Andrewoudot
Welcome!
Hello, Andrewoudot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Exaella, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —Farix (t | c) 10:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The article Exaella has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Search for reliable third-party sources comes up with nothing. In fact, I cannot even find it listed on any anime databases (reliable or unreliable), so its claim that it is an anime is highly suspect.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 10:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Andrew Oudot
editI've made "Exaella's" page not for myself and now I really have no time to make anything more for those who might need it, so - please do anything that you consider as better. Thanks for your time. Regards!
I have restored the article, because Proposed deletion is meant only for uncontroversial deletions, but I have also nominated it under the Articles for deletion process, formal notice below, which will start a debate lasting seven days, to which you are welcome to contribute, at the end of which an uninvolved administrator will decide what to do, based on the arguments put forward in terms of Wikipedia's policies, not on a count of heads.
I apologise that you are getting a rather unwelcoming introduction to Wikipedia. The trouble is, we are so keen to encourage everyone to come and contribute that we do not explain very clearly in advance what Wikipedia is not for. It is quite different from sites like Myspace were people come to write about themselves and their work. As an encyclopedia, it is selective about subjects for articles. The criterion used is called WP:Notability, and is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people unconnected with the subject thought it important and significant enough to write substantial comment about? An unreleased product is very unlikely to qualify; it takes critical comment after release to provide the necessary independent sources for an article.
That means that Wikipedia is not useful for publicising things in advance, but it is a fundamental policy that it is not for promotion of any kind. In fact, as the work's producer you have, from Wikipedia's point of view, a WP:Conflict of interest in writing about it, and even after release it is preferable that someone independent writes about it.
You have no need to apologise because, as I said, we are not good at explaining this in advance. You are welcome to comment in the deletion debate, but remember that it is about whether the article meets Wikipedia's policies, not whether Exaella is a good or deserving work.
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Exaella is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exaella until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikiproject anime and manga
editIf you are interested, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga is a group of users interested in the subject. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)