User:Qcne
 | Are you new to Wikipedia? Confused by all our policies and guidelines? Check out Wikipedia:Everything you need to know, an easy way to understand our most important policies. |
| — Wikipedian — | |
| Born | |
|---|---|
| Pronouns |  He/him |
| Country |  UK |
| Current location |  Yorkshire |
| Current time |  21:21 BST [refresh] |
| Sexuality |  Gay |
| Personality type |  Autistic |
| Contact info | |
| IRC |  qc @ libera.chat |
| Discord |  qcne |
| Qcne subpages | |
| Account statistics | |
| Joined | 2 January 2006 |
| Extended confirmed | Yes |
| Autopatrolled | Yes |
| Page mover | Yes |
| Edit count | 50,000+ |
| Signature | qcne (talk) |
| Projects & Barnstars | |
 WikiProject Articles for creation  WikiProject AI Cleanup  Twinkle | |
| Original |  |
| Articles for Creation |   |
| Special |  |
| Anti-Vandalism |  |
| Diligence |  |
| Guidance |  |
| Brilliant Idea |  |
| Tireless Contributor |  |
Qcne's Guide to Drafts
[edit]Creating a new article is one of the most challenging tasks on Wikipedia. It's highly recommended that you start with the Article Wizard. This tool will guide you through the process of creating a draft article. New articles are created in a draft space first, where they can be worked on and then submitted for review by experienced editors through the Articles for Creation process.
The subject of the draft must be notable. The easiest way to establish notability in your draft is to include...
Significant coverage
[edit]We need significant coverage. We need multiple sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, government records. We want to see some sort of in-depth critical analysis, commentary, debate, discussion, or review in several sources. The subject of the article must be notable.
Reliable sources
[edit]We need sources that are reliable. Usually this means that the source publisher has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. A major newspaper or magazine; a factual and widely-published book; trusted academic journals; high-quality mainstream websites. Not: forums, blogs, social media, fansites, wikis, or other sites with user-generated content. The content of the article must be verifiable.
Independent
[edit]We need sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, not a press release, not an interview. We're not interested in what the subject has to say about themselves; we're interested in what other people have to say about the subject.
Published
[edit]The sources you use must be published and accessible. No unpublished diaries or something said to you personally. You can use hard-copy offline sources that are only available in a library or archive, but you should provide a fully formatted citation to allow any reader to visit that library or archive and access the source.
References
[edit]Readers should be able to verify claims they read in Wikipedia articles. Your sources should have footnotes with in-line citations following the text they are verifying. For biographic articles this is mandatory, and every piece of biographic information (starting with the date of birth) must have an in-line citation to a reliable, published, source.
Common reasons drafts are declined or rejected
[edit]This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources / This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.
[edit]Wikipedia only hosts articles about notable topics whose information can be verified to a reliable source; the test of notability is determined if the topic has had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Think of "notability" to mean "noted in multiple reliable published secondary sources". No sources means no article is possible.
The sources should be:
- - Reliable: We prefer secondary sources that are published by reputable institutions with proof of editorial oversight. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (such as a date of birth), but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer in-depth analysis, discussion, or interpretation.
- - Independent: Your sources should be independent of the topic, for example not interviews with the subject, self-published, or from the subject's own website.
- - Show significant coverage: Your topic should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. The sources should provide in-depth analysis, discussion, or interpretation about the topic, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- - From multiple places: We usually require at least three reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss the topic.
- - Not original research: Wikipedia articles should summarise existing knowledge about a topic. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is not a place to present new research. Do not draw your own conclusions or analyses from the sources.
For more information about verifiability, see the policy page Wikipedia:Verifiability.
If you cannot find significant coverage of your topic in multiple, reliable, independent sources then it would not meet our notability criteria and therefore would not merit an article at this time.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. / This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.
[edit]Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. They should not promote or advertise the subject.
The language should be:
- - Neutral: Articles must be neutral. Don't take sides, promote, or criticise the subject. Don't address the reader directly. Simply paraphrase or summarise reliable sources in a neutral and encyclopaedic way, and let readers form their own opinions.
- - Non-promotional: Don't write the article like an advert or a press release. Avoid any emotive language or weasel words. Stick to plain, factual statements. Pretend you are a completely disinterested party simply reporting the facts.
For more information about neutrality, see the policy page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
If your draft contains promotional content or biased language, it cannot be accepted and may be deleted.
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations.
[edit]It is mandatory that biographic articles have inline citations, with footnotes to a reliable source that supports every fact (starting with a date of birth). Even if you are not writing a biographic article, footnotes allow reviewers and readers to easily verify the contents of your article and will lead to a quicker review.
See the tutorials for referencing below:
For more information about citing sources, see the content guideline Wikipedia:Citing_sources.
Biographies of living people won't be accepted without inline citations with footnotes.
This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
[edit]Wikipedia only hosts articles about notable topics, using our special criteria of "notability" which has been developed over the last two decades. "Notability" does not mean "popular" or "famous"; instead the test of notability is determined if the topic has had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
For more information about notability, see the policy page Wikipedia:Notability.
If I have rejected your article for this reason, what you have written is not yet notable and does not merit an article at this time.
If something has fundamentally changed about your topic and you can now prove notability, let me know and I can take another look.
This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.
[edit]Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and can only accept articles about real topics that can be referenced by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not:
- A place to host your original research, a place to write personal essays or opinions, or to document something you've just invented or made up.
- A place to promote or advertise a topic, person, or thing.
- A social media website or discussion forum.
- A business directory.
- An indiscriminate collection of everything to have ever existed.
For more information about what Wikipedia is not, see the policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
If I have rejected your article for this reason, what you have written is not suitable for Wikipedia and can not be published. You will not be able to re-submit your draft for review
Frequently asked questions
[edit]My draft wasn't accepted but I've found existing articles that are like mine. Why was my draft not accepted but they were?
[edit]Each draft must stand on it's own merits, and we don't compare them to existing articles. Wikipedia has many millions of articles, tens of thousands of which are poor quality and should be improved or deleted. As we're a volunteer project no one has gotten around to doing that yet. If you have found articles that are of poor quality, please do feel free to improve them or nominate them for deletion. We don't want to add more poor quality articles to the project. Many older articles were also created before standards were as strict and may not meet modern notability requirements.
If you want to base your draft on a good article, choose one that has been rated Good by the community.
The topic I am writing about is famous, why did you decline my draft for not being notable?
[edit]Wikipedia uses "notability" as a test to see if a topic meets our criteria for inclusion, but our special definition of "notability" doesn't mean "famous" or "popular" or "well-known".
Instead, take "notability" to mean "noted in multiple reliable published secondary sources".
For more information about how we define notability, see the policy page Wikipedia:Notability.
Can you help me write my article or find sources for me?
[edit]Reviewers and volunteer editors can provide guidance, review your sources, and point out policy issues. However, we do not provide a co-writing service. The responsibility for finding sources and writing the article lies with you.
My draft was submitted for review. How long does it take?
[edit]The review queue is often very long, with often thousands of drafts waiting to be reviewed. The wait time can be three months or more. Please be patient. Reviewers are volunteers and review drafts in no particular order. Repeatedly asking for a review will not speed up the process.
My draft exists on another language Wikipedia, why wasn't it accepted on the English language Wikipedia?
[edit]Each Wikipedia language project is entirely separate and unaffiliated, with different policies and guidelines. What may be acceptable on one may not be acceptable on this one. The English language Wikipedia project generally has the strictest notability, referencing, and content requirements of any of them.
My draft was deleted, how do I get it back?
[edit]Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. However, if your draft was unambiguous advertising or promotion, copyright infringement, or an attack page (amongst other reasons), it will not be returned to you.
My draft was accepted, but it isn't appearing on Google yet?
[edit]Wikipedia only allows search engines to index new articles after either it has been reviewed by a New Page Patroller or if 90 days have passed, whichever is soonest.
You can read more information at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing.