User:Benison/AfC Essentialities

Please note that this page is NOT a Wikipedia policy or guideline, but rather one user's explanation on the declination of an AfC submission.

This page in a nutshell: A quick and simple terms and condition page about things to know.

Hi there,
Welcome to Wikipedia!! We are very happy to see you here and more happy that you have submitted an article for creation atAfC. But bad luck, your submission was declined by me. There may be many reasons for that. First, go back to the article submission and check out what reason was given by me.

Please use the table of content box below to navigate easily through this page.

Citations or Notability

One of the most used declination comment is of notability. Your submission may be a notable one for you (i.e., you may know about him/her, the organisation, etc.), but you have to prove it in Wikipedia that they/it certainly is.

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

Reliability/Lack of trusted source

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

The guideline in this page discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Other policies relevant to sourcing are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

What counts as a reliable source

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:

the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
the creator of the work (for example, the writer)
the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).

All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". This includes material such as documents in publicly-accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see. Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

university-level textbooks
books published by respected publishing houses
magazines
journals
mainstream newspapers.

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.

Inline citations/footnotes

On Wikipedia, an inline citation refers to a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it. The most common methods are numbered footnotes and parenthetical citations within the text, but other forms are also used on occasion.

Inline citations are often placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph. Inline citations may refer to electronic and print references such as books, magazines, encyclopedias, dictionaries and Internet pages. Regardless of what types of sources are used, they should be reliable; that is, credible published materials with a reliable publication process whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Verifiable source citations render the information in an article credible to researchers.

The opposite of an inline citation is what the English Wikipedia calls a general reference. This is a bibliographic citation, often placed at or near the end of an article, that is unconnected to any particular bit of material in an article, but which might support some or all of it. It is called a "general reference" because it supports the article "in general", rather than supporting specific sentences or paragraphs.

When you must use inline citations

Shortcut

WP:MINREF

Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source for only the following four types of statements:

Type of statement	Policy requiring inline citation
Direct quotations	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with `{{citation needed}}`, or any similar tag)	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged.	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons	Wikipedia:Biographies of living people

Other policies, notably the copyright violations policy, prohibit the inclusion of some information, such as too-close paraphrasing, even if the material is supplied with an inline citation to a reliable source.

Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material, although it is typical for editors to voluntarily exceed these minimum standards. Material not supplied by an inline citation may be supported with WP:General references or sources named as inline citations for other material. If you can't find the source of a statement without an inline citation after a good-faith look, ask on the talk page, or request a citation.

Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material, then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references. For all other types of material, the policies require only that it be possible for a motivated, educated person to find published, reliable sources that support the material, e.g., by searching for sources online or at a library. However, it is rare for articles past the stub stage to contain none of these four types of material.

Editors are expected to use good judgment when determining whether material has been challenged. For example, section blanking may be vandalism, rather than a demand for inline citations.

Not in Neutral point of view

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.

Miscellaneous

Quick-fail criteria

Your submission might be declined immediately or might be nominated for speedy deletion. This was because your submission was in the following categories of quick-failure criteria:

Expand this box to learn about the quick fail criteria

Quick-fail criteria
Quick-fail reason	Action
Vandalism, negative unsourced BLP, or attack page	If a submission is clearly an attack page, an entirely negative unsourced BLP, or vandalism, immediately decline the submission as such and ensure you select the check box to blank the submission using `{{afc cleared}}`. Also, you should immediately tag the page for speedy deletion with `{{db-g10}}` for attack pages and negative unsourced BLP, or `{{db-g3}}` for vandalism. This can be done using Twinkle, if you have this gadget installed. Consider also warning the user on their talkpage.
Nonsense or test	If a submission consists of only patent nonsense or is an unambiguous test edit, decline it as a test. Test submissions with no other useful page history are also eligible for speedy deletion under criteria `{{db-g2}}`.
Copyright violation	Check that the submission has not been copied from another source. Search for a portion of the text of the article on Google or another search engine. Also check the sources provided, and, if relevant, check a person's or organization's web site, even if not given as a reference or link. If the submission contains material that has been copied from elsewhere and the source is not released under a suitable free license or in the public domain, immediately decline the submission as a copyright violation and ensure you select the checkbox to blank the submission using `{{afc cleared}}`. If the entire page is an unambiguous copyright violation, you should also tag the page for speedy deletion with `{{db-g12}}`. This can be done using Twinkle, if you have this gadget installed. Consider also warning the user on their user talkpage using `{{subst:uw-copyright-new}}`
Advertising	Quickly read over the submission. If the submission is a blatant advertisement decline the submission as such. In some cases it may be necessary to select the checkbox to blank the submission using `{{afc cleared}}`; although `Wikipedia talk:` pages are not normally indexed by search engines, they can show up on mirror sites. In extreme cases, where a submission is a blatant advertisement and the subject is clearly non-notable or otherwise unsuitable for Wikipedia, it may be appropriate to tag the submission for speedy deletion using `{{db-g11}}`.
Blank submission	Click on edit to ensure that the article is truly blank and not simply missing a closing tag. If truly blank, decline as a blank submission.
Submission not in English	If a submission is not written in English, it can be declined. Category:AfC submissions declined as not in English is linked from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Another editor might translate the submission at a later date.
Already exists	Sometimes new editors create a submission without checking to see if the subject already has a Wikipedia article. Do a quick search for the title of the suggested article, as well as any alternative names that come to mind. If you find an article on the same subject, decline the article. Consider making a redirect if the contributed name is useful.

Apart from any these cateories, if I have declined your submissions, please write to me in my talk page. Thank you.

After resolving the comments

Kindly submit the draft again for review and wait. The AfC backlog is a few weeks and it won't be fair if I go out of the way and review it. Someone will review it or if it comes in my random entry, I will review it too. Thanks and happy editing.

The Herald (Benison) (talk)