User talk:Smokedigglera

October 2011

Please do not write an article about yourself, as you did at Smoke E. Digglera. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline Writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedians with articles.) Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Beloved Freak 17:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Smoke E. Digglera has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Beloved Freak 17:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am replacing what was wrongly and inappropriately redirected. The page existed until someone came and delete all the info and redirected it to another page. I am, also, adding/correcting information that was or wasn't there. How do I go about getting this done in an immediate fashion? Smokedigglera (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please don't add any more copy/pastes from other sources without explicit permission. Secondly, it's really best that you don't write articles about yourself. Wikipedia is a work in progress, articles about notable topics eventually get written, but they should be written by neutral, uninvolved people. I'm not sure what corrections you are referring to because your contributions only show the addition of this article over a redirect. If you come across incorrect assertions about living people (including yourself) on any article, you can of course remove/correct them (if you do, it's helpful to other editors explain your reasoning using edit summaries or article talkpages).

With regards to this particular article, it was redirected because it was deleted following a discussion, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoke E. Digglera. It was decided that the notability guidelines for having an article on Wikipedia were not met. It shouldn't be recreated unless there is a change in consensus--Beloved Freak 18:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So, to understand more clearly, 1. What was the copyright infringement? 2. What was copied and pasted? (cuz I have been working on this since about 9am EST) 3. I never knew it was redirected, due to administration. And, I Still don't understand why it was removed in the beginning. 4. I'm not "notable" enough to be a solo artist on Wikipedia? "Borderline at best"?? No "reputable sources indicating notability"?? I don't meet "Wikipedia's notability guidelines as a solo artist"?? PLease calrify these things. Because, I don't want someone else to make a page, like they, initially, did, and it get deleted again. Smokedigglera (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the copyrigh issue, there may be some confusion stemming from the fact that this article previously existed and was deleted. If so, I apologise. Where did you get the material from? If other websites have copied from the original article rather than the other way around, then that is not a problem. Again, I apologise if that's the case.

Now, notability. Deletion discussions tend to focus (among other things) on certain guidelines that have been put together over the years. These determine whether or not a topic should have its own article. The main guideline is at Wikipedia:Notability, although for an article about you, Wikipedia:Notability (music) would also apply. Have a look at those guidelines, but the main way we determine notability is through significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable, secondary sources. For an article to be written about you, you would need to show that there has been significant coverage of you (not just your band) in sources that are both reliable and completely independent. The editors that took part in that deletion discussion looked for that kind of coverage and could not find any. "borderline at best" sounds quite insulting, but just refers to the fact that that editor initially thought that you might just meet the notability criteria laid out in the guidelines. They later came to the conclusion that in their opinion, you did not. Please note, as hard as it might be to read that, it's not about how important you are, or how good you are in your profession, obviously Wikipedia can't decide that. We simply go by how topics are covered by secondary sources. "I don't believe he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines as a solo artist" refers to the fact that to get a separate article, you would need to meet the notability criteria independently of any coverage of your band. Secondary sources would need to be discussing you as an individual.

If you think there is significant coverage of you as an individual (eg. a book written about you, magazine articles about you (not your band), critical reviews in notable, reliable sources), what I would suggest is asking at the notability noticeboard to see if you could get consensus that there should indeed be an article written about you. One of the reasons that people are discouraged from writing articles about themselves is that it's really difficult to write neutrally when you have a conflict of interest. The article you added (whether initially written by you or not) was not at all neutral, and was full of promotional language ("remains a favorite among music lovers today", "his enormous talent", "sure to please listeners"). Can you see how that's a problem? --Beloved Freak 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]