While it's great that you have your own entry in the Wiki World, please be very attentive to it! I have a hard time trusting Wikipedia because of the user changes. All it takes is one PO'd person and they can write whatever they want about you.

I'm not being a "Debbie Downer" here, but please be careful.

Check it out – we have a wikipedia page. Not only that, but we have links from Zak Bagans and Aaron Goodwin's wikipedia pages.

Does this mean we're somebody now??

They love you. They really, really love you!

Yeah – we are watching it carefully, trust me on this. We've already had a run-in with some guy with roll-back privileges who thinks he is God. Srsly.

I wonder if wiki IP bans people who make ridiculous changes to pages.

They do IP ban people, but I don't know how you'd go about it and just how timely of a response you would get.

Once you are in Wikipedia the world is your oyster /cool.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />

For those not aware, our wiki page was deleted early last year. Here is the wiki page discussing our deletion and a link to said page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W…..ipedia:Art…mal_Underground

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranormal Underground

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal Underground

Paranormal Underground (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Paranormal Underground" – news · books · scholar · free images)

No reliable, independent sources found to verify notability. Appears to be self-promotional. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

* Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

* comment Needs more third party RS. It does seem that the Tapcon2 affair is real.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

* Weak DeleteNo third-party sources in the article, I couldn't find any on google either. The site seems to be well kept-up and the Podcasts are current and done at a higher level than your average amateur, I couldn't get to the forums at work so I do not know if they are well trafficked but it seems like the magazine could be notable. The wikiarticle also seems to be of acceptable quality. I would like to see this article stay if someone can find at least one decent source demonstrating notability. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

* Delete No third party sources and no indication this is a notable publication. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

* Delete lacks reliable sources RadioFan (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

LAME!!!! They are just jealous.