Why would they remove this? Reacting to Articles for Deletion proposals in Wikipedia

There is a process on Wikipedia called Articles for Deletion" (AfD), or "Sidor f?reslagna f?r radering" (SFFR) on Swedish Wikipedia. It's a process for when someone in the Wikipedia community believes an article doesn't meet certain standards (for example, because it lacks sources) and raises the matter for formal discussion. Consequently, a large warning box appears in the article, which sometimes upsets people who are in some way connected to the subject of the article. What, is someone going to delete this? Why?

To understand what's happening, it's important to know why an article might be proposed for deletion. Remember that Wikipedia is best understood as a publication with specific ideas about what it wants to publish and how. There are guidelines about what is required for an article to be included in the encyclopedia.

The most important criteria are what we call notability, which can be roughly understood as there being a public interest in the topic, and above all, verifiability. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. All information we publish should have been made available elsewhere first – in a book, a documentary, a scientific article, a newspaper article – by someone other than the person or organization the article is about.

Being an encyclopedia means you can't own the article about yourself or anything you represent. While it's easy to think you know best, there's also a conflict of interest: You're not neutral in relation to the portrayal of yourself.

It's common to feel "no, but now someone is going to RUIN this" and then angrily try to save the text. It doesn't work. Remember that Wikipedia is a publication with norms for what it wants to publish and how. If you see an ongoing deletion discussion, it's just like other editorial conversations about what to include or not. The difference here is merely that it, like almost everything else on Wikipedia, happens in public.

It's also common for readers to panic, thinking THIS ARTICLE WILL BE DELETED, and try to gather support to prevent this. This rarely speaks in the article's favor. Wikipedia's system is based on people having a discussion about the subject, ideally with as few preconceived notions about its feasibility or lack thereof as possible. Trying to circumvent the processes will usually cause irritation more than anything else.

There's a group of people I like to call the informal editorial team, individuals who have taken editorial responsibility for Wikipedia and try to ensure the encyclopedia continues to function. Everyone is welcome to this work – but it requires understanding Wikipedia's rules and norms.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. This also means – somewhat simplified – that anyone can propose an article for deletion. Just because one person thinks something doesn't mean the entity "Wikipedia" has started a process to do something. Most of the deletion discussions I engage in end with the article being kept, usually improved, since someone who thinks "no, we should really have an article on this subject" has been motivated to improve the article and find more sources to show it should be kept.

I've seen cases where people go around trying to drum up some form of general support for a deletion discussion on social media, while all that has happened is that a single person has raised the issue, no one agrees, and it's obvious to everyone involved for a while that the article will be kept.

Like all publications, Wikipedia must be allowed to have its editorial processes. And since everything on Wikipedia happens in the open, readers will sometimes stumble upon them.

So, what can you do if an article about yourself, your parent, or an organization you're active in is proposed for deletion?

First, try to understand the problem. Is it the sources? Do they question if the text lives up to Wikipedia's criteria for notability? It's easier to deal with if you understand what people actually want to do. They're typically not out to delete it out of spite. They have a reason.

Second, remember that Wikipedia is a publication with an idea of what it wants to publish and how. An encyclopedic article is a specific genre. Wikipedia tries to be neutral, instead of highlighting the positive like many other texts might. If someone claims an article is promotional, consider that they might – in light of the neutral style Wikipedia strives for – be right.

Third, avoid trying to seek support from people who could drown the discussion in support of your viewpoint. This is contrary to how Wikipedia is supposed and will only irritate the editors involved in the process.

Fourth, if you have sources, share them. "Hi everyone! I have a connection to the subject and will refrain from arguing to keep the article due to a conflict of interest, but please look at these sources and make your own assessment of whether they help this article meet the encyclopedia's requirements," or something like that. Make it easy for the Wikipedians to feel they've met the verifiability requirement.

Fifth, take a deep breath. Don't overreact to a deletion proposal. It doesn't mean that the entire encyclopedia despises you. It means that one person doesn't think the article lives up to the Wikipedia guidelines.