User:Darren-M/SIMPLESUMMARY

Step 1: Quick-fail criteria

Before reading a submission in detail, check whether it meets any of the quick-fail criteria. If so, it should be declined immediately and in some cases it may be necessary to nominate the submission for speedy deletion.

Expand this box to learn about the quick fail criteria

Quick-fail criteria Quick-fail reason Action Copyright violation Please check all submissions for copying from existing sources – copyright infringement is a pervasive problem and it is not only important that we don't host such material, but it often leads to significant additional work when not caught early. One way to search for them is to copy and paste into a search engine such as Google (between quotation marks) a limited but unique portion of text of the draft, and try a few such snippets from each paragraph. See also this tool. Also check the sources provided, and, if relevant, and even if not given as a reference or link, check the person's or organization's web site (it is often useful once located to look for an "about", "history" or other narrative section). If the submission contains material that has been copied from elsewhere and the source is not released under a suitable free license or into the public domain, immediately decline the submission as a copyright violation. In no event should you simply decline and leave the copyright violation sitting in the page history. There are three routes to take from here: 1) If substantially the entire page is an unambiguous copyright violation (and there's no non-infringing revision to revert to), please tag the page for speedy deletion with {{db-g12}}. This can be done using Twinkle, if you have this gadget installed, or using AFCH when you decline the draft. Don't forget to warn the user with the warning notice template that will be provided to you in the text of the speedy deletion tag. Where you have not marked the page for speedy deletion for whatever reason (e.g., removing the infringement found would still leave substantial content), you can either: 2) Send the page for investigation to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, by marking it with {{copyvio | url=insert URL}}, and then follow the instructions in the copyright investigation notice to list the page at "today's" copyright violations page and to warn the user; or 3) If you are willing to take the time to clean up the copyright problem yourself, please click "show" below for detailed instructions. Copyright cleanup instructions      (i) remove all of the copyrighted material from the draft, noting in your edit summary where it is from ("Remove copyright violation of http://www...."). Where the copying is from more than one source, it's often easiest to remove each infringement in a separate edit;      (ii) post to the draft's talk page {{subst:cclean|url=URL(s) copied from}}; just place a space between the URLs if there's more than one (note: this template automatically signs for you so place no tildes);      (iii) mark the revisions in the page history (typically the first edit and second to last edit) for redaction by an administrator by placing and saving at the top of the draft page this template: {{copyvio-revdel|start = earliest revision ID (that is, the number at end of the revision's URL after "oldid=") | end= end revision ID}};      (iv) change the decline parameter in your AfC copyvio decline template from cv to cv-cleaned – or remove that decline entirely, since you've just cleaned it, and re-assess the draft on its other merits; and      (v) warn the user, such as with {{subst:uw-copyright-new|DraftName}}. 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 and blatant hoaxes. 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}}. 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 Draft: 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. However, if you look at the page history and see that it previously had content but it was 1) blanked by the same user/IP address that posted that content; and 2) there were no substantive edits by other users – you may tag it for speedy deletion using any of {{db-g7}} / {{db-blanked}} / {{db-author}}. 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. However, articles that have been moved manually without using the AFCH script often leave behind the original draft, instead of properly redirecting this to the article talk page. When you encounter such drafts, don't mark them as duplicates; redirect them properly. But be careful–sometimes users not entitled to accept drafts use the manual method either inadvertently or to avoid scrutiny–check the actual article carefully, because a high percentage of these are spam or otherwise unsuitable.

Step 2: Notability and verifiability

The principle of notability applies to the subject of the article. The principle of verifiability applies to the content of the article. The most basic standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability. It is important for reviewers to determine a subject's likely notability right away, to avoid new editors having submissions declined for other reasons, only to find out later that the subject of their submission cannot be accepted because it does not meet the notability guidelines. Many problems found in submissions can be fixed through good editing, but no amount of editing can make an inherently non-notable subject notable!

If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason. Notability is a higher standard than lacking an indication of importance or significance, which are grounds for speedy deletion in the article mainspace.

Expand this box to learn about notability and verifiability

Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. {{=== Significant coverage ==== References about the subject — at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, not directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them. The subject of the article must be notable.#if:User|{{=== Significant coverage ==== References about the subject — at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, not directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them. The subject of the article must be notable.#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=|preview=Page using Template:Divbox with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y|style| 1 | 2 | 3 | radius }} }} {{=== Reliable sources ==== Published sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality generally trusted mainstream publications. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, fansites, Twitter, wikis, or other sites with user-generated content. The content of the article must be verifiable.#if:User|{{=== Reliable sources ==== Published sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality generally trusted mainstream publications. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, fansites, Twitter, wikis, or other sites with user-generated content. The content of the article must be verifiable.#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=|preview=Page using Template:Divbox with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y|style| 1 | 2 | 3 | radius }} }} {{=== Independent ==== Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press release. The sources must be independent.#if:User|{{=== Independent ==== Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press release. The sources must be independent.#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=|preview=Page using Template:Divbox with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y|style| 1 | 2 | 3 | radius }} }} Subject-specific notability guidelines Wikipedia has some subject-specific notability guidelines. Read through the submission and consider if one or more of the guidelines below applies. If it does, and the submission does not meet the relevant guideline or the General Notability Guideline you can decline the submission for that reason. The following table shows the notability guidelines for specific subjects. If the subject of the submission you are reviewing is not listed in the table below, only apply the general notability guideline. Notability guidelines Subject Guideline shortcut Action Academics (professors, scientists, etc.) WP:PROF Decline the submission as about a non-notable academic Astronomical objects WP:NASTRO Decline the submission as about a generally non-notable subject Books WP:NBOOK Decline the submission as about a generally non-notable subject Events WP:NEVENT Decline the submission as about a generally non-notable subject Films WP:NFILM Decline the submission as about a generally non-notable film Geographical features WP:NGEO Decline the submission as about a generally non-notable subject Musical performers or works WP:NMUSIC Decline the submission as about a non-notable band Organizations or companies WP:NCORP Decline the submission as about a non-notable corporation Sports and athletes WP:NSPORT Decline the submission as about a generally non-notable subject Web content WP:NWEB Decline the submission as about a non-notable web presence Other people WP:BIO Decline the submission as a non-notable biography Any subject not covered above WP:GNG Decline the submission as about a generally non-notable subject Verifiability If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason. Verifiability Reason for denial Action Insufficient reliable sources to verify the content of the submission. Decline the submission as lacking sufficient references to verify the content.

Step 3: Suitability

Now you should read the submission in detail and decide whether it is suitable for Wikipedia. To be suitable, the article must be about a notable subject and be written in an encyclopedic style from a neutral point of view. The most common reasons that a submission is not suitable are provided here.

Expand this box to learn about unsuitable articles

Types of unsuitable articles Reason for denial Action Nothing more than a dictionary definition Decline the submission as a nothing more than a dictionary definition A non-notable neologism Decline the submission as a nothing more than a non-notable neologism Appears to be a joke or hoax Decline the submission as a joke Does not conform to the BLP policy Decline the submission as not conforming to the BLP policy Is not written from a neutral point of view Decline the submission as not written from a neutral point of view Insufficient context Decline the submission as having insufficient context to make the subject understandable Too short, but could be merged into Article Decline the submission as too short and suggest a suitable title for the content to be merged into (if applicable). Generally, the author should be able to do this themselves. Anything else covered by WP:NOT Decline the submission as not suitable for Wikipedia; consider writing to custom decline reason in these cases, explaining exactly why the submission is not suitable.