User talk:Ferrarirydah

Speedy deletion nomination of DeucePro Entertainment
A tag has been placed on DeucePro Entertainment 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 an organization or company, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  17:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Howdy! I responded to your message at Talk:DeucePro Entertainment. Hope my response helps... let me know if you have any further questions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as DeucePro Entertainment, to Wikipedia as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   19:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your page was deleted (for the second time today) for the reason listed above. The page was about a company and didn't credibly assert the importance or significance of said company. Again, I urge you to acquaint yourself with the notability guidelines, as they govern what topics can and cannot have an article on Wikipedia. DeucePro Entertainment needs to be notable in order to have an article on Wikipedia. Facebook, Myspace and the company's website do not make it notable, as I explained earlier. Thank you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed you've re-created the article a third time. Please stop. You must read the guidelines I have given to you several times already before creating this article. I do not know why you continue to ask on the talk page what you need to do to have the article not be deleted -- I have told you several times. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please respond here and not by creating new talk pages. It creates additional work for our administrators to have to repeatedly delete the talk pages you are creating (which is something I'm sure you didn't know -- just want to explain why you should respond here). Everything you need to know is here. The topic of any article must be notable. In order to be notable, it needs to be the subject of independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The topic of the article you are creating is not. Moreover, it is being speedily deleted because the article doesn't even go so far as to explain why the topic is notable, in a credible fashion. That is the best I can explain this. If you do not understand this, I am not sure how else to help you. Apologies. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  20:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If it clears anything up, in this case it's not a question of anything you can do. Someone else needs to cover the company you are writing about in a non-trivial fashion. That someone else needs to be a reliable source. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Would a variety ad work or an ad in the NY times?
 * An advertisement? No. It needs to be third-party coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The NY Times and Variety are reliable sources, but they (or a similar reliable source) would need to independently cover the company for it to be notable. Make sense? An ad in the Times is not independent coverage. An article written by the NY Times is. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood
 * Excellent. That's a relief :). Don't give up. The worst case scenario as far as I'm concerned is to see Wiki notability policy scare off well-intentioned new editors. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)