User talk:Surdhuni

January 2017
There were several reasons why the page User:Surdhuni/sandbox was unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. The most important one was that it was an almost exact copy of content published on other web sites, in what was was certainly a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, and very probably a violation of copyright law. Wikipedia does not accept copies of content from elsewhere without proof that the copyright holders have either released the content into the public domain or freely licensed it under terms compatible with Wikipedia's reuse terms: that means that permission has been given for anyone in the world to reuse the content, for any purpose, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. Because of that, the page has been deleted, but even if there had been no copyright problem, it would not have been suitable as an article for other reasons, such as because it gave no evidence that the library is notable enough to be the topic of a Wikipedia article, and because it appeared to be an attempt to promote or publicise the library.

You may not be aware that there have been at least four previous attempts to post a similar article about this library, the first one that I know of dating from February 2014. While I fully understand that the people who run the library wish to make it better known, Wikipedia is not the place to do so, and your efforts to publicise the library would be better spent in other areas, where such promotion is acceptable, whereas on Wikipedia it isn't.

My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. Of course, if your only purpose in editing is to publicise your library then that advice will not be much help to you, but in that case Wikipedia is not the right place to do that anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)