User talk:Showchoirnerd

Welcome!

Hello, Showchoirnerd, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

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!--Mishae (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Showchoirnerd. You have new messages at Talk:Findlay First Edition Show Choir.
Message added 23:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers! Unforgettableid (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Findlay First Edition

Hi there,

I added a couple links on the Findlay First Edition Show Choir article. There are others I can add from other geographic areas and places mentioned in the article. How is the article written in a promotional tone? It seems to provide an overview of the groups history, just like other pages about corporate organizations do, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showchoirnerd (talk • contribs) 19:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am busy. Please ask at Talk:Findlay First Edition Show Choir. If that page gets deleted, please ask at WP:COIN. Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I'm sorry this advice is later than I promised. Your article has three problems.

The first, which may prove insurmountable, is WP:Notability. Wikipedia is not a "list of everything"; it does not expect, or want, to have articles about every organization, any more than about every person. The inclusion criterion is called "notability", but the word is used in a special Wikipedia sense: it is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about?

That has the advantage of being a more objective test than "Do we think it's important?" and also of ensuring that there are independent sources for the article. It is quite a tough test, and many worthy organizations cannot pass it. That is not at all to their discredit, but it means they are not suitable subjects for a global encyclopedia. The test applies to non-commercial organizations and good causes, too - we have an explanatory essay entitled Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.

WP:Notability (summary) explains what is looked for. The FFE article had a long string of references, but they seem to be all school publications or the local newspaper, and more than that will be required for an acceptable article.

A more easily fixed problem is that the article is too long for its subject. It is full of detail that would be of interest to members of the choir or their families, but not to the general reader of a global encyclopedia. Compare, for instance, the article on the Bach Choir - 12 kb to 22 kb for FFE.

It is also too promotional in tone: "one of the best show choirs in the mid-west area... known for their distinctive style... majestic sound... new success and continued growth... " That's PR-speak, but Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view, no opinions or glowing adjectives (see WP:PEACOCK), just plain facts, neutrally stated and cited to reliable sources.

That is one reason why we very much prefer that articles should be written by people without the WP:Conflict of interest given by a close connection with the subject (which I am assuming that you have): the COI editor tells the story the organization wants to tell the world, not what the general encyclopedia reader might be interested to know. That would be fine for the choir's own website (to which an article can link so that the detail is only a click away for those who want it), or for a "notice-board" site like Facebook or Myspace, but Wikipedia is different. There is excellent advice by a very experienced Wikipedian at User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you:

"When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write."

I am sorry to be discouraging, but all too often we see people put a lot of effort and energy into articles which never really had a chance. The temptation is to pile on more and more local, trivial or non-independent references in a technique known as WP:Bombardment, but it doesn't work - see Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

If you want to have another go, I will if you like undelete the article into a sub-page in your user space where you can work on it, but in my opinion you would do better to start from a clean sheet. Try following Uncle G's advice; in any case, make a strong effort to think of yourself not as writing for the choir, but as writing for Wikipedia about the choir, from outside. As the article was deleted after a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Findlay First Edition Show Choir it can't just be posted again - show a draft first to me. If I am really convinced that the problems identified in the AfD have een overcome, I might agree to its being reinstated, but more likely I will ask you to list it at WP:Deletion review to get more opinions.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]