We don't have a Wikipedia page.

[peter]

Is it not ....er...significant that The Watch has been hugely significant as a means of drawing together a group of individuals that share a common interest in one area, but differ widely in others [look at the Tank for goodness sake]. The significance of the Watch to it's members is beyond question and as a scource of information pertaining to the Chrons themselves - a sort of huge exercise in literary criticism exploring all of the aspects of the works in the minutest of detail [does even TLOTR have it's own such dedicated site on such a scale] - it is surely unequelled. Any future scholar of The Chrons of TC would be ill advised to embark upon such a study without ever consulting the Watch to see what members here have had to say on the subject first.

[I'm Murrin]

A knitting circle might be hugely significant in its members' lives but it wouldn't mean they deserve to be in an encyclopedia.

[wayfriend]

I can contribute links to a blog post or two. And I've mentioned the Watch in a couple of Indies Unlimited articles.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that.

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG.

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. [link]

But!

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.
[link]

[Avatar]

The Indies Unlimited articles should be useable though..they're not self-published.

--A

[kevinswatch]

I don't think a wikipedia page is really necessary, personally. But you all can do what you want. I just ask that you leave me (and my name) out of it.



-jay

[wayfriend]

[Avatar]

--A

[peter]

[kevinswatch]

-jay

[MsMary]

That's pretty hilarious, Wayfriend.

[sgt.null]

unlike Jay I want to be mentioned prominently in the Wiki page. because it is all about me. the whole world really.

this sums it up