Talk:The Crime Club
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Links
editThe pertinant policy is WP:EL. Commercial links are disallowed. The first link was a big in-your-face ad. Regardless of any other content, it can therefore not be linked to. The second link was a blog. Linking to blogs is also specifically disallowed. Sorry, guys. —Hanuman Das 04:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merger
editThere is no need to merge this article as there is plenty of precedent for imprints to have their own. See Target Books for just one precedent. 23skidoo 12:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - The Crime Club had a significant life of it's own quite distinct from the parent Doubleday. It needs epanding, however taking information away and not replacing it, does not help in that respect, even if the sources counld have been improved. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I took some time searching for sources that meet WP policies and guidelines (WP:V) and WP:RS). I couldn't find any that were suitable. Everything I could find was commercial. Perhaps other editors will have better luck, or perhaps there are printed sources. But if sources cannot be found, it will be impossible to expand the article. That's why I proposed the merger. If sources can be found, I will be happy for the article to remain separate. —Hanuman Das 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- In response to this, there is no Wikipedia policy that states that all articles must be expandable. Otherwise we'd end up losing articles on deceased persons of whom knowledge can no longer be added. The Crime Club existed; this was proven by the links that were deleted (In my opinion, the blog prohibition on Wikipedia needs to be removed as it's an outdated policy, however that's a debate for another forum, not here). There is a tag that requests expansion of the article. That works perfectly fine in getting people's attention. If this article is moved or deleted you do realize there are literally dozens of articles that will need to be changed, right? 23skidoo 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why? That's what redirects are for. All links to this article would simply go to Doubleday (publisher) automatically, where there would be a section for "The Crime Club". Still, I hope sources can be found as I see the majority would prefer to keep it separate... —Hanuman Das 00:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- We're supposed to avoid redirects whenever possible, not encourage them -- especially when relating to separate terms like this (I'm not talking about alternate spellings or name variations). It's just like redlinks. You see a redlink, you're supposed to create an article to make it turn blue. Are you doubting the existence of this imprint? All you need do is pick up any American edition of a Leslie Charteris novel and its there, plain as day. 23skidoo 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why? That's what redirects are for. All links to this article would simply go to Doubleday (publisher) automatically, where there would be a section for "The Crime Club". Still, I hope sources can be found as I see the majority would prefer to keep it separate... —Hanuman Das 00:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- In response to this, there is no Wikipedia policy that states that all articles must be expandable. Otherwise we'd end up losing articles on deceased persons of whom knowledge can no longer be added. The Crime Club existed; this was proven by the links that were deleted (In my opinion, the blog prohibition on Wikipedia needs to be removed as it's an outdated policy, however that's a debate for another forum, not here). There is a tag that requests expansion of the article. That works perfectly fine in getting people's attention. If this article is moved or deleted you do realize there are literally dozens of articles that will need to be changed, right? 23skidoo 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I took some time searching for sources that meet WP policies and guidelines (WP:V) and WP:RS). I couldn't find any that were suitable. Everything I could find was commercial. Perhaps other editors will have better luck, or perhaps there are printed sources. But if sources cannot be found, it will be impossible to expand the article. That's why I proposed the merger. If sources can be found, I will be happy for the article to remain separate. —Hanuman Das 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposed merged for the reasons stated above. Hayford Peirce 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Godeycrime.jpg
edit
Image:Godeycrime.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
