User talk:CamiMac
CamiMac, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]
|
Hi CamiMac! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Status and Advice[edit]
As reviewing administrator, I deleted the article on Daniel Belardinelli. I do not know whether or not he is notable, but the article as you wrote it showed no significance, and, in addition , was highly promotional. Here's what to do:
First of all, a Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. For a visual artist, this is normally published reviews of the work, or evidence showing it is in the permanent collection of several important museums. See WP:CREATIVE for the exact requirements.
Then, a Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or describe the details of their early life, say what they have accomplished, as supported by the third party references. The death of his uncle on 9-11 would be relevant only if the work he produced in consequence was important enough to have been discussed by an independent source in that particular context. What he says about his own work is not an independent source.
Remember not to copy from a web site, even his own -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM (permission that irrevocably gives everyone in the world the right to copy, reuse, and modify the material) , the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. (Thus, there is generally no purpose in giving permission; it is better to rewrite.)
Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective patrons or purchasers--that sort of content is considered promotional.
As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. And keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, which are usually more expansive.
If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity. I suggest you use the process as WP:Article Wizard, which is designed to guide you towards producing an acceptable article if one is possible. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
For further information see our FAQ about business, organizations, and articles like this and also WP:FIRST.
However, if the name you have used includes or refers to the subject of the article, you must choose another username. As explained in WP:USER, only individuals may edit. When you have a username that is or includes the name of your organization, you imply that you are editing officially, and have a superior right to edit the page. But that is not the way WP works--all editors are considered equal--and your contributions like those of any editor must be justified by sources. I'm sure you do not intend to give such impression, but that's why we have the rule. Therefore, please choose another name. On that user page, you should disclose your conflict of interest.