Remake Our Wikipedia Article

[SigmaKnight]

After listening to the beginning of CAA radio, and checking on our wikipedia article, Ive noticed that its not there. *Sobs* So, I figured this thread needs to be made.

Someone needs to recreate our article, bigger and better than before. So, I made this thread to ask, seriously, what should be on our wikipedia article?

I know we should mention history and all that but, what really is the history of CAA, If a nice wordy mod could reply with a prepared history of caa up to the current date, it would be helpful. ^.^;

Apart from that, what else should be on our wikipedia page?

And who would like to write it?

And if you have something thats worth mentioning, why not write it up and post it here?

[USSRGirl]

OOOH!!!!! OOOOOH!!!

:: Hand quivers about to raise ::

Ah... nevermind. This could be dangerous. I have a bad reputation for trolling wikis. Still... it is tempting...

[CobaltAngel]

CAA used to have a wikipedia page?

[USSRGirl]

Yeah, I saw it before.

[SigmaKnight]

CAA used to have a wikipedia page?

Yep... It was pretty nice, or so I thought..

[CobaltAngel]

What happened? Why did they take it down?

[Locke]

Oh yeah, the make(s) havent revealed themselves yet though...

[SigmaKnight]

What happened? Why did they take it down?

According to our CAA radio show, they took it down due to it being too "advertisment"ish

Oh yeah, the make(s) havent revealed themselves yet though...

CAA radio said it was BSJ; and I did part of it that talked about the podcasts

[uc pseudonym]

If you want to see what Wikipedia itself says about the issue, you need only look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Anime_Alliance

Personally, I think that it would be best if other people wrote the article. In addition to potentially being a self-promotion issue, it simply makes more sense to me that you don't add wiki entries about your own things.

[SigmaKnight]

In addition to potentially being a self-promotion issue, it simply makes more sense to me that you don't add wiki entries about your own things.

This is true. But you do have to wonder, if a member doesnt make an article about CAA on wikipedia, who would?

I mean, anyone that would know any thing about it would have had to have been a member at some point, or known the more intricate things about the site. And I dont really think that someone from the outside looking in would really know much about us.

[Authority3000]

If you want to see what Wikipedia itself says about the issue, you need only look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Anime_Alliance

More directly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Anime_Alliance

[uc pseudonym]

Ah. I assumed such existed, but hadn't looked hard enough.

This is true. But you do have to wonder, if a member doesnt make an article about CAA on wikipedia, who would?

I mean, anyone that would know any thing about it would have had to have been a member at some point, or known the more intricate things about the site. And I dont really think that someone from the outside looking in would really know much about us.

Your point is valid. However, I think that it is likely that if CAA was truly notable, someone else would create an article about it for the sake of reference. At that point, it would accure further data, likely from members, as entries are meant to do. For example, I did not create the previous article, but I did add information once it existed. The articles are ideally written by experts, after all.

[SigmaKnight]

Ah. I assumed such existed, but hadn't looked hard enough.


Your point is valid. However, I think that it is likely that if CAA was truly notable, someone else would create an article about it for the sake of reference. At that point, it would accure further data, likely from members, as entries are meant to do. For example, I did not create the previous article, but I did add information once it existed. The articles are ideally written by experts, after all.

Ah, makes sense. Point taken.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Vanity press? Spam? What a load of crock! They let filth through, but not this.
Way to go Wikipedia! (not)

[RedMage]

Personally, I rather agree with Wikipedia on this, actually.

I see no need for CAA to have a Wikipedia page. The chances anyone would go to Wikipedia to look for information on this site strike me as slim to none. There are literally millions of websites no more and no less notable than this one out there. They don't need Wikipedia pages and neither do we.

[Joshua Christopher]

At least we don't have an Uncyclopedia page.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I don't see a CAA wiki page as "advertising" Look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starmen.net

It's one for starmen.net. It's simply telling the history of it and how it got started. Nowhere is it asking people to join or advertising.

Shame on the wiki staff. I hardly saw any "advertising" or "spam".

[bigsleepj]

Eh?

What??

But I tried to be at least balanced when I wrote it. I never intended it to be spam. I can't believe they deleted it.

[bigsleepj]

That said, though, some objections made against the Wikipedia article by members (whom I shall not name) of the CAA in PM's were logical and well reasoned. Indeed, I'm not so sure now as I was when I wrote it that it would be a good idea to resurrect the page.

That said as well, having an empty page declaring our previous page was an advertisement when it wasn't is sort of scathing.

[mastersquirrel]

One thing to note about their removal of the wiki page is this:

does not exhibit signs of passing WP:WEB

The WP:WEB that is mentioned here is the criterion for an article in wiki about a website or something of that nature being considered notable or worth note. An entry in wiki about a website must meet one of the three criterion to be considered notable. If you look that the WP:WEB and read the criterion then you'll see that our page didn't meet any of them.

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

The only non-trivial published work that I know about CAA being in was that one article about anime and christianity, the one that's been brought up multiple times. (I don't have a link so I can't very well anotate that) It's only one article, and I don't think it was ever mentioned in the wiki, but then again I never read the whole entry.

2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.

Again, no dice. CAA hasn't one any well known awards from any publication or organisation, therefore we don't pass that criterion either.

3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

Three strikes, we're out!

Since our wiki page didn't meet any of the criteria laid out for notable web content it was deleted.

As for the "vanity", well...

[quote="Webster's Dictionary"]vanity - 1. any thing or act that is vain, futile, idle, or worthless
2. the quality or fact of being vain, or worthless]
While I can not vouch personally since I never read the full article (saw no point, I already knew what CAA was) I can't make any assertions as to whether it really was vain or not.

However, I believe that the person who made that comment was using vanity as a description of the actual article using the second meaning for vanity listed above. I believe he meant that the article itself had no real purpose. As RedMage pointed out, I don't think most people would go looking for information about a site like this on Wikipedia. They'd have a much better chance of finding out about this place if they Google "Christian Anime" and checked out the site for themselves.

[bigsleepj]

While I can not vouch personally since I never read the full article (saw no point, I already knew what CAA was) I can't make any assertions as to whether it really was vain or not.

I don't believe it was vain. It certainly did not say "this is the best site ever", and admittedly the criteria for non-deletion you quoted is rather reasonable too.