User talk:Everyoneshouldknow

Welcome!

Hello, Everyoneshouldknow, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Vactruth.com, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Joseph2302 (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Vactruth.com

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing.

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Draft:Vactruth.com, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. The fact is that that draft is just an attempt to attack the company, and therefore the "deletion as an attack page" tag is 100% appropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Vactruth.com

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing.

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bazj (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Vactruth.com

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vactruth.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Iamahashtag (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vactruth

I've deleted the page and I figured that I'd explain why in a little more depth.

Ultimately the main reason is that the page came across like a WP:SOAPBOX effort intended to show how the site is bad. You commented that you were writing what was already out there, but the issue here is in the way you phrased things. For example, you wrote that the site "has a pattern of providing support for an accused child abusers as documented by Science blogs". I read over the source and the author doesn't actually state that the site supports accused child abusers. The thing about claims like that is that the source has to explicitly state this claim and even then, this is the type of claim that needs to be made in multiple sources because it poses such a huge potential legal issue for Wikipedia. I also have to note that Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In any case, the biggest difference between NaturalNews and this article was how everything was phrased. When it comes down to criticism things have to be phrased extremely carefully - most of the time it has to be sourced to direct quotes from people/places that would be considered a reliable source per Wikipedia and even then it has to be extremely carefully done. You didn't really do this with your entry per sentences like the one above and phrases like "a deeper look".

I also didn't really see where this site would pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The sources on the article were fairly weak overall for the most part. PinkNews could probably be used as a RS since they do have an editorial board and The Daily Beast could probably be used as well (although TDB's usability is very frequently contested on here), but places like The Spudd would be considered a self-published source since it undergoes little to no editorial oversight that Wikipedia can verify. I performed a search and ultimately couldn't find a huge amount of coverage out there to show where this site really merits an article. You can chalk that up to some sort of victory in a way, since it looks like the site is regularly ignored by most groups and is, at best, considered to be part of the tin foil hat brigade by most of the places reporting on them.

I'm also somewhat concerned by posts you left on this talk page where you asked if there was some sort of bias on Wikipedia as far as this site is concerned. The answer to that is pretty much no - there isn't. It's pretty much just that the page came across as some sort of expose on the website and while you may have not intended it to come across as an attack page, that's how it comes across. That poses a huge legal concern for Wikipedia if the site were to decide that the entry was libelous and choose to sue Wikipedia since it was hosting the content. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]