Stormfly
Speedy deletion of Bridestelevision.com
edit
A tag has been placed on Bridestelevision.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Anonymous101 (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Brides Television
editThis was deleted per WP:CSD#A7. The article made no assertion of why the website was notable - there are thousands of sites that are "comprehansive directories". Why is this particularly worthy of inclusion? If you can provide independent third party reliable sources that demonstrate the sites notability then that would help. I can "userfy" the article for you if it helps - e.g. put it into a sandbox for you to work on, so that you can meet the criteria I've pointed about above. Would that help? Pedro : Chat 07:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Please "userfy" the article for me.
Stormfly (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done at User:Stormfly/Sandbox - I'll look into the TV.com article now. Pedro : Chat 07:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, a Google search of TV.com (not a very reliable measure, but quick and easy) doesn't seem to show much notability for that site either. Unfortunately, there is an argument - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - that basically says just because we have one article that doesn't meet our criteria it is not a reason for having more articles that don't meet our criteria. Good luck with your article. Pedro : Chat 08:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources I'm afraid. What would be handy would be, for example, an independent review by an established magazine or coverage by a major television news chanel (these are just examples - basically the key thing is that the source of information is reliable) Pedro : Chat 08:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, a Google search of TV.com (not a very reliable measure, but quick and easy) doesn't seem to show much notability for that site either. Unfortunately, there is an argument - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - that basically says just because we have one article that doesn't meet our criteria it is not a reason for having more articles that don't meet our criteria. Good luck with your article. Pedro : Chat 08:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)