Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Red vs. Blue. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. — TKD::Talk 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- The appropriate guideline for external links is Wikipedia:External links, which iadvises that the number for fan sites that are linked from an article should be limited, optimally one at most. The Rooster Tooths site is linked because (a) the site is pretty much the largest Rooster Teeth fan site on the Internet; and (b) the owner does actually have clout with the crew; Burnie Burns mentioned in the season 4 DVD comentary that he sometimes sends scripts for continuiuty checks.
- I'm afraid that I'm not quite sure what you're referring to with Polaris. The article Polaris is about what many call the North Star. As for the rticle Rvbto. you should be aware that similar (but not identical) content was deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RVBTO. If you want the article to stay, you should provide third-party, verifiable, reliable sources that demonstrate its notability. — TKD::Talk 05:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know who the operator of the Rooster Tooths site is; I was explaining why it's the one fan site that we link to from Red vs. Blue. Notability doesn't take 20 years to satisfy; you just need to provide multiple third-party sources that discuss the subject nontrivially. See Wikipedia:Notability for more information. The reason that we have this general requirement is to attempt to ensure that we have enough material for an encyclopedic article that discusses the subject from the point of view of unrelated parties.
- Oh, I forgot one very important guideline: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It basically says that you shouldn't be creating or editing articles in which you have a close personal vested interest. So, if you do find third-party sources, it'd be best to post them on the talk page and let someone else have a look first rather than continuing to edit the article itself. I myself am checking for sources, but it doesn't look like much comes up. So I may end up nominating the article for deletion soon, but bear in mind that deletion is no prejudice against re-creation if new information becomes available later.
- I've proposed the article for deletion (you can see more about this process at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion). If, after 5 days, the notice remains, then the article can be deleted. You can still try to find sources in the meantime. Anyone can remove the proposed deletion notice, but, if you do, then most likely a repeat of the Articles for Deletion debate that I linked above would result. So, if you can't find anything, I'd suggest leaving the notice in place, striving to make the event the best that it can be, and wait for someone else to re-create the article with proper sources. If a future version is well-sourced, then it may stick. This isn't personal, and I have nothing against the event, but having an article that does not comply with Wikipedia core policies of verifiability is bad. Good luck with the event. I'd like to see it be notable some day, but I doubt that it is currently. — TKD::Talk 06:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)