User talk:Scotchontherocks

Welcome!

Hello, Scotchontherocks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Beat Persuasion, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Alexius08 (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Beat Persuasion

A tag has been placed on Beat Persuasion 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. Alexius08 (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Beat Persuasion

I have nominated Beat Persuasion, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat Persuasion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Please

If Wikipedia is supposed to be "free" than I wonder why it takes so much time and energy to even get advice on what I need to do. I've searched your data banks for info on how to write articles, looked at several articles BY BANDS that are no less famous than Beat Persusion is, and scrapped like crazy on discussion boards to figure out exactly what a "clean article" or "meeting encyclopedia guidelines" means but still have found no information that will tell me exactly what I need to do. I'm happy to delete or "clean" whatever it is you think doesn't meet your standards but really, how can you expect anybody to understand what is okay and what isn't with such vague guidlines. If you got the time to write here with all your acedemia, Wikipedia-world jargon then you must have time to tell me in slightly laymen's terms exactly what is wrong with it .... from what I can tell you guys want refernces from publications, correct? Is that what the problem is? I've studied other pages and I don't see how the writing (though I'll double check for grammar errors and spelling) is so much different. I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that as so far there is not a lot of information about the band in publications... if that's the case, then I suppose I can wait until I get more references of that type but I mean, if Wikipedia and official website references aren't enough, then I don't really get it... looking at other articles on Wikipedia it seems to me several aritcles are based "solely" on stuff written on the internet..... Or are you saying that basically NO NEW BANDS are allowed to ever get written about on Wikipedia? So far, the kind of language used to "delete" this site I worked so hard on seems snippy and a bit biased without trying to actually help me out at all. Please, I'm new here and I'll get a better idea of how to write these things evenutally, but for now, somebody just give me a quick rundown about what is wrong. Scotchontherocks (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band you are writing about needs to meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, as disticnt from any defintion you may find in a dictionary. In particular, reliable sources are needed to establish this notability. Reliable sources include newspapers and magazines covering the band. Other band articles may be in good shape or bad shape, but their status is not relevant to your article. If they should be deleted, somebody will eventually notice and put it through the process. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]