Talk:Buzzmaster
The Buzzmaster is a growing on-line sensation, especially to those who are active particpants of "SportsNation" on espn.com. This page is a way for "SportsNation" to keep up to date with the current events of "The Morning Buzz": Funny quotes, new members, etc...There are over 1,000 people who tune in to The Morning Buzz and that number will only continue to grow.
I am still new to wikipedia and will be doing all I can to keep the "Buzzmaster" page in concordance with the guidelines and regulations of wikipedia.
Removal of Speedy Deletion edit
The Morning buzz is a free talk forum where the public discusses, daily, subjects about pop-culture. These forums are archived on espn.go.com for review. As moderator of the increasingly popular chat, 'Buzzmaster,' is a public figure of growing significance and fame. He/she is also responsible for enabling chats with famous athletes (ie Donovan McNabb), actors (ie Will Ferrell), celebrities (ie Jon Bon Jovi), and writers (ie Bill Simmons) to reach the public. Due to Buzz's status within the chat, within the SportsNation community, and within the online department of the ESPN company, Buzzmaster deserves an article on wikipedia and that article should be linked to ESPN's main article.
In addition, this article should prove to be a dynamic item offering frequent updates and improvements.136.165.128.175 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2007
(UTC)Patrick(Louisville)
Issues with the article edit
While I understand that Buzzmaster may be notable within the chat community, a quick Google search does not turn up any news stories, articles, or other third-party reliable sources on the subject, which are necessary to establish notability and ensure that the content of the article is verifiable (incidentally, a Google news search turns up only the chats themselves, but you need a paid account to access it).
If you wish to write about the chats themselves, I would suggest that they would best be placed under the main ESPN article, as from what I've seen they are not a significant enough part of the sight to warrant an article by themself (guidelines for establishing the notability of internet content can be found here). If you wish to write about Buzzkill the person, I suggest that you'd have a much easier time writing about their real identity, as that would broaden the scope of the content that can be included (guidelines for establishing the notability of people can be found here, although biographies of living people must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people).
Please understand that every article on Wikipedia must adhere to the same standards in order to ensure the validity of the project as a point of reference. That being said, I strongly suggest you leave the current deletion tag in place while you work on the article, as it essentially provides a five-day free pass during which you can gather sources and work on expanding verifiable content. If you have any questions, feel free to click the "t" in my signature and leave a message on my talk page. --jonny-mt 02:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Response to "Issues with the article" edit
While I understand that a "quick google search" does not provide any third party sources establishing the notability of "buzzmaster", is it not safe to assume that anything that is notable has to have a beginning of it's notability? We, the people of SportsNation, are taking the proper and necessary steps for this to happen. I am sure you will probably reply back saying this is not the proper venue; but I will be "rallying the troops" to help me in this battle (I use the term very loosely, nothing personal). Thank you. Txthunder (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I'm glad to hear you're getting more people active and involved--I encourage everyone who comes to contribute to this article to register a username (see this link for information on the benefits of registering) and do what they can to improve it. However, I do want to make sure you're aware of two things before you get too far:
- Websites such as blogs, Urban Dictionary, and other user-created sites are not considered reliable sources due to the lack of editorial oversight.
- Wikipedia has a strict policy on disallowing original research.
- I'd also suggest a look through this guide to creating an article for some of the more nuts-and-bolts information on what goes into a Wikipedia article. And if you'd like to take a look at some article deletion discussions so you can get a better understanding of what the community looks for in viable articles, those can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.