[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Tubefilter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article issues

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Bad sources include:

[1][2]

  1. ^ . Hollywood Web Television Meetup http://oct09-hollywoodwebtv.eventbrite.com/. Retrieved 2009-09-18. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |name= ignored (help)
  2. ^ . NetworkedBlogs.com http://www.networkedblogs.com/blog/tubefilter_news/. Retrieved 2009-09-26. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "Tubefilter News" ignored (help)
  1. This is just a link to a copy of one of www.tubefilter.tv/meetup/ hosted on a publicity website.
  2. Another promotional website which allows blog owners to help promote their blog.

To remedy this, I have replaced ref 1 with the original source (www.tubefilter.tv/meetup/) and on ref 2 changed the publisher to Tubefilter Staff as they are the ones fully in control of the content on that site.--Otterathome (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you consider a "bad source" one that contains information that is included in both a primary source and a secondary source? I.e. where in POLICY does it say that? Additionally, the publisher is the person who publishes material, not writes it, the publisher for that blog was correctly named NetworkedBlogs. Until you can provide otherwise in a way that suits a consensus of editors, I will be removing the content you added on this topic, since you must be the one to WP:PROVEIT. --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NetworkedBlogs is just the service for websites to promote their blogs, they don't control the content. So the publishers that publish it are the users, in this case Tubefilter staff. Eventbright is exactly the same except for articles in general, it's just a copy of the article from the website.--Otterathome (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of publisher that was provided does not say the publisher needs to control the content it puts out, just publish it. That's all they are doing, therefore NetworkedBlogs is the publisher. Not to mention, can you find me where it says that NetworkedBlogs doesn't control the content? I looked on the site but wasn't able to find it, so maybe you can since you are making the claim, afterall. And the Eventbrite source contains information that the on-site source does not. And once again, can you provide me where it says that Eventbrite does not have any say over the content? Because once again, I could not find it. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is self-published content, like the same way somebody using myspace service would publish a blog entry using their service. Can you show me which information the eventbright sources has that the official tubefilter link doesn't?--Otterathome (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I posted a MySpace blog, the author would be me, the publisher would be MySpace. I wrote the blog, MySpace published it. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you choose when to publish it or did Myspace?--Otterathome (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the definition of publish. (Definition taken from the Law Encyclopedia section as it is most clearly worded, but you will notice the same theme in all of them) "To circulate, distribute, or print information for the public at large." MySpace is distributing the information, not you. It doesn't say anywhere on that page that the publisher has to have control over when it is published, they just have to publish it. Therefore a blog I posted on MySpace would be written by me, published by MySpace. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question; Can you show me which information the eventbright sources has that the official tubefilter link doesn't?
If I post content on a blogspot website, I am distributing information via their service. Am I publishing this comment, or is Wikipedia?--Otterathome (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are writing the comment, Wikipedia is publishing it. And hang on, I'm working on it; been busy replying to your other comments :) ETA The entire "Hosted By" section on the right side of the article is not found on the primary source. --Zoeydahling (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused how it's lead on to this, I'll be filling in the author fields of the networkedblogs ciation as tubefilter staff then. The Hosted by section appears to be a copy of http://news.tubefilter.tv/about/, the eventbright is just a duplicate of already published tubefilter material.--Otterathome (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please hold off on doing that until you provide the information that proves Tubefilter actually wrote the content? It might very well be that NetworkedBlogs saw Tubefilter and decided they liked the blog and wrote a blurb of information to appear on the page. I haven't seen where on NB it says it's purely promotional and controlled by the blog owners. If you can provide a source that says this though, I think the addition of Tubefilter as the author is fair.
As far as Eventbrite, it is worded slightly differently, which indicates that Eventbrite might have had something to do with the phrasing of it, which means it might not be directly put out by Tubefilter. Unless you can find me a source that says the content on that page is 100% controlled by Tubefilter, I think it is reasonable to assume the content on Eventbrite is, at least to some extent, controlled by Eventbrite. --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly says Hosted by Tubefilter in bold, so it's not really a question whether or not the eventbright publicity service were authors of it. And the is also no reason to suggest networkedblogs went out of there way to add it to their large database, to fill in the fields and add " Filtering the best web series on the internet. Latest news, reviews and interviews with the stars and creators of the best shows on the web.".--Otterathome (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All it says is that the EVENT is Hosted by Tubefilter, not the content on the page. And why is there no reason to suggest that networkedblogs went out of their way to do that? That could be the kind of website they run. And since when is it unusual to find a third party site write something favorable about a company? You're still going off your opinion that the publishers did not write the content. Until you can find indication that the page was in fact written entirely by Tubefilter, the most logical thing to do is to say we do not know who the author is based on the information given and leave the fields blank. --Zoeydahling (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason Alexa wouldn't write a description for a random blog website. It's a publicity service for bloggers, there's no reason why the site would write it themselves.--Otterathome (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you have yet to prove that NetworkedBlogs is anything like Alexa. If you can provide that proof, then the author makes sense to be Tubefilter, but if you can't, you are just going off of your own personal speculation. Please remove the addition until such proof has been provided. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Networkedblogs is a service for bloggers to promote their blog, there is no reason to suggest the service has written it (such as a note or special status). Alexa allows websites to provide official descriptions, in the same way networkedblogs allow its users to add it to their blog and add a description.--Otterathome (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis do you say that? Where does it say that on the site? On a third-party site? Anywhere???

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoeydahling (talk • contribs) 17:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of your referring to?--Otterathome (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertation that "Networkedblogs is a service for bloggers to promote their blog." --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The front page says "Add your blog to the coolest blog directory on the web " + "Add your blog" + "Get Found - If a blog is not read by anyone, does it really exist?". And it says "NetworkedBlogs.com (beta) is an extension of the Facebook app NetworkedBlogs. " which is a tool to promote your own blog as said here. If this isn't a promotional tool for bloggers, I'd like to know what it is.--Otterathome (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't prove who wrote the content. It could still be NetworkedBlogs. Since no author is signed, no author should be listed. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you don't know the author of either, they should be removed as there's no reason to suggest they are reliable.--Otterathome (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want to tell me where in policy it says no author = a source is not reliable? --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RS "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject", in other words, if we don't know who the author of something is, we have no idea if it is reliable or not.--Otterathome (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So basically what you're telling me is that any source without an author cited is considered unreliable, even if it's a press release or an anonymous piece published in a reputable magazine/journal/other source? --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, if I publish something on blogspot under an anonymous alias, it would not be a reliable source. For the same reason if I published something through the networkedblogs or eventbright service without providing my name, it wouldn't be considered reliable. Press releases are released by companies so who authored them is not important as there's no reason to suggest why it wouldn't be reliable. And anonymous pieces published in reputable sources shouldn't be used unless extra sources show it is worth mentioning and isn't fictional nonsense. For example we can't say Wikileaks leaked a document x without an outside reliable source verifying document x's authenticity first. All of this is covered in WP:RS and WP:V.--Otterathome (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be frank about this. We have no clue who the author is here. All we know for certain is who published it. I would define this as a low quality reliable source, because of the lack of specific information. When you have a low quality source, ideally it should be replaced by a higher quality source as soon as possible. This is particularly so if the source is being used to reference something "significant" or "extraordinary" (which is not the case here). Rather than consuming more bandwidth in this pointless circular argument, let's all agree to the following:
  • The source is not of the highest quality.
  • It should be replaced by a higher quality source, if one can be found.
  • Since it is not being used to verify any significant or extraordinary information, it can remain in the article until a better source is found.
This can be applied to a couple of the other lower-quality references on this article too. It's not like we are saying "Tubefilter can cure cancer![crappy reference]" is it? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will eventually have to be removed in as it's original research, yes users are given time to find reliable sources after it has been drawn to their attention.--Otterathome (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it won't, and no it's not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it will and yes it does.--Otterathome (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So now we've gone from "pointless circular argument" to pantomime? I cannot understand how you can claim it is original research. The reference is being used to verify a straight statement, as far as I can see. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
\\//_ --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source".--Otterathome (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the original thought? As I've said previously, the source is an RS (even if it is of low quality). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mystery articles written by ghost people are not reliable I'm afraid.--Otterathome (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eventbright source

[edit]

The eventbright source is unquestionably written by tubefilter staff as all it's content is a direct copy from the tubefilter website articles. It even states it on the page twice "hosted by tubefilter". And at the bottom of the page it says "This page was published using Eventbrite, your total online solution to publish, register, manage and promote events. Host Your Events With Eventbrite." So it seems it's a tool used to promote your events, which would make total sense seeing as it's a direct copy of their own content. The only other user reverting this was admin SarekOfVulcan, but for some reason they are unable to discuss it here despite knowing there's a discussion.--Otterathome (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how you were just blocked for edit warring on this very page, it might be a good idea to consider not continuously readding controversial content to the page before consensus is reached. As I said before, the wording is different, not a direct copy. I'm not sure why you have decided that the page saying that the event is "Hosted by Tubefilter" is the same as "the content on this page is 100% written by Tubefilter." Additionally, if you look above, you will see that I was disagreeing and discussing the issue above, so please don't misrepresent the facts to suggest that only Sarek was opposing your addition. However, SarekOfVulcan is right, we cannot know who wrote the content unless it is explicitly stated on the page. For instance, even if the content was placed there by Tubefilter, which I am not convinced it was, we cannot know if it was the Tubefilter staff, a PR firm representing Tubefilter, a fan of Tubefilter who wrote the content to Tubefilter, which they liked and then decided to use, etc etc. Since it is not explicitly stated, we should not be making up writers of the content. I will be reverting your addition and please do not readd it until consensus has been reached by a majority. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait so your telling me we can't use it in case a fan wrote it who put it on there, and co-incidentally tubefilter decided to copy all of it to their website and claim as their own? Or did the fan submit it to tubefilter and tubefiltered liked it and a decided to publish it as their own and that fan also published on this publicity website? Your claims are becoming quite outlandish.--Otterathome (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying there are an infinite number of possibilities as to who wrote the content, so unless an author is signed, we should say that there is no known author (aka leave the field blank). --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it's not reliable and should be removed.--Otterathome (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want to tell me where in policy it says no author = a source is not reliable? --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RS "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject", in other words, if we don't know who the author of something is, we have no idea if it is reliable or not.--Otterathome (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So basically what you're telling me is that any source without an author cited is considered unreliable, even if it's a press release or an anonymous piece published in a reputable magazine/journal/other source? --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be removing both sources soon for being unreliable.--Otterathome (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors now have disagreed with you and one explicitly stated that they are "low quality reliable sources." Not to mention, you have already been warned against doing so. I would strongly advise against it, but if you want to get yourself blocked, by all means... --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Otterathome - This is getting extremely tiresome, to be frank. In a content dispute like this, you must seek a proper consensus for your actions. Declaring that you are going to be removing sources because you have unilaterally decided they do not fit your strict interpretation of policy is not the way we do things on Wikipedia. In fact, your very declaration is disruptive because you are essentially stating that you will be ignoring WP:CON (which is also Wikipedia policy). I strongly recommend that you cease from making such antagonistic declarations and seek to build a consensus for your proposals instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that we don't have a clue who the author(s) is, which makes the sources unreliable.--Otterathome (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The source is less reliable than other sources, but that does not make it unreliable. Please do not continue to disruptively claim consensus where none exists. You are the only participant in this discussion to have characterized the source as "unreliable" thus far. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We determined that we have no idea who the author is and both websites are free promotional tools to be used by anyone at their disposal. So it's as reliable as using a blogspot or myspace post written by TheMysteryMan123.--Otterathome (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

[edit]

"its staff are regularly quoted by major media outlets when covering the web television industry."

None of the sources I can see state this making it WP:SYNTHESIS, so tagged.--Otterathome (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand WP:SYNTHESIS. Please re-read the policy. It says that synthesis would be: Article X talks about Z. Article Y talks about Z. Therefore, article X would say "this" about article Y. For example, see Fox News Channel. It states Many observers say that Fox News Channel's programming promotes conservative political positions.[3][4][5] and then cite three articles that do just that. Until you can provide otherwise in a way that suits a consensus of editors, I will be removing the content you added on this topic, since you must be the one to WP:PROVEIT. --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources say "sensible viewers discounted Fox News for conservative bias years ago", "long been accused by Democrats and liberals of having a conservative bias", "The Fox channel has long been a liberal bete noire and the subject of numerous documentaries about its obvious conservative bias". So those sources actually back up that statement. None of your sources mention anything about the website staff being quoted by other media outlets.--Otterathome (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently fixed, are you happy with this or do you want to continue discussing it?--Otterathome (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the way it is, but I maintan that the way it was before was a perfectly acceptable use of synthesis. I found another example, see Brett Favre's intro: "When Favre un-retired for the second time, some in the sports world claimed his legacy as a football player has become overshadowed by his need for attention.[4][5]" Then the two sources listed are articles from people in the sports world saying that they thought he was attention-seeking (or whatever their exact wording was). --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be removed, I looked through the history and it is improper synthesis and weasel wording. Some? Who, what and how many is 'some'?--Otterathome (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because another article violates WP:SYN, it doesn't mean other articles should. This isn't the synthesis noticeboard.--Otterathome (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say this was the "synthesis noticeboard"? All I'm saying is that if an article can be a GA and have what you consider synthesis, maybe your opinion of synthesis is mistaken. Feel free to get a third opinion on this though. --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep bringing in other articles which you could continue to do forever. I'd would do a WP:3O but requests keep being removed.--Otterathome (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability maintenance tags

[edit]

As the article does not cite any independant coverage which isn't trivial so it doesn't pass our general notability guideline so I added that template.

As the article does not cite any independant coverage which isn't trivial it(1), nor does it say it has won any awards(2) and as it is self-published by the authors(3) it doesn't pass our web notability guidelines. So I have added the relevant template.

Editors are encouraged to find non-trivial independant coverage for this article which would invalidate both templates so they could be removed.--Otterathome (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are going off of your own personal opinion. An AfD was just undertaken which was closed as keep, indicating that a consensus of editors disagreed with you. You then took the topic to AN and further to DRV. Until the DRV rules as to whether the content can stay/whether it meets those policies well enough to merit addition to this encyclopedia, the tags have no business being on the page just because you think they belong so, and I will be removing them until the DRV rules. --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does the AFD/DRV have to do with it? Please stay on topic. I don't see any sources which are independant and are not trivial, please show me which ones you think are independant and not trivial.--Otterathome (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD/DRV has to do with it because it means a consensus of editors has determined that it meets the guidelines well enough to stay on wikipedia and therefore those tags are unrequired/unnecessary/however you choose to phrase it. Pretty much, it means they have no place being on the article. Any user can make changes to an article, but controversial changes must involve consensus and the AFD/DRV are the formats that have provided consensus for the notability of this article. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? Having an article not being deleted at AFD/DRV is not equal to showing it passes our guidelines. Can you please show me these sources which are independant and not trivial instead of referring to past discussions? If this has been shown in the past discussions, you can use that to show me them.--Otterathome (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it didn't pass our guidelines, it wouldn't have been kept at both the AFD/DRV (and like I said, since the DRV is still going, if they determine that it doesn't end up meeting the notability guidelines well enough to stay on the wiki, by all means, re-add the tag). It would have been deleted. You brought the AFD forth with the arguments of failing WP:N/WP:WEB and editors decided that either your arguments were incorrect or your arguments were irrelevant as far as the notability of this article goes, so there is no reason to tag them if the consensus of editors has already determined. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFD/DRV is for editors to decide if an article is kept or not, not to decide if it meets certain guidelines. If you are not going to show or put forward any sources which are independant and are not trivial, I will be re-adding the tags.--Otterathome (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what determines if an article is kept or not? Whether it meets the guidelines of wikipedia well enough to merit inclusion on the wiki. The community decided that the article has, so it should not be tagged as though it doesn't. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does, though guidelines are a part of it. AFDs are not solely to decide if article x meets notability guideline y, but whether it should be kept on Wikipedia at this current time. I take it you can't find any sources which independant and not trivial so will be re-adding the tags momentarily.--Otterathome (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it meets any notibility guideline then it is sufficient enough for it to stay on the wiki. For instance, this article does not meet WP:AUTHOR, so therefore I must tag it with not meeting that criteria? That's just silly. The community has voted, the notibility of this article has, for the time being, been established. If you add the tags I will just revert them. There is an ongoing discussion here and it would seem that because there is a conflict between two editors discussing this, more editors should weigh in before any tags are re-added.

ADDITIONALLY, you might want to read Wikipedia:Notability (media) It may be an essay, but it is by far the most pertinent notibility criteria to this article, particularly read Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Primary criterion which indicates that trivial coverage would only be times when contact information is provided or the media is just listed in a national database, so Tubefilter would therefore have more than trivial coverage. Additionally, read Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Why a separate guideline to see why this wouldn't meet notability guidelines the same way other articles would (as it is a news source) and Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals which lists a number of criteria (2, 3, 4) that Tubefilter clearly meets, indicating that it very likely should be included in this wiki.

--Zoeydahling (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've gone off-topic again, I'm not saying whether it should stay on Wikipedia, I'm trying to ask why it doens't meet those specific guidelines so the templates can be removed. And this is a website so is covered under WP:WEB, and WP:N applies to all articles. You link me to other guidelines which don't apply to this. You seem to be a little confused over the purpose and usage of maintenance tags.--Otterathome (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop belittling me. I am not going off topic. You have asked me to show how it meets WP:N, and I am showing you through how it meets the media criteria. It has non-notable coverage based on the way it is lined out on that page, so it meets WP:N. If it meets any notability criteria it does not have to meet any other, so tagging it as not notable for WEB when it is notable for N is unnecessary. --Zoeydahling (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your suppose to be showing me how it meets our notability guidelines so you can remove the templates, but instead it appears you trying to show me how it does via a general notability essay. Maintenance templates don't get the article deleted in x days. If you don't agree with the templates themselves then you should discuss it on their talk pages. But if you want to link to essays please quote relevant material so I can understand what you're trying to get across.--Otterathome (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point entirely. Out of some sort of strange generosity towards you, I was trying to in fact show you how it does meet WP:N per specific caveats outlined in the news source essay, but apparently you did not get that. As far as telling me to quote, I am not sure where you get off doing that since you often just link people to policies, tell them to reread the policies, and discuss on the policies talk pages if they disagree with the policies. In fact, you did it above. The real truth here is, it is not my job personally to convince you that the article meets wikipedia's notability standards, it is your job to accept the consensus of editors who believe that it has. An article does NOT need to meet every guideline it could possibly qualify for. It only has to meet any one guideline well enough to convince a consensus of editors that it belongs. (Reread WP:N if you do not believe me.) Since the article has done exactly that through the AFD/DRV, there is no business having tags on the page saying that the article doesn't meet notability standards. That is your opinion, while the majority opinion is against you. You're just going to have to accept that. --Zoeydahling (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to show it meets the guidelines apart from saying there was consensus it met them at deletion discussions. It is quite obvious you are unable to show it does.--Otterathome (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!3O: I saw that there was a third opinion requested for notability. I've removed the request on the grounds that the AfD and DRV will take care of this issue by generating far more consensus than any one uninvolved editor. Hopefully someone will come by and comment on the other section. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Can someone please remove the notability tags now since the decision is to wait until the DRV rules and have the consensus determined there determine the notability of this article? Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait until the DRV gets resolved. I do, however, find it somewhat excessive to have tagged this for both general notability and web notability. One should be sufficient. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock terms

[edit]
Seems like they've all been fixed.--Otterathome (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A peacock terms template has been added because of the large amount of them being used without the source(s) given backing them up. Examples:

  • "web television content that features the best[4]"
    • Peacock term, with primary source.
  • "broken such major stories as Apple, Inc.'s foray into original content production"
    • Statement with peacock term not backed up by sources given.
  • is best known for Tubefilter News
    • Peacock statement with primary source
  • Major media outlets
    • None of the sources back up this peacock term.

I've added in-line Peacock term templates to all of them.--Otterathome (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. See source 5, cited at the ended of the sentence which also backs up the "best" claim. Removing this template until you can prove otherwise.

2. You have already added a template indicating that the information is not in the citation given. What benefit does it do the article to add a "peacock template" as well? If one fails long enough, I am sure the information will be removed, but for now, it does no benefit to have both.

3. "best known" is not a peacock term. It does not "merely promote the subject of the article without imparting verifiable information. Examples include describing people as "important", "main" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why." It is just saying why Tubefilter is known, not saying that it is the best in its field or something similar. Again, I am removing the template until you can prove that it belongs

5. Your opinion is that none of the sources are major media outlets. That is not a fact. The term is not a peacock term, there are major media outlets cited that cite Tubefilter as a source. Once again, removing this template until you can prove why it belongs.

--Zoeydahling (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logo fair use rationale

[edit]
Resolved and Archived.-- Billbowery (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The File:Tubefilter.png is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after Saturday, 10 October 2009.--Otterathome (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So pathetic, otter. Don't you know how to claim fair use properly on a logo? --Milowent (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil on discussion pages.--Otterathome (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging it Otter. I've updated the fair use rationale. It was a bit lacking before. Billbowery (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tubefilter credentials

[edit]

Co-founder Brady Brim-DeForest's Tubefilter credentials were cited as reason for his spot as an expert judge at the 2009 Twiistup 6.[1]

The above citation doesn't specifically say this so amounts to original research and should be removed or a find a source to back it up.--Otterathome (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the source. It says the guy's name, then lists his credentials for being selected. That's not original research, that's right there in the source provided. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't specifically says he was chosen because of this, you've come to that conclusion by yourself making it original research.--Otterathome (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how it could be any clearer. It says his name, then lists his credentials. It's not original research to read what it says on the page and then put that on Wikipedia with a citation. --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, but it doesn't say that was the reason he was a judge. Just his name, and his credentials. Nothing about it being the reason he got his spot.--Otterathome (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be removing it then.--Otterathome (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it, though I don't know how notable (any non-primary sources?) or relevant a co-founder of the website being a judge of what seems to be a one-off event is. It's biographical type material.--Otterathome (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose would there be to listing his credentials on that page, in your opinion, other than to explain this individual's qualifications for attaining the judge spot? And I think you are misunderstanding original research. WP:OR states "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Since the material in question was attributed to a reliable, published source, I see no way you could accurately describe it as original research. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because people might not know who he is. See nutshell of WP:OR, you are stating something not specifically stated by the source.--Otterathome (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so it's explaining why he's qualified to be a judge. So it is stated by the article. So it's not original research. I'm glad we agree. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've just reached that conclusion by yourself again.--Otterathome (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the agreement of us both, so I think it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to make, don't you? :) --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually tell you cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Merely asserting the fact that "He is a judge because he co-founded a website.", based off of the facts "He is a judge" and "He co-founded a website" is a fallacious assumption without some proof that definitively says so. Any attempt to tie these two together really is original research, and is not based in logic. If you disagree with this, I would like to offer you a position in the Bear Patrol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.128.155 (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to side with Otterathome on this one. There is no suggestion in the text of the press release that Brady Brim-DeForest's association with Tubefilter was a specific reason for his being a judge of Twiistup 6, and it is definitely original research to say so. If you think the information is worth inclusion, it would need to be more ambiguous. Something like:
The co-founding of Tubefilter was among the credentials noted for Brady Brim-DeForest's position on a panel from "the world of technology and media" that judged entrants for Twiistup 6.
That's a rather ugly and tortuous sentence that certainly needs refinement, but I think it illustrates the point I'm trying to make. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better than OR, added.--Otterathome (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More boxes

[edit]

This article needs MORE boxes on it, don't you think? Apparently since the DRV is not going to your liking, you decided to vent your frustrations here, otter. Its quite transparent, I think you'll agree. --Milowent (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with any of them or require further explanation, you can reply to the relevant sub-sections I have created above.--Otterathome (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove this section again, it's not appropriate behaviour. Sincerely,  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcery

[edit]

I had a quick look at this article after reading about it elsewhere, and I agree that there needs to be a few more sources to properly establish notability. Google News isn't being very helpful looking for stuff, but there are definitely some reliable sources that mention this company out there:

-- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already in the article.--Otterathome (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it is. In that case, notability has been pretty much established and there is no reason for the article to be nominated for deletion. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do you agree that the failing WP:WEB tag can be removed now? It was indicated above by a third party user that they agreed that the DrV would generate consensus, and since they did and also since the sources seem to be adequate based on the discussion in this section, I think it's fair to remove the tag now? I would, but I don't want to be seen as edit warring anymore, so if another editor agrees, would s/he mind removing the tag? Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to. I would put a site like this in the same sort of category as the likes of Engadget, although its relative youth means no reasonable comparison can be made in terms of viewers. All that being said, I would still like to see more in the way of secondary reliable sources writing about this site to put it beyond any reasonable doubt. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which criteria of WP:WEB does this article pass then? Which is why that tag is there.--Otterathome (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to explicitly pass WP:WEB, which is just a guideline. The company is covered by reliable sources, which satisfies WP:V. The article doesn't violate any of the policies, and there is always WP:IAR to fall back on. Obviously (as I have stated previously) it would be nice if there was more coverage in secondary reliable sources to refer to, but that is not any reason for an AfD. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you just admitted it doesn't so I'll add it back. When you say something should be done by WP:IAR, you need to give a good reason why. And if the articles fails all applicable notability guidelines it may get deleted according to the deletion policy. The tag is to warn editors that unless the notability problems are solved it may be deleted. And verifiability and notability are two very different things.--Otterathome (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. Perhaps you have not fully understood my above response. Let me be more specific. I do believe it satisfies WP:WEB (barely) because it has been covered by multiple reliable sources; however, I would like to see more coverage by reliable sources as this article is improved. Per the discussion above, I have once again removed the tag. I would prefer that you don't lecture me, a self-described deletionist, on deletion policy - especially on an article talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It either passes WP:WEB or it doesn't. All the sources are trivial from what I can see, so it doesn't 'barely' meet it. And resorting to an ad hominem comments just makes you look silly. So do you have any good reason for not tagging it?--Otterathome (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What ad hominem attack? You lectured me on deletion policy, and I asked you not to. It meets it, and yet it doesn't even need to meet it because it is just a guideline. Why do you want this article deleted, may I ask? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a self-described deletionist, on deletion policy" is your ad hominem argument. I'm afraid it does need to meet it our guidelines, see # 7 of the this part of the deletion policy. You seem to underestimate what guidelines are for. And I wouldn't be 'lecturing' you about policies if you already knew them.--Otterathome (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have misunderstood, and again you have presumed to lecture me. On my user page, you will see that I describe myself as a deletionist, and so you can bet that I'm well aware of policies and guidelines concerning deletion because I usually lean toward deleting something that doesn't meet that standards expected of Wikipedia. In this case, the evidence and reliable sources are enough to overcome my natural desire to eradicate. Just to be clear, I am not describing you or anyone else as a deletionist. Now please disengage from your apparent drama-seeking mode, and consider perusing WP:OWN while you are at it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still off-topic either way. You said it didn't violate any policies and articles don't need to pass the notability guidelines, and I told you they do or they will be deleted in accordance with the deletion policy. In your opinion it is notable, yet you've given no reason apart from being been mentioned in multiple sources which isn't enough to pass WP:WEB. So is there any special reason why this article is exempt from our notability guidelines?--Otterathome (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is enough to pass WP:WEB, which says that it is "deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria..." (of which receiving non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is one). Let me also make another thing clear for you. Guidelines are just guidelines. Creating content which falls within Wikipedia's guidelines is an ideal goal, but it is not the be all and end all. Policies are the "be all and end all", and this article doesn't violate any of them. It also happens to pass WP:WEB. More coverage in reliable sources would be preferable, but not explicitly necessary. Now please invest some of your apparent abundance of energy into article improvement, rather than meta-discussion that is beginning to border on wiki lawyering. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So which sources are non-trivial then?--Otterathome (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ClickZ, Variety, The Washington Post. The first has significant coverage in a well-known industry-related site, and the others are high-quality mainstream sources. While not individually "awesome", collectively they do enough (in my opinion) to satisfy the guideline I identified in WP:WEB. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clickz is an article about different websites that give web television type content, and the author admits they only know of its existence because of meeting the website owner through twitter. And the author says they exchanged lots of emails, so it seems to me the article was only written because they met through twitter and not because the author decided the website was notable. The WP and Variety are one off mentions.--Otterathome (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim needed

[edit]

I don't think this sentence (sourced entirely to Tubefilter itself) in the opening paragraph is appropriate because it is promotional/ advertorial and unencyclopedic: "Tubefilter News describes itself as the leading web television trade publication in Hollywood and has reported on such major stories as Apple, Inc.'s foray into original content production[12][13] and the launch of Joss Whedon's cult series Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.[14]" ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is a third party source cited (source 13). Second of all, see WP:NNC and WP:PRIMARY. Any information that is reliably sourced is permitted on the encyclopedia in making descriptive claims, as is seen in the sentence you referenced. I'm not sure why you would describe it as "promotional/advertorial and unencyclopedic" - can you please explain why you believe this to be so? --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with CoM, this really needs to go. The whole article is way to promotional and that sentence is probably the worst. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the article as a whole is too promotional, how then would you suggest improving it to make it less so? --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the sentence that CoM suggest be removed would be a good start. Hobit (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's some reason it's worth including (which I don't see) it should at least be trimmed of the adjectival hype to something more encyclopedic: "Tubefilter News describes itself as a web television trade publication in Hollywood. It has reported on Apple, Inc.'s development of original content [12][13] and the launch of Joss Whedon's cult series Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog." ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we deleted all this trivial content there wouldn't be much of an article left. See Wikipedia:Wikipuffery.--Otterathome (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the essay linked above: "Wikipuffery may sometimes be used inaptly to disparage good-faith efforts of those engaged in the improvement of articles of questionable or marginal notability, by lumping good-faith actions (e.g., adding tangential sources and trivial references) and bad-faith actions (e.g., synthesis) together and implying that together such actions are at best useless and at worst harmful to the encyclopedia."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed "Be sure to examine each claim and source on its own merits".--Otterathome (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails notability guidelines

[edit]

This article still fails our WP:COMPANY notability guidelines, which require non-trivial coverage from independant sources which isn't incidental.--Otterathome (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is just your opinion, and apparently few people agreed with you. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my opinion, it's a statement of fact, an article meets a guideline or it doesn't. If I'm wrong then tell me how.--Otterathome (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same circular argument you previously started. I already gave you my opinion on the sourcing of this article previously. I really don't care whether or not your own stringent standards for what is only a guideline caused you to reject my explanation. The result of the AfD was keep, so let it go. You appear to be continuously nibbling away at the content in order to try to get it relisted at AfD. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your not going to tell me how it passes WP:COMPANY then there isn't any reason for you to respond.--Otterathome (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FFS Otter. Just look up. I have already given my justification, and the AfD was keep. You already have your answer, so there is no need for your continued tendentiousness. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing a notability template then refusing to explain how it meets the notability guideline is disruptive.--Otterathome (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your not going to show me how it passes WP:COMPANY then can you stop removing the template?--Otterathome (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otter, since you deleted my prior comment for having some off-topic content, i will repeat the on-topic content: are we STILL talking about this article?--Milowent (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otter, I only removed the template once, so asking me to "stop removing" it is unreasonable. I am disappointed that you prefer to disruptively edit war over a template instead of engage in reasonable discourse. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this template being on the page. A dozen trivial mentions does not prove notability. Miami33139 (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you guys love the beautiful music of deletion. :-) --Milowent (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences that do not say what the citation says

[edit]
"Tubefilter is best known for Tubefilter News, a blog targeted at the producers and distributors of web television content where the best in episodic scripted serialized web series[5][6]"

This sentence is not backed up by reference 5 or reference 6.

Reference 5, http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=6967086 says an entirety of one sentence about Tubefilter: "A host of Web sites can direct you to the best series online, including Tilzy.tv and Tubefilter.tv — both good blogs that feature knowledgeable seekers of worthy Web series." This sentence in the source says absolutely nothing about Tubefilter News or the producers and distributors of web tv content.
Reference 6, http://www.clickz.com/3631337, says more than a sentence, but also says nothing about Tubefilter News, its target audience, or producers and distributors.

The lead needs to be corrected to be inline with these references. Ideally the lead should summarize a section of the body, but this article does not have enough body. Miami33139 (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citations given reference part of the sentence in the lead. The rest of the sentence is part of the non-controversial summary of what the company does. When citing non-controversial, non-extraordinary information, there is no need for sourcing of the ridiculously high standard that you and Otter are looking for. Please seek to improve the article by looking for more sourcing, rather than just moaning about your perception that there is a lack of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is still nothing saying how the company is best known for tubefilter news, you reverted me with "Tubefilter News is ubiquitous, appears often in searches involving Tubefilter." which sounds like OR to me.--Otterathome (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't complain about OR in an edit summary, Otter. This is a relatively young company with a large web presence - that much is obvious to anyone. More (and better) sourcing is always preferred, but currently there is enough to justify the article's existence per the AfD. I'm confident more sourcing will become available in the near future, given the apparent footprint of this company on teh intarwebs. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've just given your review of the site which is original research. "Tubefilter is best known for Tubefilter News" your original research and prediction doesn't make that statement exempt from the WP:OR policy.--Otterathome (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting my statement - something which you do on a continuous basis, it seems. How many times do I have to say that I would prefer to see more (and better) sourcing, but that enough sourcing of reasonable quality exists to justify this article's existence. There are literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia that are written with no sourcing at all. There is no source that I am aware of that specifically backs up the statement you quote above, but it is a non-controversial statement that makes no extraordinary claim, so it can remain until sourcing can be found. In the meantime, the article needs a "refimprove" template, but not all the other "cn" tags and "this article SUCKS" templates people keep adding. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So prefer the large Template:Refimprove rather than the inline one which shows editors which specific statements need sourcing. Wow.--Otterathome (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I most certainly do prefer it because it also replaces the guideline-based template you disruptively placed there earlier. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested statements are controversial statements. I contest that "Tubefilter is best known for ..." and "targeted at the producers and distributors" are currently unverified facts. Miami33139 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube "Influencers" added

[edit]

I have added the term "influencers" to the list to describe YouTuber "content creators" etc. as it is important people are made more aware how these people see themselves. Many "Youtubers" not only monitize video's through Google / Alpabet they often do paid promotions dressed up as personal recommendations (without stating they are sponsored content). The term "influencer" is often used and should be seen for what it is (peddling!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.173.156 (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tubefilter&oldid=1210768580"