Talk:Tailrank.com

Don't know what happened to the original stub I created for this, but it appears to have been deleted on the grounds that it was an ad and/or not noteworthy.

It was not an ad. I am a user. I don't recall the way it was originally phrased, but if the person who deleted it felt it was too glowing, the proper step would have been to edit it for tone, not deletion!

It is definitely noteworthy, as it drives a lot of traffic to various blogs, and its contents are of interest to those who track the way memes move through popular discussion.

--OtisTDog 17:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, see WP:WEB, the notability guideline concerning web content. If this article doesn't assert the notability/importance/significance of the topic, it's grounds for deletion and potentially speedy deletion.

Secondly, the page log shows that the article was speedy deleted on 17:30, March 14, 2006 by Admrboltz (talk · contribs) for "CSD G1", referring to #1 here. If you don't belive the page was properly deleted, you should make a claim on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Practically, however, unless you can demonstrate that this content is appropriate for Wikipedia (by meeting WP:WEB and more importantly, Wikipedia:Attribution). Hope this helps. I'll post the info on your talk page as well. -- Scientizzle 17:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disqualified for being "patent nonsense"?? I don't think so, unless it was changed after I did the stub. I can't seem to get at the original version to check on the veracity of the claim that it qualified under CSD G1, but if it did, a revert would have been in order. It was a stub. I put out the stub as a start to a better article. Hopefully one contributed to by others. You know, like one would find in a community-edited online encyclopedia! Are you saying I have to request an undelete of the old version first? Also, on what basis are you challenging its notability? Have you even looked at the site? --OtisTDog 18:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the G1 reasoning is plausibly flawed, especially if the content you created today is similar to the previous article. You don't have to do a deletion review if you're okay with using the current version of the article. -- Scientizzle 19:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag

I placed the {{notability}} tag on the article when it was at this stage. At that point, the article had made no claim of notability to meet WP:WEB and had provided no links except for Tailrank.com.

Since then, the article has been expanded to include external links that discuss the topic. These may or may not meet the criteria of the notability guideline, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. Creating a "media attention" section, cited (WP:CITE) nicely, would definitely help. -- Scientizzle 19:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the followup and the formatting/style improvements. I understand the motivation if you thought I was just trying to override a proper deletion. Congratulations on instilling a sense of ownership in me to improve the page! I'll try to provide some history once I know more about it myself. --OtisTDog 19:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]