LostSaint4LifeBIA

Speedy deletion nomination of Brothers in Arms; Lost Saints; Blacksheep

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Brothers in Arms; Lost Saints; Blacksheep requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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 {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Brothers in Arms; Lost Saints; Blacksheep, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please note that content must be verifiable. Based on that, consider this text you added to Brothers in Arms; Lost Saints; Blacksheep:

Therefore, while the Blacksheep are known for vandalism and tagging, the group seeks to keep a low-profile and not attract media attention, nor publicize their inner workings to the public. Also many cities that B.I.A. exists in wish to keep the gang problem a secret so that the city maintains its image of having a low crime rate. As such few publications may be found about this gang as well as other, similar gangs.

You have conceded that reliable sources do not and will not exist about the group. Accordingly, with no hope for the article to meet the verifiability requirement, I have deleted it. —C.Fred (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I WASN"T FINISHED WITH IT YET! I SAID THAT I WOULD ATTEMPT TO FIND PICTURES, NEWS ARTICLES, ANYTHING THAT COULD HELP WITH THE LOCK-DOWN OF THE ARTICLE. I am an INSIDER in the gang. I offered nothing BUT neutral standpoints and I would stand for nothing less. What do you expect, someone totally not interested in flowers to compile something about flowers? Oh, wait, that wouldn't work because they could write FLOWERS STNK all over the page. Or excuse me, "The National Journal for Horticulture" says "FLOWERS STNK". I told you that I could provide all necessary information if you only gave me time. You didn't give me time to provide all that information, let alone defend my article. Could you at least send me a copy of my article, so that I may work on it to your satisfaction? I said FEW publications, not NO publications. I'm sure I can find something when you give me time to look diligently enough... I apologize for my temper earlier.

Your claim of neutrality is severely called into question by this comment you made at Talk:Brothers in Arms; Lost Saints; Blacksheep:

I am an insider providing this information solely to gain recruits for the gang.^{[emphasis added]}

As a laundry list of Wikipedia guidelines and policies this goes against, you've:

• Created an article about an organization that isn't notable
• Created an article that is not verifiable
• Provided no reliable sources for the article
• Written about a subject you have a conflict of interest with
• Written in an attempt to promote the organization

As far as sending you a copy of the article, it does not appear that you've have an email address on file with Wikipedia, so it is not possible to email you the text. —C.Fred (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My reasons for creating the article may not have been neutral, but my article maintained a neutral standpoint throughout. I would have been able to back the article up with resources if I had been given time to. As far as the COI, who do you expect to write about the organization that isn't a member. As fas as I know news hasn't. The only people that would, besides the gang are people we've affected. But, they wouldn't know much factual information, nor they wouldn't be able to back up their information unless they have a resource I haven't found yet. My reasons were to promote, but my article remained neutral. Nowhere in the article did I say, "Join Now!" or "B.I.A. is the best". My reasons for creating it were to provide the public with information about the gang so that those who are looking for a gang might see an opportunity. I'm the only one who will post this information. And I DO have an email address on file with wiki. Do you need me to tell you?

If the media hasn't written about the gang, where would you find independent, neutral reliable sources? The gang is not a valid source except for very limited classes of information: self-published sources are not broadly reliable. If you can provide me with a single independent source that demonstrates the notability of the gang, I'll restore the article.

As for your email address, it was not on file when I wrote the above message; there was no "E-mail this user" link in the sidebar then, although there is now. —C.Fred (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep looking for the source until I find it. Even if it's a shred of info. Even if it's 20 years from now. As for my e-mail I checked my inbox and noticed that I forgot to send a confirmational e-mail.