User talk:ViNOK

May 2017
Hello, ViNOK, and welcome to contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you have a successful time here. However, there were a couple of reasons why your draft at User:ViNOK/sandbox could not be accepted as an article. I will explain those reasons to you, in the hope of helping you to understand what is likely to be acceptable in any future editing you do.


 * 1) The draft did not provide any evidence that the band is significant enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's notability guidelines give an indication of what sort of thing is needed. In my opinion, there are far too many guidelines and policies on Wikipedia, and most of them are too long and complicated, making it difficult for new editors to know what is accepted, but in this case the most relevant guidelines are the general notability guideline and Notability (music). You should also have a look at the guide to reliable sources. Your draft did not give any sources at all, unless you count a link to the band's own web site, which is no use in establishing notability, as it is not an independent source. (Anyone can create a web site for themselves, claiming anything they like.) I made a google search for information about the band, and there are certainly many mentions of them on various web sites, but my fairly quick check didn't show me enough to decide whether they are notable enough for Wikipedia.
 * 2) The tone of the draft was not that which is preferred for a Wikipedia article. The use of exclamation marks in particular gave rather a feeling that the writer was shouting about how amazing he or she thinks the band is, whereas a Wikipedia article needs to be written in a neutral, dispassionate, way.
 * 3) If the lack of evidence of notability and the tone had been the only problems I would simply have declined the "article for creation" submission, and left a note saying why, so you knew what to do to improve it. However, there was also a more serious problem, which is that the content of the draft was a copy of text from the band's web site, making it a copyright infringement. Anyone who posts anything to Wikipedia is declaring that the content is freely licensed for anyone in the world to re-use, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, for any purpose at all, commercial or otherwise, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. On the rare occasions when owners of web sites are willing to allow such free re-use of their material, we need proof that they do so: we can't assume it is so just because someone creates a Wikipedia account and posts the content here. Because of this copyright problem, the draft has been deleted.

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. However, if you do decide to have another go at writing a draft for an article now, you need to carefully consider the points explained above. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)