User talk:Elluminati

A tag has been placed on Hispanic Commonweal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I deleted it for two reasons. Firstly, as the message above says, the article didn't indicate why the group was important or notable. It would have helped, in this context, if there were reliable sources e.g. newspaper articles about the group, or other independent coverage of it. Next, the article talks about the group using "we", which made it more of an advert than an encyclopedia article. You should not use Wikipedia for advertising - see this guideline. You should also stop writing articles about groups with which you are so closely involved - see this guidance on "conflicts of interest". If the group is notable, then someone else will write about it. I hope this makes sense. I've left you a welcome message above with some useful links. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take this any further, you may want to go to deletion review. I strongly suggest that you (a) leave the subject alone, and stop trying to promote your group on Wikipedia (b) if you can't do that, find some sources unconnected with your group showing that it is notable and write a neutrally-worded, properly referenced draft in your userspace first of all (e.g. User:Elluminati/Hispanic Commonweal) and then ask at the Help Desk for someone to look at it before it's moved into the main encyclopaedia. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 20:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to save you the bother of doing so, I have opened my decision for review by the community at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 17#Hispanic Commonweal and you may wish to join the discussion. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked:

Notability on Wikipedia is a bit of a misnomer. What we refer to as notability is in fact the notion that a topic has been noted by third parties and commented about.

In the welcome message above you will find a link to this essay on writing your first article. In order to be included in the encyclopedia, any topic's content must be verifiable through independent, third-party reliable sources in sufficient number that a neutral article can be written. These three points aren't optional but core content policies: an article's content must be

• neutral and

• verified through

• reliable third party sources.

These are pretty much set in stone and suffer no exceptions anymore, and while there are still quite a few articles around which do not satisfy these, they get cleaned up when they are found. Your organization will be subject to these exact same requirements, no matter how laudable your goals and your actions may be. That's just the way the encyclopedia works, and it's fruitless to try and combat the system - you either work with it or decide that your time is currently better spent on other efforts, until these famous reliable sources out there lead one of these volunteers on a website you just dismissed to write an article about your organization.

On that topic, before you carry on, you would also be well advised to read through the civility guideline, assuming good faith and the no personal attacks policy, which should guide your interactions with others here. These dictate what is considered proper etiquette when communicating with others, and language like "outrage", "false accusation", threats of considering bringing things to "public attention" are quite definitely not part of that. Please understand that you are participating in a collaborative environment grouping several thousand editors from nearly every culture on the globe, and the rules which may work extremely well in a specific region's community to get things done, like a loud voice, a dip of bullying, a dash of media or heaven forbid, a tiny dose of implied threat from time to time, will tend to produce the opposite results here.

Should you decide to stay, as mentionned before, start with reading WP:FIRST, then create the article in your userspace (eg at User:Elluminati/Sandbox) and once it is ready, ask at WP:N? for a review before moving it to article space.

If you need further assistance, don't hesitate to start a new section here and add {{helpme}} under it, someone will respond to you shortly. Alternatively, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Good luck and, should you decide to stay, happy editing. MLauba (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]