Cecilia grace ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

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 (★★★★★).

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, but occasionally covers songs by Taylor Swift and Jimmy Eat World.

Sources:

http://www.facebook.com/CeciliaGraceMusic?sk=info http://www.youtube.com/user/CeciliaGraceMusic

hello. Σ‎ deleted my page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilia_grace. 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xvTrUGgB1Y - 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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC) reply

- hi, is anyone here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC) reply

• Although I appreciate your desire to create an article about your friend, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for new artists to promote their work. The page WP:BIO explains our "notablity" criteria for creating articles about people. Your friend doesn't seem to meet those criteria, so I endorse the deletion of this article. -- RL0919 ( talk) 22:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC) reply

RESPONSE TO -- RL0919 ( talk) * Although I appreciate your desire to create an article about your friend, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for new artists to promote their work. The page WP:BIO explains our "notablity" criteria for creating articles about people. Your friend doesn't seem to meet those criteria, so I endorse the deletion of this article.

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 Wikipedia 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- see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pVUtnOUsKQ. Also that page you linked said: "Within Wikipedia, 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."[1] 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC) reply

• Hi, the problem is that Wikipedia only covers material that has been covered by multiple reliable sources. 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, Hobit ( talk) 01:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

RESPONSE TO Hobit ( talk) *Hi, the problem is that Wikipedia only covers material that has been covered by multiple reliable sources. 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!

oh and if your looking for sources, here they are: http://www.facebook.com/CeciliaGraceMusic?sk=info http://www.youtube.com/user/CeciliaGraceMusic. Everything I put in the wiki article is in those pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

• 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 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 reliable sources 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 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.) -- 82.7.44.178 ( talk) 06:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

It would be great to have a less subjective method to get Cecilia onto this Wikipedia. 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 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!

I’m realy not enjoying the wiki experience. ☹ All these rules and they don’t even make sense. can somebody enlighten me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

• You may be independent (I have no way of proving one way or other), but the reliable sources 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?
  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 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 neutral point of view 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 who they say they are, and that what they say is accurate? -- 82.7.44.178 ( talk) 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

"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?

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 ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

No original research. And click that link. -- The Σ ^talk _contribs 18:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

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 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. -- 82.7.44.178 ( talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

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 Wikipedia works I'm afraid. Hobit ( talk) 20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

IF "that's the way Wikipedia 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 ARTICLE AND I WANT TO HELP HER.
I UNDERSTAND THE CRITERIA AND WHAT YOU WANT BUT I DON’T KNOW HOW TO DELIVER! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan ( talk • contribs)

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 unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan ( talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion - 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 Rebecca Black get everyone's attention, but sometimes life sucks. Tarc ( talk) 13:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC) reply

  wow thank you sir ! your realy nice compared to the others here. ☺ ☺ ☺ i’m glad that you liked cecilia’s music. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC) reply