User talk:BornonJune8/Archive9

History of the Arena Football League in Oklahoma City moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, History of the Arena Football League in Oklahoma City, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syndicated station lists

Between the 80s and now, there have been between 180-215 defined television markets according to Nielsen. That means according to basic Wiki standards, we would need that many sources to list the program's entire affiliate base. We cannot hope to source that many television markets, and it is not a standard to list a syndicated show's affiliates (if it were, 70% of the Star Trek: The Next Generation article would be a list of more than 200 sources and an entire undecodable grid showing where the show moved around in each market, and if crufters got their way, its timeslot variations over its seven seasons...and that's just North America). All we need to know for our purposes is that it's a syndicated show, and the vast majority of people do not care where it aired in Cheyenne, Wyoming. It's WP:CRUFT, and WP:TV has de facto made this a standard, for very good reason. Nate • (chatter) 19:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TVSERIES, which is explicit as to why this information doesn't belong (and why the TNG example listed above will never get an article). It's not me being a snob or selective, just our basic policies preventing our articles from becoming overwhelmed by fanon information. Other websites can go into the intricacies of a show's scheduling, but here, we should summarize the most important parts of a series. Its affiliate base simply is not that. Nate • (chatter) 20:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now asking you to stop persisting on this. Our guidelines don't allow these lists, I've given you the advice, and I have nothing else to say on the topic because I have more pressing concerns here than this content. Stop posting to my talk page. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also...I see you've been advised on WP:YOUTUBE in the past. That's another reason for the reversions, because those sources are not reliable for Wiki standards, thus they can be removed by anyone here, any time. Nate • (chatter) 21:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't want me to discuss this on your own talk page, why when I said that the notability link that you sent was actually about television and radio stations, not the shows that they carried themselves, you get extremely defensive and insinuate that I'm bothering you for simply attempting to clarify your information? I'll that I said is that what you implied isn't entirely accurate, and you shot back by saying that I'm deliberately going out of my way in not "taking your advice". BornonJune8 09:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: And even if I didn't use YouTube as a point in reference, I still have this from Broadcasting magazine from January 1987: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-BC/BC-1987/BC-1987-01-12.pdf BornonJune8 09:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last word on this; see WP:ELNO also (someone on a message board is not a source, and sourcing through industry ads in a long PDF of a commercial work that isn't in the public domain is also unacceptable). I've given you links to the proper policies we follow, and reversions will continue to follow. This is information the layman in no way cares about. You've been here long enough to know basic article guidelines at this point. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: And my own last word on this, generally speaking, as long as a reference would be available to the general public, then shouldn't it be able to be used? If it’s not (e.g., personal knowledge and experience, historical records held in a private collection), that would not be an acceptable source since other editors would be unable to verify that the source actually says what is claimed? To put it in another way, Wikipedia content must be freely licensed. Sources should, however, be accessible to the general public, but they may only be available via payment, subscription, library access, and so on. The fact that a source is not freely licensed or requires payment to access does not bar its use. Also, don't you think that a if person who is writing the ad (and likely has a strong interest in self-promotion), they should really only be used to source statements about the advertisement itself, not something claimed in it? BornonJune8 1:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a couple problems here. Firstly, BornonJune, it is plagiarism to grab something someone else wrote and use it without attribution. You did that with the above statement, which I wrote, and that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Secondly, you misrepresent it. "Sources" like forum posts and advertisements are not reliable. But don't you plagiarize and misrepresent me again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: The forum posts from Radio Discussions forums (assuming that's what you're referring to) are not for the most part, personal recollections from the users. They are from actual news paper articles from that time frame. If I actually cited the newspapers themselves instead of the discussion forum, would that make much of a difference in terms of what is or isn't reliable? And I still don't understand how the content in this link isn't considered reliable in itself. It's from my perspective, available to the free public via Google it, so isn't it technically in the public domain? BornonJune8 9:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, that latter link and all others to "worldradiohistory.com" you keep posting are shameless copyright violations and should be deleted immediately per WP:EL. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of National Lacrosse League on television

Hello BornonJune8,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged National Lacrosse League on television for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mccapra (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of MGM/UA Premiere Network for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MGM/UA Premiere Network is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MGM/UA Premiere Network until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nate • (chatter) 03:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]