This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

The purpose of this essay is to explain my approach to rescuing content that I have deleted. It's not supposed to be impersonal but because I mostly deal with deletion, I get a lot of similar questions and queries. I realised that a decent essay would be helpful because it can contain far more detail then I can possibly offer in response to individual questions. If I refer you here, feel free to ask follow up questions; my intention is simply to give you something to work on.

Some dos and don'ts. If you are a new user and are not familiar with our inclusion criteria, you really have to read the relevant policies and guidelines. If you don't understand why we/I took a decision to delete something then you have no chance of challenging the deletion successfully. So, see Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:Notability; Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:ND3 before you ask any questions. Then think carefully about why you felt the deletion was wrong. Being aggressive or rude isn't going to help your case because a) I'll ignore you and b) it means that you won't win anyone over to your case. Instead, try and understand the reasons for the deletion and find a way to negate them.

• Firstly, you should assume that I am human. I do make mistakes and I am aware that I am more deletionist than the average. I am always willing to have another look at a deletion decision, and I will always explain the reasoning behind a decision if it's not clear from the edit summary or the deletion log. If I'm wrong my practise is always to fix the mistake as quickly as possible. If I don't believe that I have made a mistake, you can always appeal although you should always wait for me to respond before going there in case I have made a mistake and will correct it myself.

• Most deletions are because the subject has been determined to lack notability. The basic threshold for inclusion is that the subject of an article has been subject to multiple (at least two) non-trivial citations by reliable sources. Non-trivial means that it can't be a tangential mention; it must be specifically about the subject and be detailed. To be reliable, means something trustworthy that is likely to be peer reviewed or have adequate levels of fact checking - think published books, trade magazines, broadsheet newspaper, other encyclopaedias. Unreliable sources include blogs, personal websites and self published sources such as company websites, regurgitated press releases or things you personally know to be true that no-one else knows. If I have deleted your article and you can produce the two good sources, the article will be undeleted if I agree with the sources. If not, I will either relist the article at AfD or invite you to raise a deletion review depending on the level of uncertainty about the sourcing. The basic premise for Wikipedia articles is that the content must be verifiable.

This is from the guideline on reliable sources:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.

This from the policy on verifiability

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

This is the General Notability Guideline

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

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]

If you have read all this, I hope that you will have a better grasp of why I deleted your article and what you should or can do about it.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)