Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook

I'm afraid that this article was flagged because of my "editing". This was attempted in an effort to correct the ending of the article which did not coincide with information posted on http://www.p-p-p-powerbook.com. I am however confused as to which guideline for deletion the article violates. The article describes a well known internet event, which is at least as interesting as All_your_base or JEFF_K. keep 68.185.207.169 04:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm not sure precisely why Zoe nominated this article, but you musn't necessarily think it was something you did. Editors nominate articles for deletion for many reasons. Whatever the precise reason however, they are all usually felt to contravene one or more of Wikipedia's central rules. For articles, the most important rules can be read on the following pages:
 * WP:V,
 * WP:NOR,
 * WP:NOT,
 * WP:NPOV,
 * WP:RS,
 * WP:Copyrights.
 * In addition to these rules, many editors, including some important Wikipedians such as Jimbo Wales, feel that a topic, to be included in the encyclopedia on a page of its own, should demonstrate a quality commonly called notability. Whatever is eventually decided about this article, I do feel that it currently does not satisfy one of the most important rules on wikipedia, WP:V. The verifiability rule is perhaps the most important rule we have to safeguard the integrity of the encyclopedia—without it, we may as well be publishing a gossip mag. Unfortunately, WP:V is perhaps also the least understood, and in my observation one of the most contravened Wikipedia policies. To satisfy WP:V, everything that you write in an article should be able to be verified from an external, independent, reputable publication. If you write an article on wheezing, for example, you should be able to show that what you write there has also been written in an independent reputable publication elsewhere. Note the references in that article: they support every single claim written in it. The references are all reputable, independent works, and are a good basis for the article. The multiplicity of serious works devoted to the subject also serves the related role of establishing notability: if you can find multiple, independent, reputable sources focused on the subject about which you are writing, its notability is difficult to dispute. What sources were used to write this article? There is a link to an online forum discussion. This is woefully inadequate as a source for an encylopedia article, even one with Wikipedia's exceptionally permissive standards. Blogs, postings in online fora, and personal websites are inadequate for the verifiability standards in encyclopedias, and have been declared unacceptable in WP policy documents. WP accepts books, newsreports, journals, magazines, theses, and official or peer-reviewed reports. Sources must be credible and reputable. If you can adequately source this article, then the information in it can be retained on WP. If not, it should go. Just thought I'd try to help by explaining some important WP rules. Incidentally, if you would like your comment and vote to be considered, they should be placed on the main project page of this AFD. I'll place it there for you. Kind regards enceph  alon  21:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah. I see you've moved it there yourself. Regards enceph  alon  21:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)