User:Blanchardb/Deletion

If you've reached this page, that means you followed a link on my talk page, and you want to know why I have tagged your page for deletion, and what you can do about it.

First, you need to know under which process your page was nominated for deletion, and, if it is a speedy deletion process, which criterion I invoked (as stated on the deletion template).

Speedy deletion criteria

 * 1) G1 Patent nonsense: Basically that means I deemed your article incoherent, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. A clearer language is the only way to save the article.
 * 2) G2 Test pages: To me, this includes mostly pages created as "placeholders." Please be aware that the way Wikipedia is set up, there is no possible way to justify using a placeholder: pages can be moved around, disambiguation pages can be used where there are more than one notable topics with the same name, and we also have a policy against blank pages. If you want to save a layout before filling in the blanks, you would be better off using an underconstruction template (I often insert those myself rather than nominate a page for deletion), or, if you need more than an hour or so, you should create the page in your user space before copying it into the article space. (See further down that same policy page for instructions.)
 * 3) G3 Vandalism: Actually, I remove more tags with this criterion than I insert myself. If I tagged a page as a hoax, that means I found no reason to bother with a Google search to verify that your assertion is even plausible. If your article was talking about a fictional person, group, etc., and made no mention of that subject being fictional, then I tagged it assuming it was part of the real world. For example, if the person who started the article Jack Ryan (Tom Clancy) had failed to mention that the subject was a fictional US president, it could have been tagged as a hoax by anyone not familiar with Tom Clancy's work. If that is what happened to your article, please make the necessary corrections as soon as possible.
 * 4) G4 Reposted content: When I use this criterion, it means I remember having seen the page before. Unless you address the issues that led to deletion, the page will be deleted again. A better alternative, if you disagree with the deletion, is to post a request for appeal at Deletion review.
 * 5) G6 Maintenance: Normally, when someone protests after I've invoked this criterion, it is because I want a page to be moved rather than copied and pasted. Be aware that this is simply a matter of you having performed a cleanup task the wrong way, and, in the vast majority of cases, the end result will look just the same to you.
 * 6) G7 Blanked by author: If you want to protest this tag, it probably means you blanked the page so that you can start over. No problem, and it can still be done even after the page has been deleted. But be aware that if you blanked the page after a deletion template has been added to it, the original issue might still apply to whatever you will come up with.
 * 7) G10 Attack page: Wikipedia is not the right venue for cyberbullying, even if what you say is true. Sorry.
 * 8) G11 Spam: Generally speaking, articles that are tagged under this criterion also meet the A7 criterion (see below), so you might want to check that as well. But as far as the spam issue itself is concerned, the best way to address the issue is to get rid of all promotional and/or praiseful language (including adjectives such as "leading," etc.), all sentences that contain the word "we" (do not reword them, delete them), all contact information, and all detailled pricing information.
 * 9) G12 Copyright infringement: When I invoke this criterion, it usually means that a bot discovered that the article was copied and pasted from some other place. By default, all text found on the Web is copyrighted, and you have the burden of proof to show that you are indeed the copyright owner. This can be done by filing a request for copyright permission before you create the article. Be aware that even after permission is granted to use some material, other deletion criteria may still apply.
 * 10) A1 No context: Basically, it means that the article assumes that the reader knows something that is really not obvious. For example, if I see an article about a man who plays for a certain team in Melbourne, Australia, and there is no article about that team. I cannot just assume that the team in question plays ice hockey now, can I?
 * 11) A3 No content: An article that contains an external link should at least tell me beforehand what I should expect to find if I click on the link.
 * 12) A7 No asserted notability: This means the article gives me no reason to assume that there is something worthwhile to know about this topic. This often applies to "up and coming" bands and startup businesses. I suggest you read this essay before deciding whether you should put any additional effort into your article. Please note that talent and quality are not the same as notability. Notability is achieved only when talent and/or quality, or lack thereof, have been noticed by reliable third-party sources. Therefore, the best way to show notability is to show who are these third parties that have noticed the subject. Please note that a Wikipedia article should reflect the subject's existing notoriety, not help you build one.
 * 13) A9 Musical recording with no asserted notability: I use this tag when either there is no article on the artist, or none is specified. Often, my inability to find the article on the artist is due to a typo in your article, so by simply fixing the typo you can ensure the survival of your article.

Articles for deletion discussions
Usually, I go through that process only as a last resort after all else failed, when I still believe your article should be deleted. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Any editor is welcome to expose problems with the article that I might have missed, but also to prove me wrong on anything I have said. Of course if an issue comes up and you can fix it, doing so changes everything. The administrator who closes the discussion will take into account any changes made to the article during the discussion, and, if an issue was brought up but then satisfactorily fixed, any reference to that issue will be discounted.

Also, if I see that the issues I bring up are addressed to my satisfaction, I will be happy to close by myself any deletion discussion I opened with a nomination withdrawn verdict.