Critical Intervention Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Significant news coverage, e.g. http://www.cisworldservices.org/videos/jennings.mpg, http://www.cisworldservices.org/NewAV/foxnewsreport.mpg, http://www.cisworldservices.org/Videos/44NEWS.MPG, http://www.cisworldservices.org/Videos/10NEWS_3.MPG, http://www.cisworldservices.org/NewAV/fox-cimarron-edit-mpg1-qif-jra.mpg Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure why this DRV is needed as the article was userfied to User:Aldrich Hanssen/Sandbox on 29th June on request (since blanked by the user) and advice as to how to improve it to pass A7 (& beyond) was also given. nancy ^(talk) 21:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, its deletion should have been decided at AfD, if anywhere, since the media/book coverage cited in the article automatically created enough presumption of notability to survive CSD. I notice from the videos above that they have arrest powers within their jurisdiction, making them essentially a private police force, a rarity in modern America; which to me would also tend to increase their notability. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh.... Having take a look at the userfied version, that did make A7. I'll have to endorse that. However, it looks like you've found some things that could be used to establish notability, so it is perfectly fine if you go a create the article. You still have the userfied version as at least a starting point, but disputing an A7 on the basis of newly found sources usually doesn't net an overturn. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Go ahead and start the article. Move the old userfied article, if you use it, or just start again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilertv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am here to discuss that the spoiler Tv page have been delete not only when I and underexperince wikipedia editor made it but also when a experienced wikipedia editor made it. It seems people think of it as advertising but it is not .I have 2625 people who can all stand up and say they would like this to be put up on wikiedia . Mabey you should stop and think whether movie pages aren't advertising the movies they talk about.. but they are ! but are also give out infomation, we only want to give out information not advertise it , if we wanted to waste out time advertising it we would have done.

So I urge you to take into consideration letting me and my felo forum members to allow us to have A page for Spoiler TV - Daryl McAllister --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed DRV, created corretly for User:Desmond Hume99. Neutral opinion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - as the AfD nom said "non-notable website with literally no external coverage". Disclosure: I am the most recent deleting admin per A7 nancy ^(talk) 12:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every website is non-notable to someone people and is it saying only the biggest and the best are allowd on wikipedia ? that frankly is not the way out world works!! its an ourtage , please reconsider --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a notability inclusion guideline which websites need to meet in order to be included, it can be found here - Wikipedia:Notability (web). Basically for a website to be included on wikipedia it should have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which it has : 1. It has its brother site www.darkufo.blogspot.com which was too big to be included on the actual site ( all about lost) 2.has its own forums ( http://www.spoilertv.co.uk/forum/index.php ) 3: several mentions on the infamous site lostpedia 4.Has had mentions from actual Tv show producers and cast ( ie.damon lindonloft or hendry ian cussic ) 5.has other sister and brother sites to deal with shows and was in the news once

their for it has lots of coverage and no reason to be discarded and would mean alot to people Also the page we created fetured a list of our servises as your notoblity web page says it should have --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs, wikis and forums are generally not WP:Reliable sources for wikipedia and significant coverage means more than just mentions. The sort of thing needed to establish notability would be newspaper articles about the website. Davewild (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having received a message from you saying that no one else has tryied to cover it is a strange truth , in fact 2 other people tried incuding the board leader. --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - no referenced sources in the article and after reading the content of the article this is clearly a non-notable website. LakeBoater (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO not read my artical read one sumbitted by another person since mine ws just to get it up and running so other people could fine tun it , thank you --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

( in bealhf of another board member i say this ) We intended to make this wikpeida with no margin of error so I do not see the point also to conflict with what you said about 2 people haveing to write about it then how did the first pages get made when only 1 man had the idea of wikiepdia ? --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "PROOF

Here is proof:

serveral mentions for its brother site from THIS site :

1. ^ DarkUFO Blogspot - Lost Mobisode, Episode 4 - Juliet Burke artical

1. ^ DarkUFO Blogspot - Lost Mobisode Episode 2 - Hugo "Hurley" Reyes artical + lots more coverage on differnt pages :D

http: //www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Dark_ufo - a hole page deicated to dark ufo and spoiler tv

begavet - know about it since they host the forum

unfortunately no recored media coverage from the producers and cast. but was mentioned on varoius snippets I hope this helps your reconsider --Desmond Hume99 (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, though not as an uninvolved editor. I brought this to AFD, and there is still no evidence that the website is notable. There is literally no reliable third-party coverage of this site. A Google search produces an astounding number of forums where this website is being advertised, but there is nothing substantive. Google News produces one result, and that is from a website called BuddyTV. The "proof" that Desmond gives above is solely blogs and unrefereced wikis, which are not reliable sources. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you argument is colpasing in on its self.
1. A google search of Spoiler Tv actualy shows this :
Spoiler TV
A collection of spoilers and show information for the most popular shows on TV.
spoilertv.blogspot.com/ - 137k - Cached - Similar pages [
SpoilerFix.com] SpoilerFix.com messages to the visitors!
SpoilerFix.com is chock full of TV Spoiler Goodness. For those of us who just can't wait to see for ourselves...
www.spoilerfix.com/ - 10k - Cached - Similar pages H
ardiscoRadio! HardiscoRadio. Current Song: the zutroyans / selection by fu - subsurfer 7 Current Listeners: 1 Broadcast Bitrate: 128 ...
www.sptv.org/ - 3k - Cached - Similar pages
Heroes Television - Season 3 News and Spoilers
HEROES SEASON 3 cast news, screencaps and spoilers by Heroes Television.
www.heroestelevision.com/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

It is only the two ( the actual site and its forum ) one that has any relavence to our debate so their is no so called "an astounding number of forums where this website is being advertised" especily no advertisement.

2. If my proof is so unreferenced and reliable sources why are they on your site as notable references ? why even list them at all ?

3.Buddy Tv has no relavence to our dispute .

4. Proof also shows that is notable for a HUGE! dateabase of thousand of spoilers and media coverage , it is like a online version of Radio Times yet selects sertion shows bu Radio Times still gets a page ?

if you can pick holes in arguments so can I . I hope you reconsider

--Desmond Hume99 (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion The editor would do well to read WP:RS there are no reliable sources that mention this blog. Just because it exists, does not mean it should have an article here at WP. When a major, respected, news organization notices the blog, then it can try again. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Delete No reliable sources, fails wp:web. As per above, User:Desmond Hume99 might want to spend some time at wp:rs, wp:v, and wp:not. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The day A major news organization noises it is like you stikeing gold in your back garden ! I think it looks good ,everyone thinks it look good! why not stop and think , insted of seeing whats wrong, see whats right and you will RECONSIDER!! this :D

1.I WILL GET MAJOR PEOPLE TO MENTION THIS 2. YOU WILL POST IT!! 3.IT WILL HAPPEN SOON!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmond Hume99 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Desmond Hume99 is bragging abut being a sockpuppet of a banned user in the Spoiler TV forums [3]. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indef-blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse deletion I was unable to find any non-trivial reliable sources discussing it. There are one or two mentions on borderline reliable sources, but none of them are non-trivial. The fact that the creator of this is a banned user who can't seem to spell doesn't help matters. Among other things he apparently wants to make a "penition" to have the article kept. I presume he means a "petition." Unless a penition is some new type of legal threat. Maybe his word is some sort of variant of "penitent" and he is trying to penance to make up for wasting our time? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The_Arrogant_Sons_of_Bitches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The band does meet the criteria for musicians and ensembles. "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band...) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria... 6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply." The members of The Arrogant Sons of Bitches who are a part of a notable band is Jeff Rosenstock (foreman of both bands), Mike Costa, John Dedominici, Sean Qualls, Sean McCabe.^[1] The notable band in question is Bomb the Music Industry. In addition to the BtMI members, Dave McWane of Big D and the Kids Table had guest vocals on their final album. ^[2] Punching Kittens (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Got proof? --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Now I do! See the revised reason and my references. Punching Kittens (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per the AfD. I note the new claim of notability above but, even if reliable sources were produced I am not convinced that this alone justifies the article although if verified I would consider recreation as a (protected) redirect to Bomb the Music Industry, which incidently is a large and apparently fluid, collective. Disclosure: I previously deleted the article under WP:CSD#G4. nancy ^(talk) 06:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DRV is not AfD2. The closer interpreted consensus correctly. seresin ( ¡? ) 09:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my own speedy, as I said on my talk page, I see no evidence they pass WP:MUSIC. Note this has also been discussed multiple times on the creator's talk page about what would need to be done to avoid a G4, s/he hasn't taken this under consideration yet. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Ignore that, I missed the request. Endorse deletion, no reason given to ignore the AFD consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]