User talk:Ellaleafe

The article Echo wild has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Echo wild


A tag has been placed on Echo wild 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 a band or musician, 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, you can place a request here. red dog six (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved to userspace
I've moved the article to your userspace. There were multiple, multiple issues.

First off, the biggest issue was that there wasn't really any coverage for the band. I see where there is coverage for various other things, but nothing that is actually specifically about the band. For example, you use a Huffington Post article that talks about the Echo Wild Game Rangers camp, but it isn't about the band at all. The thing about this is that it doesn't actually confirm anything about how the band originated its name and is generally considered to be original research until we have more official confirmation. (WP:OR) To really source that properly you'd have to have an article in a news source that talks about the band and how it chose its name. You could probably use the band's website if it's there, but since that's a primary source (WP:PRIMARY) it can't show notability for the band. Notability can really only be shown through coverage along the lines of reviews, interviews, articles, and the like about the band. They can't be just anywhere either- they have to be in places that we'd consider to be a reliable source. Places such as Discogs can't show notability as they're just routine database listings.

Now as far as what people do with other things, that notability doesn't automatically translate into notability for the band. For example, one of the members got noticed for his magic acts. That's great but it doesn't mean that the band is automatically notable because that member got a story written about him in another capacity. The only time something like that can contribute to notability is if the band member was a visible member of one or more groups that was notable enough to merit their own article on Wikipedia. Otherwise, notability is not inherited. (WP:NOTINHERITED)

When it comes to talking about who is releasing the band's stuff, we tend to just mention that in the infobox. In most instances the record label only merits a passing mention and it doesn't automatically mean that the label will give the band notability. It's only when the label is major or very high profile, and the band has released multiple albums with them that we use that to count towards notability. As far as other stuff that the label has done, that doesn't mean notability for the band as notability is not inherited by any association the band has with other performers.

There was also an issue with tone. The article wasn't really written in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Phrases such as "pop art group creating a cool cute rebellion" can be seen as an opinion, which should not be in encyclopedic articles. There were also some issues with the switching of tenses. When it comes to referring to bands, a band is always referred to in the singular unless the name itself is plural. For example, Seahorse Liberation Army should be referred to in the singular whereas a band such as the Pussycat Dolls would be in the plural due to their name being plural. There's one army but several dolls, in other words.

I have to mention original research again because it was consistently done throughout the article. When writing an article, whether it's a Wikipedia/encyclopedia entry or a piece for a media outlet, you will need to be able to back up everything with reliable sources to prove that what you're writing is correct. For example, when you say that the band was influenced by a certain group of people/performers, you need to have a source where someone from the band actually says this. Otherwise it's considered to be original research and has no place in a Wikipedia article. You might be able to get away with this in a journal piece if you say something along the lines of "the band seems to draw inspiration from ____, _____, and from their days with _______" but you'd have to emphasize that this seems to be the case rather than it being a definite fact. But we can't do that here unless we have documentation of the band actually confirming things on the page such as influences and origins. It's something to be careful of when writing things anywhere, really, as someone could very easily come back and ask for something to be removed or redacted because it's incorrect.

I've cleaned up some of the article, but we still need coverage to pass notability guidelines. Offhand the only thing I can really say now is that there's a huge difference between writing for a newspaper or media outlet and writing for an encyclopedia. If what you're really looking for is experience writing for the media, it'd probably be better for you to open up a blog or other type of website and practice there. That's not to say you can't learn things through here, but writing a good Wikipedia article doesn't guarantee skill at media articles and vice-versa. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh- another note: I read on the teahouse that you're interested in writing "sensually, esoteric, factual timelines". (I was following up to see if you had any questions.) Please understand that while we do strive for factual, articles should not be written in a sensual or esoteric fashion. The thing to remember about writing for Wikipedia is that we're an encyclopedia. Things should be written in layman's terms whenever possible, meaning that someone coming into the page should be able to easily understand the vast majority of the article without any problems. That doesn't mean that you have to write things in "See Jane run" terms, but it shouldn't be written with the intent that only a specific type of people will be likely to view the page and therefore will already understand everything on it. Secondly, writing with a sensual tone isn't really a good idea because so very, very, very often it clashes with our neutral point of view policy. (WP:NPOV) Articles must be written in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. It's very, very different from writing an article for a newspaper or blog. I can't emphasize that enough because the two things are entirely different. You can learn some skills from writing here and I'm not trying to discourage you, but I do want to make sure that you understand that if you write an article like you would a newspaper or media article, it won't fit how you're supposed to write an article on here. Since you're studying to become a journalist, it's especially important that you know the difference between the writing you should use in a media/news entry and the type of writing you'd use in an encyclopedia entry. Writing for a peer-reviewed journal is similar to writing for an encyclopedia, but still isn't exactly the same since you have more freedom to make theories and opinions in a PRJ entry. There's a huge, huge difference. Articles for a Wikipedia entry need to be concise, clear, and to the point, while also utilizing reliable sources. With media articles you don't have to do all of that in the same way, although you would still need to be clear and use RS. I just really want to make sure that you understand the difference and that this wouldn't be like writing for a blog or a newspaper/opinion piece. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)