305:. Also that page you linked said: "Within Knowledge (XXG), notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary." Who is to say that Cecilia is not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"? Too subjective a criteria I would say! How can I show Cecilia to be "significant, interesting enough to deserve attention"? I’ve already pointed out to videos that are AMAZING.
552:
writing about them, because as you say they "don't give a **** about", then your conclusion should be that they don't believe the subject is of interest to their readers and won't help them sell their product. i.e. the person isn't notable. Your frustration is apparently born of your failure to reach the conclusion that they don't reach the standard. Instead you'd rather try naive argument, ignoring the standard, or merely repeatedly asking the question hoping to get a different answer. That's not the way it works, ask as many times as you want but without the coverage in reliable third party sources the article can't exist. --
497:"how can we be sure the person writing something is who they say they are, and that what they say is accurate" For that matter, how can we be sure ANYONE is writing accurately? Sure newspapers and magazines would be great, but we don't know either way if their telling the truth. And yeah I’ve perused the "reliable sources" link and its utterly impossible. how do you expect me to get a source from "The New York Times" on cecilia, a 16-year-old girl that the business guys over at The Times don't give a **** about?
364:. I just listened to Ms. Grace's work and she is a very good singer, especially considering her age. But I'm afraid we need others to provide coverage before we'll have an article here. Sorry, BUT I AM THE "RELIABLE SOURCE". And you are too! Since you think shes a good singer for her age, you definitely believe she is "significant, interesting enough to deserve attention"! Pls bring the wiki article back. I BEG YOU! She’s famous and should have a article!
650:- You can't deliver because coverage in reliable sources simply doesn't exist at this time. When/if actual newspapers, magazines, notable music websites, etc... discuss her in detail, then that is when people become article-worthy. It's a shame that someone with an actual voice and musical talent (I checked out some of the clips) gets zero coverage while talentless auto-tuned creations like
410:
the world hasn't taken note (at least not yet). If you have references to third party sources like newspapers or magazines who have written about her, then post some details of where we can find those, to see if they are good sources. (Things like youtube, blogs, forums don't usually count, I can set up a blog and write any old nonsense, or spam forums etc.) --
428:
It would be great to have a less subjective method to get
Cecilia onto this Knowledge (XXG). You said that we need "third party independent reliable sources." Well I’m the third part y source (I’m definitely not her!) and the dude earlier is too! We both think that shes talented and thus she deserves
476:
most people directly involved, especially the subject of the article are hardly neutral, they having something to gain from being portrayed a certain way, or may not want certain other things included. They also generally aren't considered reliable, how can we be sure the person writing something is
409:
say. If those who would know about the subject area, are trusted to write about them in these reliable sources (who if you read up we expect things like fact checking etc) , and write about the subject in a reasonable level of detail then we assume the world has taken note, if they haven't we assume
404:
You've stated the problem "Who is to say that
Cecilia is not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"? Too subjective a criteria I would say" - or the other way around if you remove the "not" from your question. That is a subjective decision, so we remove
300:
you don’t under stand though. I'm not trying to "promote" cecilia's work. She's an artist that already has A LOT of publicity and fame. If
Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, why doesn't Cecilia deserve a space? oh and did you watch the video I recomended above? there's a lot that will amaze you-
180:
Cecilia has played the piano since seven and the guitar since twelve. She has sung at church and at musical theater productions. She won a contest for emerging artists in
Sacramento, California. At the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville, Tennessee, she sang center-stage. Cecilia writes most of her music,
581:
IF "that's the way
Knowledge (XXG) works," THEN IT SHOULD BE CHANGED! ITS NOT AN EFFICIENT SYSTEM IF IT DOESN’T LET EVERYONE FAMOUS HAVE A WIKI ARTICLE. I’M SORY IF I’M RANTING TO MUCH BUT I’M FED UP. CAN SOMEONE HELP ME...FIND RELIABLE SOURCES FOR CECILIA GRACE BECUASE SHE REALY DESERVES AN WIKI
551:
You've been told several times what you need, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. That is wikipedia's term notable means. Newspapers and magazines write about things which they believe their audience will be interested in, so they can sell their product. If they aren't
429:
a wiki article. "Things like youtube, blogs, forums don't usually count" how do they not count. their right from the source! Where else would you get information about somebodys life? Sure you can "set up a blog and write any old nonsense," but that’s not what cecilia youtube and facebook are!
471:
You say it's subjective so why should wikipedia editors decide, but you're now one of them, so the same rules apply to you, as a wikipedia editor you don't get to decide either, your subjective view is as good or bad as any other wikipedian. Regarding blogs etc. I say they don't count for
566:
I'd just like to note that 82.7.44.178's comments are right on the mark. We need coverage in places like newspapers, magazines, or the like. One can argue that the bar for an article is too high (and I'd agree in some cases) but that's the way
Knowledge (XXG) works I'm afraid.
176:
Cecilia Grace is a 16-year-old
American singer who uploads to YouTube many pop-, Christian-, and country- genre songs. She is a fantastic vocalist and my BFF. Everyone who watches her videos are inspired to do great things and rate her videos five stars (★★★★★).
472:
establishing notability, for the idea that the world has taken note. If I wanted to promote something I could setup any number of them, it proves nothing about actual real world interest. They aren't great for other things either, we are trying to write from a
199:. Cecilia Grace is famous and should have a wiki article. I don't know why Σ doesn't like her, but it doesn't seem right for him to delete people he doesn't like. Not only is she famous (wordwide!), she also sings really well- check out
619:
OK i get it now: "non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" THAT;S THE KEY RIGHT? ... but i can’t find any NEWS SOURCES. they don’t cover musicians! I REALLY NEED SOME HELP HERE — Preceding
502:
I’m getting increasingly frustrated. no one is setting out lucid specifications of what is necessary to make a wiki article about
Cecilia. please, i know shes "notable" but no one is helping me show it !
337:. I just listened to Ms. Grace's work and she is a very good singer, especially considering her age. But I'm afraid we need others to provide coverage before we'll have an article here. Sorry,
289:) * Although I appreciate your desire to create an article about your friend, Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a place for new artists to promote their work. The page
258:
Although I appreciate your desire to create an article about your friend, Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a place for new artists to promote their work. The page
48:
34:
43:
405:
that direct decision from wikipedia editors like you and me. As others here note we remove our decision by looking to what the third party independent
684:
633:
597:
519:
450:
391:
321:
246:
219:
203:- its realy good. So I think she deserves a wiki page. thanks . i bet you that most people on this wiki would know of her and are fans of her!
469:
bit is lacking (have you read that link?) - does the world consider you to be a good authority on such matters? Are your writings fact checked?
39:
152:
553:
478:
411:
21:
167:
293:
explains our "notablity" criteria for creating articles about people. Your friend doesn't seem to meet those criteria, so I
262:
explains our "notablity" criteria for creating articles about people. Your friend doesn't seem to meet those criteria, so I
668:
wow thank you sir ! your realy nice compared to the others here. ☺ ☺ ☺ i’m glad that you liked cecilia’s music. thank you
434:
I’m realy not enjoying the wiki experience. ☹ All these rules and they don’t even make sense. can somebody enlighten me?
703:
102:
17:
680:
629:
593:
515:
446:
387:
317:
242:
215:
541:
672:
621:
585:
507:
438:
379:
309:
234:
207:
676:
625:
589:
511:
442:
383:
313:
238:
211:
557:
482:
415:
122:
87:
688:
663:
576:
561:
546:
523:
486:
454:
419:
395:
346:
325:
275:
250:
223:
91:
118:
70:
360:) *Hi, the problem is that Knowledge (XXG) only covers material that has been covered by multiple
78:. There is a consensus below that the subject has not yet received the coverage in independent,
333:
Hi, the problem is that
Knowledge (XXG) only covers material that has been covered by multiple
473:
286:
271:
532:
290:
259:
572:
357:
342:
83:
584:
I UNDERSTAND THE CRITERIA AND WHAT YOU WANT BUT I DON’T KNOW HOW TO DELIVER! — Preceding
466:
406:
361:
334:
79:
659:
651:
369:
187:
372:
190:
282:
267:
568:
353:
338:
302:
200:
655:
465:
You may be independent (I have no way of proving one way or other), but the
537:
181:
but occasionally covers songs by Taylor Swift and Jimmy Eat World.
196:
477:
who they say they are, and that what they say is accurate? --
375:. Everything I put in the wiki article is in those pages!
159:
145:
137:
129:
654:
get everyone's attention, but sometimes life sucks.
368:oh and if your looking for sources, here they are:
370:http://www.facebook.com/CeciliaGraceMusic?sk=info
188:http://www.facebook.com/CeciliaGraceMusic?sk=info
373:http://www.youtube.com/user/CeciliaGraceMusic
191:http://www.youtube.com/user/CeciliaGraceMusic
8:
101:The following is an archived debate of the
82:sources necessary to support an article. –
303:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pVUtnOUsKQ
201:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xvTrUGgB1Y
63:
197:http://en.wikipedia.org/Cecilia_grace
7:
706:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
266:the deletion of this article. --
702:The above is an archive of the
582:ARTICLE AND I WANT TO HELP HER.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
297:the deletion of this article.
1:
195:hello. Σ deleted my page at
729:
535:. And click that link. --
92:07:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
709:Please do not modify it.
689:17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
664:13:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
577:20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
562:18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
547:18:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
524:17:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
487:17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
455:17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
420:06:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
396:17:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
347:01:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
326:23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
276:22:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
251:20:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
224:20:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
108:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
230:- hi, is anyone here?
474:neutral point of view
533:No original research
105:of the page above.
716:
715:
692:
677:Cecilia grace fan
675:comment added by
626:Cecilia grace fan
624:comment added by
590:Cecilia grace fan
588:comment added by
527:
512:Cecilia grace fan
510:comment added by
458:
443:Cecilia grace fan
441:comment added by
399:
384:Cecilia grace fan
382:comment added by
329:
314:Cecilia grace fan
312:comment added by
254:
239:Cecilia grace fan
237:comment added by
227:
212:Cecilia grace fan
210:comment added by
76:Deletion endorsed
720:
711:
691:
669:
648:Endorse deletion
545:
526:
504:
467:reliable sources
457:
435:
407:reliable sources
398:
376:
362:reliable sources
335:reliable sources
328:
306:
253:
231:
226:
204:
172:
170:
162:
148:
140:
132:
110:
64:
53:
33:
728:
727:
723:
722:
721:
719:
718:
717:
707:
704:deletion review
670:
544:
536:
505:
436:
377:
307:
232:
205:
166:
164:
158:
157:
151:
144:
143:
136:
135:
128:
127:
106:
103:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
726:
724:
714:
713:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
583:
549:
540:
500:
499:
498:
492:
491:
490:
489:
470:
460:
459:
432:
431:
430:
423:
422:
401:
400:
350:
349:
281:RESPONSE TO --
279:
278:
174:
173:
155:
149:
141:
133:
125:
113:
112:
97:
96:
95:
94:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
725:
712:
710:
705:
700:
699:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
653:
652:Rebecca Black
649:
646:
645:
635:
631:
627:
623:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
599:
595:
591:
587:
580:
579:
578:
574:
570:
565:
564:
563:
559:
555:
550:
548:
543:
539:
534:
531:
530:
529:
528:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
501:
496:
495:
494:
493:
488:
484:
480:
475:
468:
464:
463:
462:
461:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
433:
427:
426:
425:
424:
421:
417:
413:
408:
403:
402:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
374:
371:
367:
366:
365:
363:
359:
355:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
331:
330:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
304:
298:
296:
292:
288:
284:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
256:
255:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
202:
198:
193:
192:
189:
185:
182:
178:
169:
161:
154:
147:
139:
131:
124:
120:
119:Cecilia grace
117:
116:
115:
114:
111:
109:
104:
99:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
71:Cecilia grace
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
708:
701:
671:— Preceding
647:
506:— Preceding
437:— Preceding
378:— Preceding
352:RESPONSE TO
351:
308:— Preceding
299:
294:
280:
263:
233:— Preceding
229:
206:— Preceding
194:
186:
183:
179:
175:
107:
100:
75:
69:
58:
554:82.7.44.178
479:82.7.44.178
412:82.7.44.178
59:7 June 2011
49:2011 June 8
35:2011 June 6
84:Eluchil404
184:Sources:
44:2011 June
685:contribs
673:unsigned
634:contribs
622:unsigned
598:contribs
586:unsigned
542:contribs
520:contribs
508:unsigned
451:contribs
439:unsigned
392:contribs
380:unsigned
322:contribs
310:unsigned
247:contribs
235:unsigned
220:contribs
208:unsigned
80:reliable
20: |
295:endorse
264:endorse
168:restore
138:history
291:WP:BIO
283:RL0919
268:RL0919
260:WP:BIO
569:Hobit
538:The Σ
354:Hobit
339:Hobit
160:watch
153:links
52:: -->
16:<
681:talk
660:talk
656:Tarc
630:talk
594:talk
573:talk
558:talk
516:talk
483:talk
447:talk
416:talk
388:talk
358:talk
343:talk
318:talk
301:see
287:talk
272:talk
243:talk
216:talk
146:logs
130:edit
123:talk
88:talk
32:<
22:Log
687:)
683:•
662:)
632:•
596:•
575:)
560:)
522:)
518:•
485:)
453:)
449:•
418:)
394:)
390:•
345:)
324:)
320:•
274:)
249:)
245:•
222:)
218:•
90:)
74:–
42::
679:(
658:(
636:)
628:(
600:)
592:(
571:(
556:(
514:(
481:(
445:(
414:(
386:(
356:(
341:(
316:(
285:(
270:(
241:(
214:(
171:)
165:(
163:)
156:|
150:|
142:|
134:|
126:|
121:(
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.