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.
I spend a significant amount of time on Wikipedia identifying articles that should (in my opinion) be subjected to one of the deletion processes. Many editors are not familiar with these processes and ask questions on my talk page. Below are some answers to common statements or questions that have been left on my talk page in the past. There are a lot of Wikipedia policies and guidelines in this area; wherever possible I will link to them in the answers below. Please read them as well; the answers below are just a summary of the relevant policies.
Notability, as I interpret it in a nutshell: In order for a subject to be included in the encyclopedia, it must be notable. To prove this, you must find, and add to the article, references to reliable sources that discuss the subject with "non-trivial" coverage. A reliable source is one that checks facts before publication, and typically has editorial oversight (so one person writes an article, and another person edits and approves the article for publication). Trivial coverage includes entries in databases like IMDb. Without notability, the subject does not meet our standards for inclusion.
It’s big, it’s important, everybody knows about it
Q1: Hey, you deleted my page on Wilson’s Widget Factory. Wilson’s Widgets is a huge company that employs hundreds of people. The company is the biggest factory in the tri-county area. They really deserve to have a page on Wikipedia!
A1: The subject of every article on Wikipedia is subjected to the same test to see if an independent article is appropriate: Wikipedia’s notability policy. You should really read this whole policy yourself; "Notability" has a very specific meaning at English Wikipedia, and it is the core policy that specifies the criteria that a subject must meet in order to have an article here. I suggested that your article should be deleted because it doesn’t meet this guideline.
Of course they are notable…what’s notable anyway
Q2: But they are a huuuuuuuuge company. They employ half the people in the county. They make thousands of widgets a day. They sponsor the annual 4th of July parade!
A2: Wikipedia has a specific way of judging if something is notable or not. As explained in WP:N, we use coverage by independent reliable sources to judge if something is notable or not. The thinking goes like this: If something is notable, then someone will have written and published information on the thing. The more people that write about it, the more notable it is. The basic minimum level of notability for a subject here at English Wikipedia is coverage in two or more reliable sources.
Reliable sources
Q3: But I’ve got the company’s corporate website saying how many people they employ, and the Youtube video showing the widgets going in the truck. And someone put up a photo of the sign that says they sponsored the fireworks. Anyone can see that it’s true!
A3: The sources you have mentioned are not reliable sources. Wikipedia uses reliable sources to establish notability. Understand that reliable is not the same as true. It is completely possible for a source to be true but not be reliable. When we judge the reliability of a source, one of the main things we look for is "editorial oversight". Is there someone between the author of the article and the published version? Most personal blogs are an example of sources without oversight. There is nobody to edit and fact-check the statements I make on my own personal blog. Some "professional" blogs are reliable sources. Check the "about us" section for a list of editors and contributors, and check to see if they are different people. Many such sites are what we call self published sites.
A company’s website is also usually not a reliable source. There is no third party that has checked the accuracy of the company’s statements on that website. Youtube, Myspace, Facebook, and even IMDB are almost never reliable sources. Anyone can post anything they want on any of those sites. Even Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source.
It’s not a self published source
Q4: But the Widget Review Blog is not a self published source – it’s completely independent from Wilson’s Widgets. They even buy the widgets they test from the store so that they are not biased.
A5: You’re confusing self published sources and conflict of interest. "Self published source” just means that the author and publisher are the same person. The fact that they buy their own widgets probably means that they do not have a conflict of interest. But they are still a self published source, because they do not have their articles reviewed before publishing. A source does not have to be directly related to the subject in order to be a self published source.
You should fix it, not delete it.
Q6: Why don’t you do a little research on widgets and fix the article. If you’re so smart, I bet you could find some sources and fix up the article a lot quicker than I could. I just wanted to start the article, but I’m too busy to do all this research. Don’t delete it, improve it!
A6: First, it's not my responsibility to fix the articles. The editor who proposes deletion is under no obligation to improve an article. It's the responsibility of those who want to keep the article to improve it so that it meets Wikipedia's standards.
However, I will hunt down sources and improve the article in some circumstances. If it’s in an area that I’m already familiar with, or that seems interesting to me, I am quite likely to improve the article (see Death of Jeannie Saffin). But many times I won’t do this. Before I propose deletion I do check to see if there are any sources that would support the articles. Since you’re reading this, it means I couldn’t find any. I did my best, but I couldn’t find any reliable sources to support the notability of this article’s subject. If you know of any, please add them to the article!
You deleted my article! Restore it!
Q7: Why did you delete my article? Please restore it so I can work on it some more.
A7: Actually, I did not delete your article. I am not an administrator, so I have no more abilities on Wikipedia than you do. I don't have the ability to delete articles, I can only tag the articles that I think are eligible to be deleted, so that administrators can consider the relevant policies. I also do not have the ability to restore deleted articles. I would suggest you check with the administrator who deleted the article. You can find out who this is by looking at the red box above the edit window on the deleted article’s page.
You’re hateful/ignorant/biased/picking on me. Why? Do something useful!
Q8: Wow, you must really hate widgets. You are ignorant about widgets. You are biased against widgets. Why don’t you do something useful instead of deleting people’s hard work. Why are you doing this? Why are you picking on my articles?
A8: I do not hate any topic, and I’m not biased against any topic. I am only interested in one thing: equal application of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I’m not picking on any single topic, article, or editor. If I’ve proposed deletion of more than one article you created, it’s only because you have written more than one article that fails the notability guidelines.
I do what I do because I believe in the excellence of Wikipedia. We have some core policies like WP:N and WP:RS that we use to hold (almost) every article to an equal standard. There are a lot of people who have worked very hard to make Wikipedia articles of stellar quality. There are a lot of people who work behind the scenes to make Wikipedia as a whole such a high quality resource. It is for those people that I do what I do. Holding every article accountable to the same standard is just one of the many ways that we make Wikipedia such an excellent resource.
As an extension of that, Wikipedia needs people to do what I do, and my contribution to Wikipedia is no less important than the contributions of any editor. Article creators, copyeditors, featured article reviewers, and researchers all have their role to play here. What I do is just one of those roles. I do it because I really believe in Wikipedia, and I want to see it in as good shape as I can, not overrun with articles that fail to meet our own rules and guidelines.
