Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nick Rose Day

Quote : If you wish to prevent this article from being deleted, the way to do so is to provide verifiable evidence.<br. May I ask what is wrong with simply asserting notability ? To provide evdience requires that one be involved in the phenomenon, at which point, surely, one's view is open to challenge on the ground that one has a vested interest in the topic and the entry. SockpuppetSamuelson 13:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. To recap, slightly paraphrased from the main page, some very basic Wikipedia principles:


 * Verifiability - What gets put here has to be third-party verifiable. References provided by the subject don't count. If Nick Rose Day is true and notable, then it should simplicity itself to point to third-party, independent (i.e.; unmassaged or tampered with by asserter) references. ... Point to a specific (public) page or some other third-party source. This article has NO verifiable sources -- zip, zero, zilch, nil, nada, bupkis, bugger all.
 * Vanity - "Vanity articles", as Wikipedia calls them, are verboten. to quote:
 * Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.
 * By the above definition, this article is bursting at the seams with vanity.
 * Autobiography - If you're the subject of the article, don't write about yourself.

Notice that these are SEPERATE principles. Click on any of the above links for details. To give the Reader's Digest version, "Because I said so" is never an acceptable basis for an article, article section, or even assertion; proving it is.

If you find these fundamental, rock-bottom, non-negotiable Wikipedia prinicples too limiting, well, MySpace beckons. --Calton | Talk 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with simply asserting notability? Simple. I could just as well state that there is an alien Zygorthian moon base. Sorry, I can't provide any verifiable sources that prove it exists. You'll just have to take my word and that of all these various anonymous IPs as proof. Thankfully, this isn't how Wikipedia works. If it did, the amount of completely bunk articles on this resource would absolutely skyrocket. --Durin 13:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)