Tow years is a long time to leave up a crappy article, but that gives it no merit in saving it. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice attitude. So it doesn't matter whether or not Digital Press has been around for 17 years, or how many books or articles they've written, or how many people they've interviewed... if some Wiki user overseas deems it "crappy", that's all the reason they need to remove it. Exactly what would be my motivation at this point to continue fighting this issue when someone needs basically no good reason to remove it??

Shouldn't have been here?! What exactly is Wikipedia FOR?!?


 * For subjects which meet Wikiepdia's general notability criteria, and nothing else. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:A-dpbutton.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:A-dpbutton.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Tube bar for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.