Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A person editing with an account is not treated as doing so on behalf of another body or person. (Exceptions are exceedingly rare and require approval.) Examples: Names promoting a business, group, activist stance, or organization; Offensive or disruptive: User names are used to simply identify users uniquely.
This page details arguments that are commonly seen in deletion discussions that have been identified as generally unsound and unconvincing. These are arguments that should generally be avoided – or at the least supplemented with a better-grounded rationale for the position taken, whether that be "keep", "delete" or some other objective.
This is most commonly used by editors who are new to Wikipedia and have been looking to use it to promote a favorite business, person, or cause. If you've been directed to this page, perhaps you have used it yourself. This is not an effective gambit. The reasons why this statement fails to have the intended impact include:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before content can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research .
Please consider making a donation. Wikipedia is free for you, but not free for us. Consider a donation to keep our mission strong. Make a donation to Wikipedia and give the gift of knowledge! Wikipedia is free of advertising. Please help us keep it that way. Donate today, and empower the world with the ability to share in the sum of all human ...
Experienced editors not involved with the cause in question may suspect the new user of having a close connection with it. Such editors should respond carefully, to ensure that by alleging or deciding that the group is not "notable" by Wikipedia's standards, they do not suggest to the new user that the cause for which the group works is unimportant.
Adding the name of a non-notable individual to a stand-alone list of alumni is bad for several reasons. It undermines Wikipedia's legitimacy as an encyclopedia. Facebook, LinkedIn and other social networking sites provide people a forum to discuss their lives. Wikipedia is meant to provide factual information about notable topics.
As Wikipedia articles were and are usually in the first page returned by search engines, if an alternative less popular name is chosen, the page will usually still appear in the first page of an internet search (there are exceptions: when Popski's Private Army was moved to its official name, it failed to show up on the first page of internet ...