Talk:Tubefilter

Article issues

Sources

Bad sources include:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Did you choose when to publish it or did Myspace?--Otterathome (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Synthesis

"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)

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)

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)

Notability maintenance tags

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

!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)

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)

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)

Peacock terms

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)

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)

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

Logo fair use rationale 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) So pathetic, otter. Don't you know how to claim fair use properly on a logo? --Milowent (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Please remain civil on discussion pages.--Otterathome (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 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)

More boxes

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)

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)

Sourcery

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:

• On the Net: Sites Aim to Be TV Guide for the Web (AP article on ABC.com)

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

Already in the article.--Otterathome (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)