User:Sergecross73/Why was my article deleted

Why was my article deleted?

So, if you are reading this, it probably means that you've had a Wikipedia article of yours deleted. I am sorry if it was by me, I do not mean to offend or cause you trouble, but at the same time, the article was deemed not appropriate for Wikipedia. I will try to help you understand with this guide.

Short version - no sources used

Did you write an article without using a single source/reference? If so, there's a good chance that's why it was deleted. That's pretty much an "auto-fail" for an article here at Wikipedia. The entire premise of Wikipedia is to write articles according to what sources say, so if you didn't use any sources at all, well, your article was pretty much incompatible with what we're trying to do here at Wikipedia. If you want to know more, or if that wasn't the case, read on to the "Long version".

Long version

Why are you here?

Wikipedia has a lot of rules and policies that many are not initially aware of, and for that reason, its generally in my opinion that people shouldn't jump straight into creating articles, but rather, they should take their time, reading up on what Wikipedia is all about and making smaller edits prior to jumping into creating an article. Basically, take your time, building up the skills to be ready to create a stand-alone article.

That's strictly Serge's opinion though, not an enforceable rule, so I can't make you do that. But, at the same time, if your response is "But Serge, I don't want to learn how to edit Wikipedia on a whole- I just want to create this one page and be done!", then you may want to make sure you're not in violation of Wikipedia's promotional guidelines and conflict of interest guidelines. In short, some people mistakenly believe that Wikipedia is marketing tool, something similar to social media, to be used as a tool to "get your name out there" or "spread awareness of something". This is not true - if this is your aim, there's no shortage of other avenues for you to take - Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Linked In, Pinterest, Instagram etc. Please explore one of those avenues, not Wikipedia.

Now, if you are here to help build an encyclopedia, and you're certain that your new article idea not violating any any other list of things that Wikipedia is not, then read below to see what may have gone wrong with your article creation.

Rules for a subject to have their own article - the "GNG"

Okay, so, if you've confirmed that you're here for the right reasons - to build an encyclopedia - then the next thing is to figure out why your article was deleted. There's a list of common reason here, but chances are, most reasons boil down to meeting Wikipedia's standard for having its own stand-alone article - often referred to as the "GNG". Please read it carefully, as its very important.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

The short version is, article's on Wikipedia are written around what reliable third party sources say on a subject. So right off the bat, if your article had zero sources, that's very likely to be tied to the reason your article was deleted.

If you did have sources, good, that's a step in the right direction. However, as the GNG suggests, there are requirements for the sources to be valid. I'll explain them below, while using the 1995 video game Ristar as an example subject for an article.

Third party/independent sources

For a source to be considered for making a case for meeting the WP:GNG, the source must be separate from the subject of the article. So, it cannot be from the subjects official website, social media, press releases, etc.

• Good Example - Click Here - This is an article about Ristar written by IGN, a website that has no connections to Ristar or the company who created Ristar, called Sega.
• Bad Example - Click Here - This is a listing for Ristar from Sega, the company who created the game. The source could be used to verify objective facts (like a release date) but cannot be used to show it meets the WP:GNG because it was not written independently from the subject, but rather, it comes from the creators/sellings of the subject.

Significant coverage

While this can be a bit of a gray area, in short, for a source to be considered towards meeting the WP:GNG, it needs to cover the subject in detail. Where to draw the line varies from person to person, but generally, an article dedicated entirely to the subject, and containing at least a few paragraphs, is usually acceptable, while a source merely mentioning a sentence or two about the subject in the context of mostly discussing something else, is generally not acceptable.

• Good example - Click Here - This is significant coverage - it is an article devoted entirely to the subject of Ristar, containing 7 paragraphs of content about the game. This would be usable towards showing he meets the WP:GNG.
• Bad example - Click Here - This may be a reliable source, but it is not significant coverage, its just a passing mention of Ristar. The source does not say much/anything about Ristar, it merely name-drops him. Such a source would be usable to verify a fact, but not be usable to prove it meets the WP:GNG.

Reliable (usable) source

On Wikipedia, the term "reliable source" means more than they typical "Are they trustworthy?". When people are discussing reliable sources on Wikipedia, they're asking about things like:

• Does the source have a history for being an authority in the subject's field?
• Does the source have a history for fact checking and editorial oversight?
• Does the source have an established staff?
• Does the source have an "About Us"/"Editorial Policies"/"Mission Statement"/"Ethics" page?
• Does the writer or staff have any sort of credentials or history of being an authority in the area?

If you're answering yes to a lot of these, you're probably on track for it to be considered a reliable source. If we're talking about some non-notable blog, writers who identify more "as a fan" rather than someone with any actual professional credentials, or a website where anyone can sign up and write, then you're probably looking at an unusable source.

I still don't understand how to identify a reliable source

Some editors have put together a bunch of examples for their respective field, so even if you don't get it yet, they have a bunch of examples websites you could use:

• If your article was related to video games, there is a list of commonly acceptable/unacceptable sources for use at WP:VG/S.
• If your article was related to music, there is a list of commonly acceptable/unacceptable sources for use at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES.

Multiple sources

The WP:GNG really only requires "sources", so technically, two can be enough. However, in my experience, the general consensus that a subject typically needs more like 4-5 to make a convincing argument that a stand-alone article is warranted. Oftentimes subjects that only have 1 or 2 sources are redirected or merged to another article that has been established as notable.

But I had multiple, indpendent, reliable sources that cover the subject in significant detail (or I do now at least)

Well, mistakes do happen, so if you feel that way, by all means, contact me and I can review the situation. (If I'm not the one who deleted your article, you can still ask me, though the first place to start is usually the deleting Admin.) Also, if I review it, but feel that the article is not quire there yet, but on the right track and close to getting there, I may be able to restore the deleted article as a "rough draft" that can be worked on until its ready to be published into the active mainspace of Wikipedia.