PkmnTrainerJ

Fanpop

With regard to Fanpop, you'll have to establish clear notability (see WP:Notability) for this product (i.e., you need references much more substantive than blogs). Since you have tagged it as under construction, I can give you a day or so to provide suitable references, but after that it will be nominated for deletion, WP:afd where it will not survive without solid references. If the product is as new as it seems, and has not yet achieved reasonable notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia, the honest thing to do would be to delete it yourself, but I will leave that up to you. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The notes and refs are showing up fine; however, your references so far aren't enough to establish notability. They are from personal blogs and from the website of the product itself. What you need are reviews by, for instance, significant and notable online or print magazines. "In-house" references won't help save the article from deletion. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Teen Trend alone might help establish marginal notability depending if the review was significant (more than a by-line and not a gratuitous advertisement). I would shoot for online sources. This is a computer based product; if it is notable enough for inclusion here, it should have generated online reviews by now. If not, I suspect that the product is probably not notable; in that case, you should probably wait until it is notable before trying to get it through the gate here. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'm glad to help. The reference looks solid enough as far as I can tell; that puts it on the fuzzy boderline of notability, in my opinion anyway (feel free to get another op at WP:Village Pump). If you can dig up one or two more or the same quality (or one better), I think you will have established basic notability. If you can't, I'll probably afd tag it, which will simply mean that a bunch of editors will look it over and try to decicide if it is notable enough to remain.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I need to get another coffee. --J-- (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Being a new page patroller is something anyone can do or claim to do. I'm no authority here; Wikipedia is run by concensus; so I'm serious when I say that it's worhtwhile to seek out a second op. The Mashabale link and the Teen Trend link are your real references. The product website reference belongs there, too. I recommend retaining only a few of the others; too many blog refs & such make the article look like a piece of advertising, something you'll want to avoid. best, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Great!! I appreciate that you're working within the Wikipedia guidelines to get the article up to par. I'm sure that the peer review will be helpful. best, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FanpopLogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:FanpopLogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fanpop

Hi there, sorry for the slow reply. I've had a look at the article and I'd be happy to email you a copy of the last revision before deletion. In some cases I will restore to user space, but in this case I think it's best not to hang around there. Sorry, but it fails to meet our notability criteria pretty badly. By all means, work on it offline at your own pace. If and when the site becomes notable enough to warrant inclusion here, then by all means create a new article, but please note that re-posting of substantially the same material as before will get speedily deleted again.

Let me know if you have enabled your email in your preferences and I will send the info to you.

Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)