Brian's Wiki page deleted! Edit: Need someone to re-write it, with sources

Submitted by UMQuadz05 on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cook_%28football_blogger_and_author%…

 

Ahem:  23:31, 6 October 2010 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "Brian Cook (football blogger and author)" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): none of these sources are independent of the subject)

WTF does that mean, and how do we fix it?  Way, way less important people than Brian have their own wiki pages.

Edit:  OK, it looks like it was a sourcing problem.  Who wants to earn MGoBrownie points and write a new one up, this time sourcing the Daily, Rittenberg, etc...?

nazooq

October 13th, 2010 at 3:08 PM ^

It means the links should be to third party articles about Brian such as the feature in the Daily, not articles or webpages he's responsible for writing or maintaining.

Desmondo

October 13th, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Imdeng&oldid=389178844

The article Brian Cook (football blogger and author) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did 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 indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)n

 

joeyb

October 13th, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^

I would think if you link to the daily article about him and say he has the largest sports blog and has been sited by Dr. Saturday, Smart Football, and Adam Rittenberg on ESPN's BigTen Blog, that ought to justify an article.

evenyoubrutus

October 13th, 2010 at 3:27 PM ^

John U Bacon once noted that more individual IP addresses visit MGoBlog daily than the circulation of the Ann Arbor News at its peak. That would make it worthy IMFE.

jmblue

October 13th, 2010 at 4:15 PM ^

Honestly, people, this isn't worth getting worked up about.  Pretty much the only people who would ever even think to visit that wikipedia page would already know who Brian is. 

meals69

October 13th, 2010 at 5:05 PM ^

Damn skippy...I've brought it to the attention of the administrator who deleted the page as well as another contri uter who was apparently involved in it's deletion. Whether they'll do anything about reinstating the page or telling me to GTFO like one of Taylor Lewan's donkeys remains to be seen

Brodie

October 13th, 2010 at 11:16 PM ^

Sorry, but the admin is in the right. Wikipedia, contrary to popular opinion, has strict rules about what can and should be added to the encyclopedia and one of them is that notability must be established and third party sources used. You guys are going about this in entirely the wrong way. Deadspin is the most popular sports blog around and ever it's editor doesn't have a Wiki page. You should just create one for MGo itself.

ZooWolverine

October 13th, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^

Just read the discussion with the RichRod wikipedia page--apparently it was settled on September 4 this year with a link to an MGoBlog page: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/richrod-his-own-words

Sorry if people saw that video already but I completely missed it in the build-up to the season, and nobody in the discussion of that video actually mentions the additional context of Chicago winning the wiki wars.