Talk:Fuel TV/Archive 1

Archive 1

Programming?

Doesn't anyone have any more detail about what kind of programming is shown on Fuel? I came to this article to see what kind of content Fuel shows, and there's nothing.Wiredcoach 03:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I contest the nomination for speedy deletion

VERY STRONG KEEP I am very strongly opposed to the deletion of this article. If you compare what this article looked like yesterday at this time (5 very vague, general sentences) and now (in depth, detailed descriptions of every single show on the channel), I'd say it went from stub quality all the way up to at least B class in less than 24 hours. TomCat4680 (talk)

And it was accomplished by copying and pasting copyrighted material from the website. Very bad way to expand an article. Acroterion _(talk) 03:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

::Ok so it was plagiarized. Would it be ok to use the same info but re-write it from a neutral point of view? TomCat4680 (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

:I added the page he plagiarized as an external link, and I don't see why it can't be used as reference either, as long if its done properly. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the article to keep editors out of trouble: it is presently the wrong version. Please take a break for a day or so and discuss calmly. I'll adjust the protection depending on progress. Acroterion _(talk) 03:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprorected now. Acroterion _(talk) 18:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed

I've removed some of the less necessary fluff, but this article still smells like the advert that it so obviously is. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So re-write it from a nuetral point of view. I still think its 20 times the quality than the unsourced stub it was a week ago.TomCat4680 (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the unsourced stub, to be honest. My aim here is to limit the amount of ad copy, not aid in what is a blatant promotional effort. Rather than giving "barnstars" to SPAs, maybe you should start your own television wiki, where you can set your own rules about content and contributors. (I mean that as a sincere and helpful suggestion.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

:::I think he more than deserved the barnstar. He spent a lot of time finding dozens of reliable sources for his information and substantially expanded the article. You have no proof he's a sock puppet if that's what you're implying. This is America and we follow the rules assumed innocent until proven guilty. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you ever build anything instead of destroying other people's hours of hard work? The guy obviously spent hours building this article and now you want to tear it down. He has dozens of independent links. Why don't you get a job in demolition? TomCat4680 (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for personal attacks. Please retract your remarks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the remarks instead of deleting them, which is customary here. Thanks for retracting them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the stub as well, right now it's just a bunch of red links to shows that would be deleted and as it looks now it looks very promotional and I think that there's no way the article could include most of the material right now because their shows aren't that notable outside of being on the network. Tom, this may be America but THIS is wikipedia, where (because this is America) we can make their own rules, someone could easily request a WP:CU.User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 03:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Redlinked list of original shows

I've reverted the list of original shows. Red links encourage article creation and deleting them just because they're red is a violation of policy. It seems like you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point here, and have given no logical justification for deleting them, except for accusing the poster of being a sock puppet, which has NOT been proven. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680, when I reverted this the first time, I invited you to discuss it on the talk page and asked you to identify the "policy" that removing red links violates. You've has already violated WP:3RR over this before starting a discussion here. Please don't add to the earlier personal attacks you made here and elsewhere by accusing me of violating WP:POINT. If you think I've accused someone of being a sockpuppet, please provide a diff. As for the red links, please see WP:EMBED and WP:LIST. There is nothing inherently notable about tv shows, and those shows certainly don't seem notable now, so there's no reason to have a list of red links. It's not worth edit warring over, though, so I'll leave it be (and won't respond further here). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

:: You accused me of "giving barnstars to SPAs". If SPA doesn't mean "Sock Puppet Account" in this case, please tell me, exactly what did you mean by that remark? TomCat4680 (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Single Purpose Accounts. I.e., the advertising-only account that I blocked for spamming and copyvios. Acroterion _(talk) 03:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the single purpose account I meant was User:Rpleonar, whose only contributions have been to this article. Just like User:FUEL TV. Since everyone seems to want me to accuse them of being the same editor, I will. They are the same editor. Oh, don't bother with the checkuser, just trust me on this one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

:::::How does he have a conflict of interest? Has it been proven that he works for the channel? If so, what's your evidence? Other than the fact that this old user name was Fuel TV (circumstantial at best, which proves nothing), what solid proof do you have that works for the channel's owner? I don't see any. Maybe he just really loves the channel and is interested in sharing his love of it by expanding the article the best he can. He added 2 dozen reliable and independent sources that have nothing to do with the owners of the channel. This is starting to sound like a witch hunt. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. since this petty bickering over policy got nothing accomplished except getting the article sysoped, I'm going to go watch the Detroit Tigers game. Good night. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to get in the last word; it's not helpful. Acroterion _(talk) 03:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

To Delicious carbuncle: I've said it before and I'll say it again. Notability is a matter of opinion, NOT a matter of fact. Just because you most may not have heard of the shows doesn't mean anything. They have potentially millions of fans. The channel is available nationwide to 26 million people you know, (well cited in the article even). Why do you think your opinion is the only one that matters when it comes to notability, and you refuse to see anything from the other side of the coin, no matter how much people prove you wrong? Wiki doesn't revolve around what you do or don't like. is not censored Its available world wide to billions upon billions of people. Its a one stop shop for anything and everything that anyone would ever want to know about. So tell us exactly why you think they're how are they un-notable besides the fact that they're only on one channel? I bet a lot of the shows you most people like are only on one channel. Cable channels (and broadcast networks for that matter) pride themselves on unique, exclusive original programming, it draws in viewers (ratings) which in turn draws in advertisers (money). Just like cover bands never get famous, channels that show nothing but off network re-runs never get the attention of channels that produce their own exclusive, original content. Its how the TV industry works. Accept it. If you can't, maybe you're the one with a conflict of interest. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Directly from WP:RED ... are useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable. Furthermore, academic research conducted in 2008 has shown that red links help Wikipedia grow.Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

However, you omitted two very important lines from your quotes from WP:RED: "However when considering adding red links to lists, disambiguation pages or templates, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles. Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles, such as a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right) or every chapter in a book; nor should they have red links to deleted articles." It's probably not what you want to hear, but Delicious carbuncle was justified in removing what he did. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

::How does any of what you just said apply here? You didn't answer any of my questions. How does being an original show on a cable channel fail notability? How about we just de-redlink them? I want them in because I think having them there improves the article substantially. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

List of original shows

I want to file a request for comment from a neutral third party in regards to the above debate of whether or not the list of original shows on this channel is or isn't "notable" I think they are and others disagreed and it resulted in a 3RR and a (now removed) sysop block. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep the List of original show and delink the redlinks. Powergate92Talk 22:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - nothing about the list of shows looked notable (or referenced) to me. If the shows weren't able to sustain articles, they're not notable enough for a list. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

1 to 1 isn't a consensus. I'd find more refs and de-red link them but I've been asked not to edit the main article. Can someone do this please? I still feel this dispute hasn't been resolved peacefully yet and I think it needs more comments first and the list should be put back in until then. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral third party source found

Here's an article from a neutral third party source about its original shows for a reference. Malakye.com FUEL TV revealed. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one TGR's FREESTYLE MOTOCROSS SERIES “THE GREAT RIDE OPEN” ON FUEL TV. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And another ALLI ANNOUNCES PARTNERSHIP WITH GATORADE AS TITLE SPONSOR OF ENHANCED FREE FLOW TOUR AMATEUR SERIES. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A third. Fuel TV Announces January Programming Highlights. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A fourth Fuel TV announces programming highlights for February. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A fifth Fuel TV announces Fall schedule - includes ASP events. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A sixth (VOD content launch) Fuel TV Launches VOD Outlet. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A seventh Alli Announces Partnership with Gatordade as Title Sponsor of Enhanced Free Flow Tour. Shall I continue? TomCat4680 (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I understand that you are excited, but this RfC is incoherent. What is the issue that I am being asked to comment upon? Dlabtot (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)