me to say at this point even know how to most effectively the deletion of a self-created article on Wikipedia can be avoided.
For this you need to understand the first time the erase procedure. A delete request can not and should make everyone, even unregistered users. The latter and newcomers should not do but the main activity, because "professional extinguisher" in WP are now seen reluctantly, the two old-established ("white beer" and "access control") are probably here for one of deterrence, on the other hand have a certain grandfathering. Such a deletion debate is now ending in four types: The article is retained or deleted, respectively, or after a short week. Overall, the survival chance of a proposed article for deletion moves for years around 50%, if not now even higher. If the deletion request patent nonsense (extreme example, someone wants to delete the article on Angela Merkel due to irrelevance), the request is flying out fast - then called at Wikipedia " LAE (deletion request withdrawn). If the item is patent nonsense (An alleged "Internet celebrity" with 0 Google hits is probably a fake) will be deleted immediately. Similarly, there are many issues for large databases, in which the topic as "existence proof" should be mentioned. The same is true even if no evidence is seen that the issue could be relevant. A happy times occurring case would be about a sports club, on the stands beautifully in it, that he is playing in some meaningless league football (are those plants it in heaps and would not be relevant), forget was, however, that the department was in table tennis German champion . Something like this is of course dependent also fix deleted if it is not a previously noted - all of that is " SLA to LA ', and so" speedy deletion request for deletion request "(or better: clear deletion discussion). Here we already notice that it also has the "SLA" (speedy deletion request ") are alone, that's it (stinks My table neighbor") for the obvious nonsense, but also for "articles" that consist of only a sentence fragment or where the applicant is sure that the article is nothing! Appeals should be quick there, directly below the request and justified. For processing after a week of the articles, that will maintain the matter is not so clear , and that is where the author can save something.
The main issue is to meet the criteria of relevance by the article. These criteria are not always quite logical, so you as the best one even looks clean. The relevance of this is met, of course, are also in the article, because no one can see light and the whole is usually the most important information anyway. "Angela Merkel is a physicist studying." more interested few, "Angela Merkel German Chancellor is." however, clearly defines the relevance and delivers you right now the most important statement to the person. Often (especially in business articles!), It is important that the relevance of features by either an independent or can be proven legally committed to the truth source. The famous phrase "global leader" of one's own website leads rather than advertising for speedy deletion; write something but a national daily newspaper about the company, things look very different. Otherwise, it is very conducive to the deletion debate read once, in particular the rationale for the application and any further justification "delete" comments. From this it can be seen very quickly what you have to change the article and whether or not it is probably also possible simply to save the article because the topic just really is not relevant.
The analysis of deletion requests within a week is subject to the supplied arguments and not by the number of those who write "delete" or "Keep". If the application text is "irrelevant" and 30 people there write under it "keep pretty picture," of course deleted anyway, the other way the article will retain but also the consent of all 30 to the applicant, but after 3 days of a coming "ehy, the guy was once a minister in XY! " (With supporting documents, of course, there are also biscuits joke there). Somewhere in between, then the area in which the evaluating Admin takes a cube (as seen by the admins recommends it, so to justify a decision then, the admission the dice would be detrimental to their own reputation). If you think that the admin has chosen as total cheese, speak to him and tell him what argument he is to have you there to see now - the whole thing applies in both directions. If one has the impression talking to a wall here, there is some point even the fire test as statutory authority. Nothing is decided again, but only checks the decision. Unlike in court but we must also bring in new arguments and to point in an extreme case to even a change in facts.
A few taboo arguments for deletion discussions, it also:
- "It was but an article in 10 other languages!" (Create some advertising spammers up to 20, just translated by machine.)
- "But Amazon.de also has an article, why could not my planned shop?" (Self-explanatory, right?)
- true evil, the variant is "completely unknown bands, but the X and Y have an article!" (Because it could well be that these two very soon have no article, because they have been simply overlooked)
- Any arguments in the direction of deletion is stupid anyway "are ignored. The deletion site is not for policy discussions there.
On safest calm before the whole Löschgekaspere, although it was clear from the article is so clear why this article is here that this must also understand the people who do not understand it really. This includes besides a mention of the relevance feature the best in the first sentence and a possible use preferably of different individual evidence of bodies that would even know a complete offline.
