User talk:Paulowan

Notability of Porno King

A tag has been placed on Porno King, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Betaeleven 15:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battlezone

The reason I undid the edit was due to the excess detail (should have explained that), and that it was original research. Per attribution policy, such information should be able to be independently verifiable from a reliable, independent source. In this case, you are going on your own experience of the community, which is original research. Even with links to forums, they are generally not accepted as reliable sources. In addition, the list of best players is apparently based on your own opinion, serves little value in the article as a whole, and again is not really verifiable.--Drat (Talk) 12:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have admitted that the information "is based on position as administrator of a tournament organising website". This is original research, and not permitted. The forums themselves would not be a sufficient source, as forums are rarely if ever reliable sources. What is to stop someone else coming along, and claiming that they were admins of a different set of forums, and painting a whole different picture of the shape of the community? If anyone questions your information, will you always be here to verify it? What about in a year, or five?--Drat (Talk) 02:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that no-one else can verify the information short of asking you, hence making it not independently verifiable. Regarding what you said about others changing the info, due to differing opinions, that is again original research. Has any reliable source independent of the community written anything about this community? By the way, please sign your comments with "~~~~" (without quotes).--Drat (Talk) 12:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to revert the information. Please do not add it again unless you can cite it to a source that is both independent, reliable and verifiable by others.--Drat (Talk) 02:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]