User:Bellerophon/AfC FAQs

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but editing an encyclopedia is not always easy. Wikipedia has a significant number of editing policies and guidelines. AfC submissions must comply with core policy and guidance or they will be declined. Live articles must comply with core policy and guidance or they will be deleated. This page summarizes some of the more important polices and guidelines, but does not remove the requirement to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines themselves. Follow the blue links, they're there for a reason!

You declined my submission at Articles for Creation!

Most new article submissions get declined, or removed from live Wikipedia, because the authors did not bother to read our instructions, or sufficiently prepare their submission, either offline or in their user sandbox, before sending it for review at articles for creation.

However, now that you're here looking for answers, I'll see if I can help you out.

So why did you decline my article?

There are a host of reasons why your submission might have been declined. In the following sections, I will try to explain some of the most common reasons that a submission might be declined:

Concerning notability

Expand this box to learn about notability

The most basic standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is that an article must be about a notable subject. Concordantly, this is the most common reason why draft articles are declined. Wikipedia sets its own definitions where notability is concerned; these are detailed within Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not interested in your definition of what notability is. Wikipedia is governed by consensus and the community's take on notability is reflected in our guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish original ideas, advertise or establish one's notability.

Specific claims of notability

Notability must be evidenced! Any claim of notability, as defined by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, must be verifiable. In essence, such claims should be cited to a reliable source.

General notability

Sometimes the subject of an article may not appear to meet any of Wikipedia's subject-specific notability guidelines. In these cases, a subject may still be deemed notable if it can be shown that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, that are published and independent of the subject. These references must discuss the subject in significant detail. Let's break that down a bit:

Basically, some types of sources are fine for basic fact checking, but do not help to establish a subject's notability. Sources that are suitable for establishing notability, in the absence of any wider claim, should meet the following criteria:

Multiple: This means more than one, just having one reliable source that shows significant coverage of the subject is not enough.
Reliable sources: Something that is generally expected to tell the truth: Major newspapers, widely recognized publications—such as magazines and books. Not niche publications that do not have a wide reader-base. Not blogs, Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter, fan sites or any other community-content site. It's worth mentioning that you cannot cite other Wikipedia articles as reliable sources.
Published: The sources must be published somewhere, either online, or in print, or some other form. For example, using "all the people that know the subject personally" as a reference, is not acceptable; or saying "I know that is true because I saw it on TV, watch the TV to check" is also not acceptable.
Independent: The references must not be written by the subject or by someone closely connected with the subject. Not their own website, not their company's website. Not press releases or paid placements.
The subject: The sources have to discuss the subject directly, not their company, album, band, project they worked on, etc.
Significant coverage: Generally, coverage should be in the form of text, but sometimes audio clips and video clips are acceptable. The coverage of the subject must be significant. Not just anything with the subject's name in it. Not just track listings or any other type of list. Not passing mentions or name drops. There should be at least one lengthy paragraph, in more than one source, that directly discusses the subject.

Notes

Notability is not inherited. Even if a company is notable, it does not automatically follow that the person who runs, or owns the company is notable. If a book is notable, it does not mean the person who wrote it is.
Saying that a subject should be notable, because there are other articles on Wikipedia that are very similar, is not a valid argument. Each submission is assessed on its own merits, against policy and guidance. There are 6,914,296 articles on English Wikipedia, the site has been around for over 10 years and a lot has changed over that time. We know that there are actually quite a lot of articles, that are 'live' in Wikipedia, that should not be there, but adding more unsuitable articles is not the answer. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
Notability and verifiability go hand-in-hand. So read the next section as well.

Concerning verification

Expand this box to learn about verifiability

This is another common reason that a draft article will be declined. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is concerned only with the facts! The content of an article must be verifiable. Wikipedia articles are not essays that espouse novel synthesis of the facts, or platforms to circulate original research. All information contained within articles must be attributable to reliable sources. It is important to use inline citations to support the information contained within an article, so that anyone who reads it can easily see which sources support a particular portion of the article's content. See Help:Introduction to referencing if I've lost you already...

There are two main types of reliable sources:

Secondary sources — These come from a source that is independent of the subject. E.g. A newspaper, magazine or book that covers the subject, but is not directly connected to it. These sources are preferred over primary sources and will help establish a subject's notability.
Primary sources — These come from a source that is closely connected with the subject of the article. E.g. If an article about a company uses that company's website as a reference, then that is a primary source. These sources should be used sparingly, and do not help establish a subject's notability.

Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources but not at the expense of secondary sources. If only primary sources are used, it may be difficult for the reviewer to verify the accuracy of the content of the submission.

Concerning copyright violations or close paraphrasing

Expand this box to learn about copyright violation policy and paraphrasing

For legal reasons Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and as such, we must use free content (with a couple of fair-use exceptions). If you copied most or all of your submission from another website, or even closely rewrote it from another source, it will be deleted or blanked. Wikipedia's copyright policy treats all websites and other published works as being subject to copyright, unless the source explicitly disclaims it, or it is released under a compatible licence. Even if you own the copyright of the source, you cannot reproduce it on Wikipedia without going through the proper processes. You can write an article citing the website as a reliable source but pure copying, and close paraphrasing, is not acceptable.

If your submission is found to be a copyright violation, not only will it be declined, the entire page may be deleted or the text blanked and replaced with a notice identifying it as a policy violation. Additionally, if you repeatedly attempt to upload copyrighted content, your user account or IP address may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Concerning advertisements and spam

Expand this box to learn about ARTSPAM

Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and the community is very sensitive to being treated as one. If you wrote an article that reads like advertising—if it extols the virtues of you, your product or company, uses marketing terms like "dynamic" and "capable" and "world-leading expertise" to describe the subject, is full of gasconade for your achievements, embellished with Peacock words or Weasel phrasing—it's not going to be accepted; if it's really bad, it may be deleted.

Surprisingly enough, this includes subjects you may not be associated with. An overenthusiastic analysis of a company, person, or product by a genuine fan can be mistaken for something drafted by the subject's marketing department. If this is the case, then I'm sorry your article was declined, but you simply need to tone it down next time. Also, see the first section concerning notability. If no one else, outside of Wikipedia, has written about your chosen subject, in great detail, in a book or national newspaper, it's highly unlikely that it deserves an entry in an encyclopedia.

And finally, this criteria doesn't just apply to companies, products or services. Articles about bands, schools, people, book or anything else that are created (or seem to have been created) primarily to promote their subject fall into this category.

Concerning the neutral point of view

Expand this box to learn about NPOV

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. This differs from advertising and can be a more complex issue for new editors to understand. Be especially careful to avoid peacock terms like "legendary" "leading" "defining" "renowned" "prestigious" "respected" "world-class" etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is a reference work, it should not take sides or push points of view, it must try to be as neutral as it can be. Where articles discuss a subject critically, or examine differing points of view, these must be handled with a balance of opinion, which must be cited to reliable sources.

Concerning context

Expand this box to learn about context

English Wikipedia is only for English Language contributions. If your understanding of the English Language is not sufficient for your submission to be clearly understood by native English speakers, then you may find it preferable to contribute at one of the many other language Wikipedias. A full list of these can be found here. Likewise if your submission did not contain enough content, or context, to make the subject clear, then it cannot be accepted. Very short submissions may not warrant an article of their own, but it may be possible to merge the content of the submission into one of our existing articles. If this is the case, you can do that without our help, because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

So now what?

If you still have specific questions then you can ask at the Articles for creation Help Desk or the Teahouse. While reviewers understand that it is upsetting to have your hard work 'declined' and criticized, please do not attack the reviewer or go off on a rant. All members of the Wikipedia community are volunteers, none of them get paid (including administrators), and they don't have to do anything if they don't want to. So, please try and remain civil in all your dealings with members of the Wikipedia community and you should be able to expect the same in return.

I hope this helped answer some of your questions. If you still want to ask me a specific question, please leave me a message at User talk:Bellerophon.