User:Davidwr/AFC criteria

It looks like the draft you wrote was simply too promotional and it would be better to blow it up and start over. As an AFC reviewer, the thing I'm looking for first is obvious notability backed by a few reliable, independent sources which, taken together, demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverage from those sources. Second, I am looking for a submission written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. WP:Writing better articles has some helpful advice in this area.

What I am NOT looking for/what is likely to get your page rejected:
 * So many references that it's not clear which ones provide significant coverage. Sometimes dozens of references ARE required to verify anything that a reader might say "oh really?  is that so?" to.  If you have more than a handful of references, put a note on the talk page pointing out a small set that, if I look at them, I will think to myself "This topic should have its own Wikipedia article, it has clearly received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources.  I'm so glad someone took the time to draft one."
 * Anything that hints at a promotional purpose or tone. If it's minor I can edit it out, but if it will require a wholesale rewrite I'll decline it and insist on a rewrite or, as another reviewer did with the Soul Button draft, nominate it for deletion even if the topic itself is notable.
 * Any copyright violations. If it fails a copyright-violation check I will redact the major violations, rewrite the minor ones, and evaluate what is left after I've removed them. Then I will ask an administrator to revision-delete the versions that aren't "clean."  If it's severe, I won't waste my time on it, I will just ask that the page be deleted as a copyright violation.
 * Anything that suggests an undeclared conflict of interest or undeclared paid editing. In these cases I will "go with my gut" when it comes to assuming good faith or not.  If I sense an inexperienced editor with a conflict of interest, I will work with them a little to make sure they understand Wikipedia's policies in this area.  If I sense that the editor doesn't care about Wikipedia nearly as much as "pushing his agenda" then that editor may find himself unable to edit on the grounds that he is not here to build an encyclopedia.

Of course, any topic which is either obviously not notable or which I've never heard of and which has no obvious suitable references in the first 20 search-engine results is likely to be rejected outright, as a topic not suitable for Wikipedia. Two examples of drafts that would get a summary "rejected topic, no not resubmit: I hope this helps.
 * "John Doe, state-ranked under-14 football player" with no coverage beyond being in a list of state-ranked players and/or purely local coverage, like "local TV station middle school athlete of the week."
 * "The John Doe Band," a local band in Los Angeles with one EP with insignificant sales to their credit, where the closest thing to "independent, reliable source" coverage is a single feature item in a local, non-major newspaper

By the way, it's probably gone by the time you read this, but that draft did say that Soul Button charted several times. What it did NOT say is whether the charts were the ones described in WP:Record charts. In the case of "Soul Button" I didn't bother to check any except Beatport, which is not an acceptable chart. I encourage you to check before you rewrite the draft. Why? Because if the music didn't chart on a chart that counts, it is unlikely that this band qualifies for an article unless it qualifies under one of the other applicable notability criteria. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  01:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)