User:Fermiboson/Why am I trying to delete your page?

This user page is primarily designed to explain to relatively new editors that I may encounter in NPP or RCP the guidelines on article inclusion, etc. If you're EC, it's probably safe to assume you know everything I'm going to say below. If I'm AfDing an old article made by you, please entirely disregard.

Если вы не можете понять Английскую прозу на этой странице, вы вместо этого можете отредактировать версию Википедии на вашем языке.

如果你認爲你在閲讀此頁面時未能明白其中的英文文本，請考慮編輯中文維基百科。

Eğer İngilizce halini anlamakta güçlük çekiyorsan, kendi dilindeki Wikipedia sayfasını editlemeyi deneyebilirsin.

თუ თქვენ ვერ გაიგებთ ამ გვერდზე აღნიშნულ ინგლისურ პროზას, შეგიძლიათ იფიქროთ ვიკიპედიის ვერსიის მშობლიურ ენაზე რედაქტირებაზე.

यदि आप इस पृष्ठ की अंग्रेजी नहीं समझते हो, तब आप विकिपीडिया के संस्करण को अपनी मूल भाषा में संपादित करने पर विचार कर सकते हैं।.

'אם אתם לא מבינים את הפרוזה האנגלית בעמוד הזה, תשקלו לערוך את הגרסת ויקיפדיה בשפת האם שלכם

Si te encuentras que no puedes entender la prosa en esta página, en su lugar puedes considerar editar la versión de Wikipedia en tu idioma nativo.

Se você se encontrar sem entender a prosa de língua inglesa contida nessa página, por favor, considere contribuir para a Wikipédia na sua língua nativa.

Si vous ne pouvez pas lire cette page en anglais, vous pouvez considérer éditer la version Wikipedia de votre langue maternelle.

As jy find dat jy nie die engelse prose op hierdie blad verstaan nie, mag jy dit oorweeg om eerder die weergawe van Wikipidea in you moedertaal te redigeer.

Oh no! You've just made a page, it's not even been a day, and you see a big red banner on top of the page saying some scary thing about the article (or other page) being deleted at any time! Why am I trying to delete the page you crafted with careful and loving attention?

Things which are definitely NOT reasons I am trying to delete your page

• I am following orders from an evil cabal to censor you, and you personally, from Wikipedia. Frankly, I've probably never met you before today, and because Wikipedia is such a large place, will likely never meet you again. (Of course, if you do decide to stay and become a constructive editor, I would be very glad.) Put straightforwardly, I do not care about you either positively or negatively, and neither does Wikipedia. I nominate pages for deletion purely based on the merits of the page itself. If I see a pattern of problematic edits in your edit history I might end up nominating several pages that you authored for deletion, but this is because all of those pages individually are problematic in some manner, not because they are made by you.
• I am paid/sponsored by a certain goverment/intelligence agency/political party to suppress another point of view from Wikipedia. I have not, and will never, edit Wikipedia for pay, except a marginal possibility of editing in roles in the future that are community-approved, such as Wikipedians in residence. I may have an opinion on the particular thing you are writing about, I admit that; we all have our own biases. However, this is not going to be the reason your article is being nominated for deletion. What is a possibility is that my assessment of sources may be off due to infamiliarity with a topic area; see #I can be wrong.
• I neglected to consider how helpful information on your company/product/institution is to the reader. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote anything, even if you think it may solve world hunger. If you want the information kept, you will need to argue for inclusion based on policy, instead of begging for mercy.

The assumption of good faith

Before we move on to the reasons which I might be trying to delete your page for, I would like to point out that it is both my personal and Wikipedia policy to assume good faith on the part of other editors. What this means is that, absent other convincing evidence, I will assume that you are trying to contribute to the encyclopaedia, but just haven't received appropiate guidance on how to yet, or made some mistakes. That is fine; we all make mistakes, and many of our editing careers start off with several problematic edits and bad articles.

If you find yourself still genuinely confused about what is going on after reading this page, feel free to leave a message on my talk page, using the "New section" button found on the top right of the page, or ask a question at the Teahouse. I will be very happy to explain to you what I think the particular problem with your edits are, and help you in making constructive contributions if necessary.

In return, I ask also that you assume my good faith. If you think that I have made a gigantic mistake of some sort, and I might, please leave a note on my talk page calmly and clearly explaining why you think the content should not be deleted, with reference to Wikipedia policies, instead of immediately assuming I have it out for you.

There are some situations that I consider convincing evidence against an editor's good faith, such as:

• Making an attack page (CSD G10);
• Repeatedly recreating pages deleted via deletion discussions or valid speedy deletions, after being warned multiple times on the talk page;
• Using multiple accounts (referred to as sockpuppetry) to manufacture false consensus at Articles for deletion discussions, evade scrutiny of editing history (particularly the recreation of articles), and other such dishonest behaviour.

These acts are considered by the community to (generally) be blockable offenses, and I strongly advise you against even considering doing any of them.

Why I am trying to delete your page

So, why am I trying to delete your page?

• Notability. This is the most common reason your page is being nominated for deletion. Notability in a Wikipedia context is different from the way we use it in daily life, as it is a way to determine if we should have an article for it. Simply achieving a certain popularity, making a given amount of money, having enough subscribers, or being a thing you know really well and everyone around you also knows really well is not a valid criterion of inclusion. Usually, we require coverage from at least two reliable, secondary and independent sources which have significant coverage of the subject. Occasionally, some article subjects may have their own special notability guidelines, for example for artists and actors, musical pieces, academics, athletes, and places. Here are some examples of sources that do not meet the guidelines:
  • Unreliable source: Social media is not a reliable source. This includes Youtube videos, Twitter and Facebook posts, etc. especially if it is made by the subject of the article. Self-published sources such as blogs are also not reliable, unless the author of the blog is a prominent academic or other qualified professional, or if there is evidence of peer review. To check if your source is reliable or not, you may refer to the list at WP:RS/PS.
  • Non-secondary source: Secondary sources are summaries, analyses and synthesis of primary sources, which are usually published by people related to the event under record, take the list of a catalogue, etc. Examples of primary sources include dictionaries, catalogues (phonebooks, index directories, databases, etc), oral histories and interviews. Primary sources cannot be used to determine notability because many primary sources are indiscriminate collections of information.
  • Non-independent source: Sources made by the subject of the article, people with a conflict of interest with the subject of the article, or people paid by the subject of the article are non-independent. Non-independent sources cannot be used to establish notability because of the fact that people are compelled, financially or otherwise, to make them, independent of the actual merits of the subject. Interviews are also considered a primary source.
  • Insignificant coverage: Sources must mention the subject in some depth in order to establish notability. Passing mentions, such as noting that someone is the founder of a company, do not count. If the source is simply a short two-sentence bulletin, that usually does not count (and is possibly a press release, which is a primary source). The general golden rule is that the source should be devoting at least a paragraph to the subject.

If I am trying to delete your page because of notability, this will usually be done through Articles for deletion. You will see a template like the following:

You are welcome to click on the link that says "the deletion discussion" and use the "reply" function to explain why you think the page meets the notability guidelines, as detailed above. However, do not remove the notice from the article.

On the other hand, if you see a red shaded box like the following on the top of your page:

then the problem is likely to be more fundamental than notability. The full list of the criteria for speedy deletion can be found at WP:CSD. These criteria are for especially severe violations of Wikipedia policy, content which have legal problems, or which is fundamentally and obviously unencyclopaedic.

If your page is an article

There are several common reasons why your article may be nominated for speedy deletion.

• CSD G11: Promotion. Wikipedia is not for promotion of yourself, your company, product, idea, or event. This criteria applies when the page is clearly written entirely like an advertisement, press release, curriculum vitae, or generally praises the subject in a manner completely contrary to our neutral point of view policy, and there is no version in the history of the page in which this is not the case.
  • If you are not related to the subject of the article, try removing all content that make subjective descriptions of the subject (such as "the best", "legendary", "widely acclaimed", "much anticipated"), and take care not to copy primary sources such as the company or event page.
  • If you are related to the subject of the article, or the subject has asked or paid you to write the article: do not write the article. Tell your boss they cannot have a Wikipedia article, and it is a bad idea.
  • If you are the subject of the article: Do not write the article.
• CSD G12: Copyright. If you have copied your material entirely from elsewhere, this is generally not allowed as it is copyright infringement. Moreover, it is also a form of plagarism, and we want work credited to our contributors to really be their own work. If you encounter this tag, and you did copy the text from somewhere (including another Wikipedia article), do a complete rewrite of the article in your own words. An admin will then mark the original version for revision deletion to remove it from the history, so that your article no longer infringes copyright.
• CSD G5: Unless you are blocked (and you will quickly know when you are blocked), this is likely an article created under violation of the Arbitration Committee restrictions on editing in contentious topics. For some topics, you will need to be extended confirmed - i.e. have 500 edits and an account at least 30 days old - to make any edits relevant to the topic, regardless of the merits of the edit. This is because you need to be very familiar with Wikipedia policies before you can properly edit these contentious topics, and is not done to take sides on any matter.
• CSD G4: Articles that have gone through the Articles for deletion process cannot be recreated unless there is a significant improvement in content of the article (for example, new sources have been published since the AfD process concluded). If you have not previously created the article, it is possible that your version of the article may be sufficiently different from the deleted version. Since non-admins cannot see the deleted versions, it is common practice to let the admin who reviews the CSD tag (who can see the deleted version) to compare. If you have previously created the article, have had it deleted, and are now recreating it, do not. Repeatedly recreating deleted articles is considered highly disruptive and will lead to a block. If you take issue with the AfD process's decision to delete, you may ask for a review at deletion review; do note however that you will require a much better understanding of policy to properly argue your case there, and spurious requests for review may be speedily closed.
• CSD A7: No indication of importance. This is more severe than a simple notability issue, where the article not only is not sufficiently covered by reliable sources, but does not even claim to possibly be sufficiently covered by reliable sources. Examples include an article on your cat, a random YouTuber, a particular pot of plant at your school, etc. If you think that it is notable, try adding sources as outlined in the "notability" section above. If you are unable to find any sources, then the article topic is in all likelihood not suitable for Wikipedia.

If your page is a draft

If the relevant page has "Draft:" in front of the title, then it is in the draft namespace. The rules for drafts and sandboxes are generally looser than in in article space, but there are still some limitations to what you may do.

• CSD G11: Promotion, as above. We do not allow advertisements anywhere on Wikipedia.
• CSD G10: Attack page. All content on Wikipedia must abide strictly by our biographies of living persons policy. Unsourced claims, especially attacks on a person's character, claims about criminal history, etc. are strictly prohibited and will be deleted on sight.

If your page is a user page

If your page has "User:" in front of the title, then it is in the user namespace. Slightly different rules apply to the user pages than to other pages. Generally, you are allowed to put whatever you like on the user pages, with the following exceptions:

• CSD G11: Promotion, as above.
• CSD G10: Attack page, as above.
• CSD U5: Use of Wikipedia as a web host. Generally, content on Wikipedia should be related to the goal of building an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server, and you should not treat it as your personal blog, or post about every trivial thing that goes on.

I can be wrong

Everything I said above is based on Wikipedia policy, which must be followed in most circumstances by all editors. However, like all policies, the interpretation of them can vary. I, like you, am human, and all humans make mistakes. Therefore, if you think I am wrong, do not hesitate to point this out in a civil and respectful manner.

Examples of situations where I might be wrong include:

• You have written up the prose of the article first, and neglected to add the references to support the content. Normally, I try to conduct a cursory search for sources before I nominate something for deletion, but if the sources are offline or otherwise harder to find I might miss them. While writing the prose first is generally discouraged, you are allowed to do so, as long as you do add in the references in the near future! The onus is on you to prove that the content is verifiable and can be included, and many admins and editors will not take "I'll get to it at some point" as an excuse.
• I am not familiar with the subject area, or do not speak the language the source is in, and hence misjudged the reliability or notability of sources. This is very possible, and I have done so several times; in fact, it is something of a systematic issue. Try explaining why you consider the sources reliable in the article talk page, AfD page or other suitable venue. Note, however, that there are some situations where traditionally reliable sources may not be considered reliable; for example, see WP:FORBES.

What should you do?

If, after reading all this, you are still a bit confused about what best to do, here's some advice.

Do's

• Ask! Nobody begrudges a good-faith question. Feel free to ask civilly on my talk page, the teahouse, the article talk page, or the AfD discussion (if any) about any questions you have or confusion you are facing. If you still find yourself unsatisfied with the response, you can try asking on other, more experienced editors' talk pages (although beware that for AfD discussions, this can potentially be seen as canvassing).
• Remain civil. Whether you are right or wrong, people are much more likely to understand, respect and be friendly towards you and your content if you remain civil and assume good faith. These are core behavourial tenets of Wikipedia, and you should strive to follow them at all times.
• Read up on policy. There are many links to policies and widely accepted essays scattered throughout this user page. Read them, and then read some more by looking through the template boxes at the bottom (or side) of the article. The better understanding of Wikipedia policies you have, the more you will be able to contribute constructively. Consider also Help:Your first article or WP:The Wikipedia Adventure.
• Improve the article! Just because an article is nominated for deletion, this does not mean that it will definitively be deleted. If you improve the article enough and show that it complies with Wikipedia policies, people will change their minds and vote to keep them. This is a much better way of ensuring your article's survival than trying to shout at people.
• Do something else. If you find yourself unable to come up with a good way to keep the article, don't worry. If the article should really exist, you can always create it later, when you have better understanding of the way things work. Wikipedia has lots of work to do other than just making new articles. We have, for example, lots of articles requiring improvement. Try finding them by enabling "Newcomer tasks" in your preferences. You may also consider fighting vandalism, for example by patrolling recent changes to ensure that vandalism is quickly removed from Wikipedia.

Don'ts

• Get angry. As emphasised above, there is nothing remotely personal about your article being nominated for deletion. Take a deep breath, drink some tea (or other drink of your preference), and either do something else or ask questions in accordance with policy.
• Remove deletion templates. This is what we call a bad idea. There are ways of telling when something is removed from the article. In some cases, there are tools called edit filters that will prevent you from doing so, logging the action. Most importantly, removing them does nothing to stop your article from being deleted, and in fact makes it more likely as people are likely to be irritated at you and less inclined to view you as a good faith contributor.
• Use ChatGPT to write a response. A disappointing amount of new editors appear to think this will fool everyone. In summary, we can tell, and we will not be remotely impressed, and you will be summarily ignored. If you use it too much, you also risk being blocked.
• Attack other editors. Personal attacks are viewed extremely seriously by the community, especially when completely baseless. Counter-accusing someone of vandalism of bullying will not earn you any sympathy, and will just get you blocked quicker. Instead, remain civil and humble.
• Recreate the article later, hoping no one notices. People will notice. I use Twinkle, which will add your talk page and the article to my watchlist. I will likely get bored at some point and check your contributions, and in the unlikely event something has escaped everyone else's notice, I will probably eventually notice. But even before that, there are many tools at recent changes and new page patrols that detect recreation of deleted material, and it will just get you a speedy delete and ever sterner warnings escalating to a block.