User talk:Sumtinfancy

Speedy deletion nomination of Emil and Dariel RockCellos
Hello Sumtinfancy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Emil and Dariel RockCellos for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Help me!
Hello, my name is Amy, and I just created a page for cello duo Emil and Dariel RockCellos, and someone just marked it for deletion. I am not sure why, would you be able to help me fix it so that it can be a normal article? Thanks.

Please help me with...

Amy Sumtinfancy (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted because it gave no indication of notability, and because it was blatant advertising. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you kindly help me create this article properly? Or have someone help me with it? I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and I am not sure how to add indication of notability. If you or someone can specify how this can be done, I would love to do it properly. Kindly advise. Thank you. Amy Sumtinfancy (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I did notice your comment there. I'm the administrator who deleted the article. You can generally see who deleted an article in the page logs, and if you wonder why, asking them is usually a good place to start. The page was deleted primarily because it was promotional. Some examples: "...reached instant international success...", "...garnering a massive fan base and becoming one of the most successful acts in the history of the show.", "...garnered international fame...", and (about someone who's not even the article subject) "...emigrated with his family from Russia to the United States of America in search of a better life, and to fulfill his American Dream.". That's gratuitous purple prose and adjective overload. We require articles to be entirely neutral, in both tone and content. Additionally, much of this seems to be rather subjective, and we don't allow opinion or editorial in encyclopedia articles from article writers. We do, in some cases, allow the opinions of reliable sources to be used in an article, but generally clearly attributed as their opinion rather than "in Wikipedia's voice". The portions that are in Wikipedia's voice should generally stick to basic, verifiable facts.  So, for what I mean by "verifiable". The article had one "reference" at the bottom, which I believe meant that you were the reference. That won't work, I'm afraid. Article editors are not a reference, and should not be writing from their personal knowledge or novel research. Rather, all article information should be verifiable because it has already been said by a solid, reliable reference. If that's not the case, then even if you know with certainty that something is true, it doesn't belong in an article.  One thing you might try is writing the article as a draft. You could do so at Draft:Emil and Daniel RockCellos (just click that red link and edit there). While draft space is not entirely free of restriction (especially, the article would still be subject to immediate deletion if it were promotional like before, we really try to be quite strict about keeping out things like ads or fan pages), other rules like requirements to have sufficient references and an assertion of significance do not apply while the article is still in the draft phase. Once you think the article is properly referenced and ready to go into the encyclopedia, you can request that an experienced editor review it. If they agree, they'll move it in for you. Especially since you're new at this, that's probably a much better way to proceed than trying to write articles directly into the main encyclopedia. That is, of course, provided that enough good, reliable, independent reference material exists out there to support an article on the group. If that's not the case, then unfortunately, we couldn't accept an article on that subject at all, until and unless more and better material is available.  That's probably a fair bit to digest, so if you have any questions, please do let me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)