Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Videology


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Speedy Delete CSD G11: Blatant Advertising by User:Anthony Appleyard (non-admin close). — Travis talk  15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Videology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is written in a spamish tone, possible WP:COI issues, and the sources do not seem to establish notability. VivioFa teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 08:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, my name is Gaetan and I'm the editor of the Videology page you've considered for deletion. It's never been my intention for the page to appear spammish, but I guess it's hard to keep an objective mind when writing about something you helped create. Since your comment I've attempted to erase signs of 'spammish' or subjective nature. Hope this will do… If - in the future - there will be any public criticism about Videology, I will also add these references in order to keep the article as balanced as possible. Cheers, Gaetan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videology (talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The current article does not show notability of a web page. It has references but unreliable sources. All sources link to its own web, blogs and a forum posting. Dekisugi (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please guys... We are a small non-profit webzine with a noble course… to give young artists and directors a forum and a way to clarify their visions. Of course we don't have that many references yet. I guess the most reliable is where you can see a lot of unbiased blogs picking up on our posts. Thank you. Videology (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you don't have any references, then it means that you are not notable enough to have your own article in Wikipedia. Please remember Wikipedia is not a vehicle to advertise you or your company. Dekisugi (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK.. I've added about 10 references from independent sources around the world (German, Moldavian, Spanish, Canadian, Australian). They all refer to the interviews or have added our video player. Hope this makes us notable enough... I love Wikipedia to much to use it as a vehicle. I've patiently waited to enter the Videology article.Videology (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They are still unreliable. Many sources are coming from the primary source (its own website), thus it is not neutral. Others sources are linked to blogs and forum posting, which are unreliable. See my comment above. Dekisugi (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 7 sources are coming from Videology, to 19 comming from other sites. Only one site in the reference list is a forum. The rest are bloggers who pick it up, we do not spam or pay them. two sites are official artist sites from major bands. Check their myspace: [CSS] - [Jeff Lewis]. in addition are 2 links to major record labels who added our video player because of a Videology interview with their bands: [Monotreme records] - [Barsuk records] Videology (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I said couple of times that they are not reliable sources. Please read WP:V and WP:RS guidelines. Dekisugi (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read and I do understand, but like it says 'guidelines' (not rules) put together to prevent abuse. Please in this case visit some of these links and let your common sense judge... and if still in doubt, see CSS, Jeff Lewis, Barsuk and Monotreme as a reference.Videology (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen those websites. They are not reliable. The sources are only a trivial mentioning of the subject. The guidelines are set as a basis for the policy. Without non-trivial independent reliable secondary sources, any articles are subjected for deletion on the basis of non-notabilty. Dekisugi (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * indeed "subjected for..." what more can i say.. it's out of my hands. Videology (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is one of our official content policies. It does not exist merely to prevent abuse.  It, in conjunction with our other content policies, defines what content is acceptable here, and is determined by the fundamental nature of the project.  See User:Uncle G/On sources and content. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Speedy Delete not notable, blatant COI, and very spammy Mayalld (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per CSD G11 LightAnkhC|MSG 12:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  13:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.