User:Coffeeandcrumbs/NPPSchool
Hello, welcome to your New Page Patrol School page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your NPP School page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working).
- How to use this page
This page will be built up over your time in the School, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.
Getting started
[edit]Coffeeandcrumbs Before we dive into lesson material, I'd like to get a holistic idea of your current approach to NPP. I'm going to ask you a few broad questions, and then I'd like you to pick two articles from the queue and document your process of reviewing it step by step. signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Questions
[edit]Preliminary questions
|
---|
Patrol walkthrough 1[edit]
I not sure of what to do next. Technically, Wikipedia is violating the Creative Commons license at everybodywiki.com. We need to add attribution. I know how to do that if the page was copied from within Wikipedia. But what if it was copied from an external source which also has a CC license compatible with our policies. WP:FREECOPYING recommends placing {{CCBYSASource}} and {{Text release}}. Is that what you would do? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Is Dance Club Songs chart included in WP:MUSICBIO #2? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Patrol walkthrough 2[edit]
Thanks for answering the questions! I think it's given me a better picture of what we should focus on. Let's start with some more practice with SNGs. signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
Subject-specific notability guidelines
[edit]Extended content
| |||
---|---|---|---|
1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at WP:SNG) into the following three categories
This was a great exercise. Thanks! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Virtually all SNGs that provide additional notability criteria specify that these criteria may indicate that the subject meets notability guidelines. How would you interpret this caveat as a new page reviewer?
Scenarios[edit]For scenarios 1-6 review just based on "subject notability guidelines" (SNG) "alone" for sake of the exercise. Do not consider any sources or other policies. Please answer if the subject meets the SNG guidelines based on the given content below, and specify which notability criteria they meet or fail. For scenarios 7-11 specify which SNGs would establish the subject's notability.
An editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2019 without providing any sources, is the subject considered not notable and why?
A New York city based 2019 start up software company , specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund.
Maycee Barber who is a female Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 7-0 and she is currently ranked #12 in the women's flyweight division.
An upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, was reported will be in production in December 2019 and to be released on August 2020 in the cinemas.
A political candidates, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2019 election for a Senator position in United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy.
A singer who self produced his first album in May 2019 and his songs are listed in Spotify.
Coffeeandcrumbs Good work, I'll put up the next batch of problems later today. signed, Rosguill talk 20:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
Holistic notability practice
[edit]Extended content
|
---|
For the following examples, please assess whether the subject meets notability guidelines, taking into consideration both GNG and relevant SNGs, but without conducting any additional searches for sources
Frank Lloyd Wright (June 8, 1867 – April 9, 1959) was an American architect, interior designer, writer, and educator. Wright believed in designing structures that were in harmony with humanity and its environment, a philosophy he called organic architecture. His creative period spanned more than 70 years. He works includes The Guggenheim, swirling, snail-shaped museum in the middle of Manhattan.[1][2] Fallingwater, which has been called "the best all-time work of American architecture."[3] This is one of Wright's most famous private residences (completed 1937), was built for Mr. and Mrs. Edgar J. Kaufmann, Sr., at Mill Run, Pennsylvania. Constructed over a 30-foot waterfall, it was designed according to Wright's desire to place the occupants close to the natural surroundings. The house was intended to be more of a family getaway, rather than a live-in home.[4] References
Jordan Lennon (born February 22, 2000), is a British film producer and actor. [1] Lennon is currently a member of BAFTA.[2] He continues to work aside 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros, Wicked Wales, Capture Studios, Cineworld, Paramount Pictures, and Rockefeller Foundation.[3] At age 16, the Vice President of 20th Century Fox, Paul Higginson. Who previously worked on Star Wars, Titanic, and Independence Day took on Jordan and Rowan Snow as a mentor.[4] In December 2018, Jordan and Rowan finished British Film Academy.[5] Jordan lived in Skelmersdale for 10 years before moving to Rhyl, North Wales. He's currently writing 'Stranger in the Night' scrreenplay for Warner Brothers. References
Sonny William Williams (born 3 August 1985), who is a Muslim[1], is a New Zealand All blacks rugby union footballer,[2] Williams was a Marist Saints junior when he was spotted playing in Auckland by Bulldogs talent scout John Ackland.[3] In 2002 he was offered a contract and moved to Sydney (as the youngest player to ever sign with an NRL club) to play in the Bulldogs' junior grades.[4] References
David Howell Petraeus AO (/pɪˈtreɪ.əs/; born November 7, 1952) is a retired United States Army general and public official. He served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from September 6, 2011,[1] until his resignation on November 9, 2012[2] after his affair with Paula Broadwell was reported.[3] Petraeus was born in Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York, the son of Sixtus Petraeus (1915–2008),[4] a sea captain from Franeker, Netherlands.[5]
References
Martina Hingis is a Swiss former professional tennis player.[1] She won five Grand Slam singles titles.[2] Hingis was one of the highest-paid female athletes in 2000.[3] She retired in November 2007 after being hampered by a hip injury for several months and testing positive for a metabolite of cocaine during that year's Wimbledon Championships,[4] which led to a two-year suspension from the sport.[5] References
|
Ok, I think you've got notability down, well done. Since you're fairly familiar with general Wikipedia content policies, I'm going to skip over the modules about article titles, BLPs, image copyright, POV, OR, RS and verifiability. Let me know if you do want to go over any of these topics. And now, for speedy deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 07:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
[edit]- Please do the following
- Please set up your CSD log by installing MYCSD so that I can review your CSD nominations. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
- Bookmark Earwig's Copyvio Detector in your computer.
- Download CV-revdel and after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
General criteria
[edit]- 1. Please review (G1-G14) at General and answer the following questions in your own words.
- @Rosguill: Can you explain what is meant by "Application"? Do you want me to just explain what these CSD criteria mean and to what type of articles they apply? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs yep that's it. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
No | Criterion | Application | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
1 | G1 | patent nonsense; text that does not make sense in any human language. | |
2 | G2 | test; pages created purely to test editing; excludes WP:SANDBOX, any user pages, or unused templates | |
3 | G3 | vandalism, hoaxes, or pages created to intentionally misinform the reader; redirects that are a by-product of cleaning up page move vandalism | |
4 | G4 | an almost exact recreation of an article that was deleted at deletion discussion like AfD or RfD etc.; this applies to creation under the same name, a similar name, or a completely different name. As long as the content is almost the same. | |
5 | G5 | created by banned or blocked user in violation of their ban or block; this does not apply to creations before or after the restriction was placed and does not apply to articles that have since been significantly edited by others without restrictions; any creations by alternate accounts/socks of the blocked or banned user also qualify for this criteria | , although if the article is easily verifiable as notable and without issues (e.g. an article on a subject that clearly meets an unambiguous SNG like NGEO, or a useful redirect) you may want to opt to not file for G5 even if it's technically valid. signed, Rosguill talk 00:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC) |
6 | G6 | used for uncontroversial deletions of pages created unambiguously in error or redirects blocking a legitimate move; redirects with significant histories have special considerations at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Moving procedures for preserving author attribution; also covers other deletions for categories and templates that are uncontroversial | |
7 | G7 | requests for good faith deletion requests from the author of the article; only when the user is the sole significant contributor to the page; also applies to pages blanked by said user | although note that this does not apply to redirects created as a result of moves, unless the both the prior article's creation and the move were performed by the same editor signed, Rosguill talk 00:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC) |
8 | G8 | pages dependent on a deleted page or a page that has not been created; this includes redirects to non-existent pages; subpages and editnotices of non-existent pages; file pages with no file; | |
9 | G9 | office actions; deletions by direction of the WMF | you will not have to deal with this as an NPP reviewer signed, Rosguill talk 00:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC) |
10 | G10 | attack pages; articles that include on libelous and falsely disparaging content, legal threats, and intended only to harrass and intimidate the subject; only applies to pages with no NPOV revision that can be reverted back to | |
11 | G11 | pure and unambiguous WP:PROMO; articles that would need to be "fundamentally rewritten" to become encyclopedic in any way | |
12 | G12 | unambiguous COPYVIO where there is no non-plagiarized content worth saving; there must be no credible claim of public domain or a free license | |
13 | G13 | abandoned drafts or user pages with AFC submission templates that have not been edited by a human user for more than six months | |
14 | G14 | pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title that only have 1 existing article that can be listed; or any disambiguation-like pages with no articles listed or all articles have been deleted |
Article and redirect category CSD
[edit]- 1. Please review A1-A11, R2, and R3 criteria at WP:CSD#List of criteria and answer the following questions in your own words.
No | Criterion | Application | Mentor comments |
---|---|---|---|
1 | A1 | No context: short articles that have no way to identify the intended subject; where there is nothing in the title, contents, or links in the page that can reasonable be used to identify what the user intended to write about. | |
2 | A2 | Written in a non-English language and essentially the same content as what is found in the Wikipedia of that language. If significantly different, tag with {{Not English}} and notify Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English | |
3 | A3 | Essentially no content. Nothing besides a rephrasing of the title, see also section, external links, attempts to communicate with the subject or other users, questions that belong on a noticeboard, categories, template tags, and images. Also includes the skeleton of an article (i.e section headings). Wait a reasonable amount of time to see if this a first step in creation of an article. | |
4 | A4 | Deprecated | |
5 | A5 | Any dictionary definition that exists at Wiktionary, any source material that Wikisource already has, or any content that has been moved to another wiki per an AfD decision. | |
6 | A6 | Deprecated | |
7 | A7 | Articles about people, animals, web content, events, and organizations (with the exception of educational institutions) that "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Excluded are articles that make a credible claim of significance or importance. | |
8 | A8 | Deprecated | |
9 | A9 | Articles about recordings or list of recordings by non-notable artists which also does not make a credible claim of significance or importance. | |
10 | A10 | Recently created article that duplicates another article and the page title does not serve as a plausible redirect | |
11 | A11 | Articles about subjects invented, coined, developed, or discovered by the creator of the page and do not make a credible claim of significance or importance. Hoaxes should be deleted per WP:G3. | |
12 | R2 | A redirect from the main article space to any other name space except category, template, wikipedia, help or portal name spaces. | |
13 | R3 | Recently created redirects that are implausible redirects. Does not apply to redirects as a result of a page move unless the misspelled title was also recently created. |
all correct. signed, Rosguill talk 01:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Scenarios
[edit]- Scenario 1
A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text:
John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.
- G10: While it may seem laughable, this could theoretically be an attack page. However, if the article title was in actuality John Smith, a likely made up name, and not something more plausibly a real person's name like Maria Resnik, I would say it is vandalism (G3). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 2
A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text
'''Good Times LLC''' is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.
- G11: pure PROMO. Does not matter that it is a user page. It should also be blocked per WP:ORGNAME. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 3
A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text:
'''Edward Gordon''' (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 500 subscribers on YouTube.
- A7: Makes claims but not credible claims of importance. Anyone can publish on SoundCloud and one can purchase 500 subscribers for $5. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 4
A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content:
Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.
- A7: I don't think there is any such thing as a Hall of Fame for roadies. I don't see any credible claim of importance. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 5
A user creates an article Marks v. Shoup with the following content:
Under the law of Oregon which was in force in Alaska when the seizure and levy of the plaintiff's goods were made by the defendant as marshal of Alaska under a writ of attachment, that officer could not, by virtue of his writ, lawfully take the property from the possession of a third person, in whose possession he found it.
- This text was published by US Government and therefore is in the public domain. It was first published on or before 1901 making doubly in the public domain. Although the content of the article does not make a credible claim of importance of the subject, the article title Marks v. Shoup in its self is a credible claim of importance as a U.S. Supreme Court case. I would not even PROD this. I would tag for improvement and move on.
- I do not see this at Wikisource but it could theoretically make a Wikipedia article as well. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 6
A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.
- Use Google to see if it is nonsense. If not, check if the article already exists in that language Wikipedia. If it is almost the same as that article in foreign language, tag A2. If new content, tag with {{Not English}} and post at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 7
A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
- Wait a little while to see if they continue with the creation. If not, nominate G7. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 8
A user creates an article which is an identical copy of another article on Wikipedia.
- If a plausible redirect name, redirect to other article. If not, A10. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 9
A user with the name "WikiRockers" creates the following article
Phabricators are Fabulous is the debut single of an exciting new group called the WikiRockers.
- A9: Non-notable artist. No credible claim of significance or importance. G11 also applies. The user should be blocked for WP:ORGNAME. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 10
A user creates an article and 5 minutes after it was created the article only has a single category with no other text.
- Wait. Give the user a chance to expand. If no activity after a good amount of time, nominate for A3. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
[edit]- Scenario 11
A user creates an article Larry Footy with the following wikisource (in other words it properly displays in the article):
{{Infobox football biography |name = Larry Footy |birth_place = [[Leeds, England]] |currentclub = [[Oxford City]]}}
- A7 – Does not make a credible claim of importance. Oxford City is in a sixth-tier team and clearly not covered by WP:NFOOTY. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- You're right about the SNG, but A7's criterion is a plausible claim of significance, not of notability. Looking at Oxford City, about half their players are bluelinked, making it plausible that this subject has received coverage that would establish notability so A7 does not apply. There are a few other considerations before going to the standard PROD-AfD route: given the somewhat silly name of Larry Footy, the lack of sources, and the lack of a Larry Footy listed on the Oxford City page, WP:G3 hoax tagging would be appropriate (although you should search for sources and verify that you come up with nothing before tagging). Additionally, as it is a BLP without any sources, WP:BLPPROD applies. signed, Rosguill talk 18:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 12
A user with the name Gamerfan123 creates the following article:
GamerCon is an annual event held in the garage of Shelly Sony. Last year 10 people attended - a record. This year's event will be held October 19-21.
- A7 – An organized event that makes no credible claim of importance.
- G11 also applies since it seeks to promote a future event. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- A7 is definitely correct. I would personally agree with G11 in this case, but some admins are finicky and refuse G11 unless the content is written in an egregiously non-neutral fashion. That having been said, nobody is going to reject an A7/G11 double tag because G11 doesn't quite fit. signed, Rosguill talk 18:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 13
A user creates the article HomeTown Pizza with the following content:
HomeTown Pizza is a local pizza maker. It has been open since 2004. Its most popular topping, according to the local paper, is pepperoni.[1] References 1.^ localalnewspaper.com/hometownpizza/profile.html
- A7 – A commercial organization that makes no credible claim of importance. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- you should also follow up by reporting them to WP:UAA as their username implies both a COI and a violation of WP:NOSHARE. signed, Rosguill talk 18:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 14
A user Someguy54321 makes the following article and 3 days later gets community banned for repeatedly operating a bot without approval.
Cecilia Rich is a state senator in the New Hampshire House of representatives.
- This is fine. Assuming it is not a hoax, it meets WP:NPOL. Tag with {{BLP unsourced}} and move on. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming that there is no other content in the article, this qualifies for WP:BLPPROD. Since the article does make a claim that would establish that it meets WP:NPOL, you could instead try looking for a source yourself and adding it. {{BLP unsourced}} is only for cases where the article is unsourced but includes some form of external link. signed, Rosguill talk 18:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 15
User:PhilHDoct creates the following article at Solar Panel 2.0:
Phil Doct has created a new solar panel which will increase energy output from existing solar panels by 30%. He was granted a patent on this invention on May 15.
- May seem to meet A11 but 30% increase in energy output of existing solar panels is a credible claim of significance. G11 also does not seem to apply since the tone is relatively tame and NPOV. This is a good candidate for PROD to see if independent RS can be provided. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 16
A user converts a redirect Tayo into an article with the following wikisource. How, if at all, would it be different if a user made this as a new article?
[[Tayo the Little Bus|<span style="color: #0088ff;">You: Kill Tayo!!!!!!!!!!! </span><span style="color: #33ff0a;">Rogi: Nooooo You!!!!!!! </span><span style="color: #00a2ff;">Tayo:Help!!!!! Blood, this is my sad</span><span style="color: #ff2600;"> Gani: Call Emergency!!!!! <span style="color: #0088ff;">You: Kill Gani!!!!!!</span><span style="color: #eeff00;"> Lani:321! Bomb you!!!</span>]]
- If it was a redirect to start with, I would have to assume this is vandalism and revert to the redirect. If a new article, I would go for either G2 or G3, BUT it makes sense as a good redirect if Tayo the disambiguation did not exist. I would redirect to Tayo the Little Bus. I haven't checked but it looks like lines from the animated series. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 17
A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Assume that there is secondary sourcing present for all statements.
Acme Inc is a Mumbai based widget company with 1200 employees and 10 million (US) in revenues. They were founded in 2015 by Wiley C Oyote. Their first product was a one inch widget. Acme have won several awards for quality.
- This does not qualify for any CSD and a PROD is surely to be removed. I would AfD since, IMO, the company does not seem notable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 18
A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Assume that there is sourcing to the company's website present for all statements.
Acme Inc is the premier award-winning Indian widget company. Located in beautiful Mumbai, the company has 1200 hard-working dedicated employees who have powered the company to over 10 million (US) in revenues. In a flash of inspiration brilliant inventor Wiley C Oyote started the company in 2015. Their first product revolutionized widgets and amazingly each new product has been even more impressive. Acme has shown themselves to be the best in the business and only has the greatest things ahead of them. "If you want widgets, you want Acme," Chief Marketing officer John Roadrunner said.
- G11 without a second's thought. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 19
A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article.
Acme Inc is an award-winning[1][2] Indian widget company. The company has 1200 hard-working dedicated employees[3] who have powered the company to over 10 million (US) in revenues.[2] We were founded in 2015 by Wiley C Oyote.[3] Our first product was a one inch widget.[4] Acme has become an important widget manufacturer.[3] "If you want widgets, you want Acme," Chief Marketing officer John Roadrunner said.[4] ==References== 1.^ Indian company customer reviews. http://www.indiancustomers.com/Acme 2.^ Reporter, A. "Acme Wins Award". Mumbai Newspaper. October 20, 2018. 3.^ "Why Acme" acmewidgets.com 4.^ "Acme brings Widget to Market" www.pressreleases.com
- Borderline G12 but I think a case can be made that it does not require a fundamental rewrite. I would take to AfD, since I still think it is not notable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 20
An editor creates a redirect titled "Sittin Chapel" pointing at Sistine Chapel
- Hmm... I guess this could be a plausible misnomer while it is inconceivable to me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 21
An editor creates a redirect titled "Bornio" pointing at Borneo
- Not sure if Bornio is a common first or last name. If so, a discussion would be needed on whether we need a disambiguation or if we need to use {{Redirect}} on Borneo or use {{Distinguish}} on the disambiguation page that we potentially create. If it is not a term that requires disambiguation, this makes sense as a good redirect from a common typo or misspelling for Borneo. Note – I have avoided looking up these terms and I am solely basing my decisions on the information you have given me.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- In any case, this page should be kept as either a redirect or a disambiguation. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- disambiguation seems appropriate as there are apparently a few things named Bornio mentioned on Wikipedia (in which case Borneo should be listed in the See also section). If no other Bornio existed, it would be worth keeping as a valid {{R from misspelling}} signed, Rosguill talk 18:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 22
An editor creates a redirect titled "St Augustine," pointing at St. Augustine
- Good redirect. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- we shouldn't have redirects with extraneous punctuation, in this case the trailing comma at the end of the title, and such errors are R3-worthy. Also included in this category of bad redirect are redirects that are entirely bracketed by quotation marks. If St Augustine didn't exist, that should be created (and if you have page mover, you should just move it there without creating a redirect to kill two birds with one stone). signed, Rosguill talk 18:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 23
An editor creates a redirect titled "New Joyzee" pointing at New Jersey
- Although not a misspelling or misnomer per se, this is a common tongue-in-cheek name for the state. It is plausible, although unlikely, that someone unfamiliar with the term could be searching for it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Scenario 24
An editor creates a redirect titled "Caltary" tagged with {{R from misspelling}} pointing at Calvary
- R3 – I don't see how someone could think this is the spelling or make the mistake on their keyboard. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- R3 is correct, but there's a bit more to the justification. Single-character errors are usually acceptable, as long as they aren't all the way across the keyboard (e.g. Cplvary). There's a second issue here though, which is that this is even more likely to be a misspelling of Calgary. Had it originally pointed at Calgary, I would nominate for RfD, as the ambiguity of the misspelling means that it's not a good {{R from misspelling}}, even if Calgary is more plausible than Calvary. signed, Rosguill talk 18:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Copyvio, COI, and PAID
[edit]- 11. How do we spot a COI/PAID editor?
Answer:
To be perfectly honest, unless it is very obvious promotional material I have no idea. I usually can't tell the difference between an over enthusiastic editor and a COI/PAID editor. I focus a lot on biographies and I sometimes suspect some connection between the editor and the subject. But my modus operandi is to focus on whether the subject is actually notable and if so to fix the page to meet NPOV. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- We really don't have a magic way to detect COI editors. Really the only giveaways that we can work off of are:
- Usernames that are clearly related to the subject
- Writing biographies that include professional-quality headshots of the subject which are then claimed as "own work" by the editor
- Promotional writing in a COI-prone topic (e.g. BLP, companies) with few to no edits outside of a small set of articles.
- Other than #1, these aren't guaranteed cases of COI, but they are enough to justify tagging a user's talk page with {{uw-coi}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- We really don't have a magic way to detect COI editors. Really the only giveaways that we can work off of are:
- 12. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a COI editor?
Answer:
Assuming no CSD criteria apply and the subject is notable, I would look for serious violations of BLP and remove them. Then I would tag the page as requiring more secondary sources and perhaps apply {{COI}}. If I notice a pattern in the editors contributions or a cluster of articles in related subjects, I would bring it to the attention of WP:COIN. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- {{COI}} should only be used if there are open BLP or neutrality issues with the article. However, regardless of whether {{COI}} is placed, you should request that the editor make a COI disclosure by placing {{uw-COI}} on their talk page. If they already have such a tag and don't appear to be complying with it in good faith, you should take the issue to the conflict of interest noticeboard. Finally, it's worth remembering that COI editors are encouraged to use AfC to submit their articles. Thus, if you come across an article where you suspect COI, and which seems difficult to assess for notability (due to refbombing or some other reason), you should consider draftifying the article and informing them about COI disclosure and related policies. signed, Rosguill talk 21:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- 13. Please read WP:PAID. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a paid editor?
Answer:
I would first remind myself of AGF. But AGF does not mean ignore clear signs of bad-faith editing such as PAID. Again assuming the subject is notable and no applicable CSD criteria, a good option is to move it to draft without leaving a redirect and tag the draft with {{UPE}}. I would also alert WP:COIN. If my conclusion is based on private information that would violate WP:OUTING, I would email paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org instead of posting at COIN. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I can't recall a time where outing seemed to be a genuine stumbling block in dealing with UPE. signed, Rosguill talk 21:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Filtering - Deletion policy & other alternatives
[edit]Now it's time to go over the actions that should be taken for those articles do not fit under the CSD criteria but do not meet relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia.
Please read WP:PROD, WP:BLPPROD, WP:MERGE, WP:DRAFTIFY, WP:NPPDRAFT and WP:REDIR, WP:AFD and answer the following questions. (Provide links and hisdiff as needed.)
- 1. Under what circumstances do we propose deletion (PROD) a page and why do we do that?
Answer:
- We PROD pages when a CSD criteria is not met but the article clearly should, in our opinion, be deleted. We use PROD to avoid unnecessary AfD that waste volunteer time. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- 2. What should we do before we PROD a page? And what should be considered during a nomination?
Answer:
- Check that...
- ... there is a valid reason for deletion per WP:DEL#REASON and no valid alternatives to deletion per WP:ATD
- ... there is no good revision to revert back to if vandalized
- ... it has not previously been PRODed, REFUNDed, or discussed at AfD --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- 3. What is the criteria when nominating a BLPPROD? If we choose not to BLPPROD a page what are the alternatives? (give three examples with explanations)
Answer:
- The article is about a living person or recently deceased human and has no references: no external links or citations including offline sources
- Alternatives:
- Find and add references
- Redirection or CSD. If completely negative in tone, consider G10. If entirely promotional, G11
- See if there is an acceptable revision to revert back to --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- 4. In what circumstances can we nominate an AFD and what step should be done prior such action.
Answer:
- AFD is appropriate if the subject is not independently notable and there are no alternatives to deletion such as redirection, draftifying, or merging. The article also does not qualify for any CSD criteria or BLPPROD. Regular PROD should also be attempted or at least considered to avoid clogging up AFD process. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- 5 How long do PROD, BLPPROD and AFD last before it is deleted or decline?
Answer:
- 7 days in most cases.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- 6. Suppose a page has been previously BLPROD and a source was provided. If you still think that article should be deleted, what can you do?
Answer:
- Some CSD criteria may always still apply. But in most cases, the only alternative deletion process is AFD. However, other alternatives like tagging for improvement or notifying a WikiProject for help may also be appropriate. For example, if COI is suspected WP:COIN maybe able to help. For women, I may consider notifying WT:WPWIR to see if the project can come up with sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- all reasonable suggestions, although regular PROD is still an option after BLPPROD is declined, and as stated earlier, you should probably be filing for CSD before BLPPROD if applicable. I'm not sure it's really necessary to notify WIR, as there's noticeboards which will automatically alert editors watching them whenever an article tagged wtih WikiProject Women (or listed as Women-category at AfD) is nominated for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 00:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Answer:
- I am sorry. I do not understand what this question is asking.
AFD is sometimes extended (relisted) for an additional 2 times.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)- Self-trout honestly, I just copied this question from the rubric and am not really sure what its purpose is. I guess it could be more of a "when do we use each of these deletion protocols" question, but it's essentially redundant with the previous few questions. Disregard! signed, Rosguill talk 00:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- 8. What are the reason to WP:Merge a page to another page?
Answer:
- In some cases, a subject is not independenly notable but is notable enough to warrant coverage as part of a different existing article. This is usually the case when a subject is closely related to a topic that has its own article but does not warrant a separate article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- 9. List 10 reasons we may WP:REDIR instead of deleting.
Answer:
- The subject already has an article under a different title
- When the subject is not independently notable and is covered by a closely related article about a subject, such as parent company or subsidiary
- ENGVAR variations of the same subject
- Foreign language name of subject that is sometimes used by English-speakers
- Not an independently notable person, to the article about a closely related notable person or group
- Not independently notable subject, to a notable list article that includes the subject
- Plausible misspellings or misnomers of notable subjects
- Plausible alternative capitalizations or punctuation
- Where there is significant history that should kept for attribution
- Duplicate disambiguation page with (disambiguation) to the existing disambiguation page without (disambiguation). These are helpful for intentionally linking to disambiguation pages and should be redirected and kept. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- 10. Please list the ways that you should search for sources in preparation for a PROD or AfD nomination, including steps which may only be relevant for certain subjects. How does this list change for subjects which are likely to have coverage in languages that you cannot read?
Answer:
- The basics: Search engines (Google, Google News, Google Books), Newspaper archives (Newspaper.com, Newspaperarchive.com, Google Newspapers)
- Going deeper: JSTOR, Google Scholar, PROQUEST, Gale, Project Muse, Internet Archive books, Open Library, PUBMED and other academic journal aggregators
- Granular: Localized searches (eg. for Hawaiian subjects, search some Hawaiian newspaper websites and their archives), subject-specific encyclopedia (eg. Encyclopedia of African History) --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- for the thorough list of sources. Depending on the subject you may be able to skip some of these (for example, academic publications are unlikely to include any coverage of very new subjects). However, you didn't really answer the part of the question asking about how that does or does not change for languages that you can't personally read. Could you answer that part now? signed, Rosguill talk 00:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: For foreign language subjects, it is important to look for foreign language sources. This sometimes means using the name written in a different script to search for sources. This reminds me a shameful AfD I was involved in. For Abelhaleem Hasan Abdelraziq Ashqar, I never checked for sources in Arabic (عبد الحليم الأشقر) or in Hebrew script. Things did not go my way and I lost my cool. I completely forgot AGF. Shame Shame Shame! I will never get a chance to apologize to those editors who eventually were blocked for completely unrelated reasons. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is also important to look at other wikis. For example [2], which for some reason is not connected to our article on the subject. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- , although I would add that in practice, it's not always possible to do as thorough of a search in foreign languages as you'd like. This is especially true of Indian subjects, since MOS:INDICSCRIPT unfortunately works against us at NPP by instructing editors to not include alternative names in Indian languages. Caution should be used if you're considering nominating such a subject for deletion, but as long as you yield if and when reliable coverage is provided, no one will hold it against you. That having been said, for cases like India where English (or another international language) is widely used as a prestige dialect alongside regional dialects, even trivial coverage in English may be sufficient evidence that WP:NPOSSIBLE is met: it's reasonable star of Tamil cinema has 3 pieces published in Tamil for every piece about them in English. In these sorts of cases, you should leave a {{Notability}} tag, but otherwise you can let it go without nominating for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 02:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- 11. When can an article be moved to draft space?
Answer:
- I think this should be reserved for cases that incubation may and will likely lead to a viable article. Usually, this is done not to bite newcomers working in good faith. However, it should be avoided for cases that seriously violate BLP or have no chance in hell of actually being notable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- another situation in which you can draftify is if there is an article by either a likely-COI or new editor that has been WP:REFBOMBed or otherwise is very difficult to evaluate. Because such editors are recommended to go through AfC anyway, it's appropriate to send articles by such editors to AfC if they would take an inordinate amount of time to review, as the AfC process puts more of the burden of demonstrating notability on the editors submitting the article. signed, Rosguill talk 00:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Deletion-related policy questions
[edit]- 1. In your own words, describe the difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. Also explain briefly how references to each of these may be used in deletion discussions
Answer:
The names "policy", "guideline", and "essay" usually indicate the level of consensus behind a particular viewpoint on how Wikipedia should operate. There are no real rules on Wikipedia (except perhaps Five Pillars which aim to improve our encyclopedia), but policies, guidelines, and essays represent the general ideas which have the most consensus here. Policies have the most support and should generally be followed. Same goes for guidelines in a bit smaller degree. Essays have the least support and often have counter essays. My favorite is WP:NOTBLUE. Essays represent the viewpoints of 1 or more editors but may not have established consensus while policies and guidelines have gone through a process of significant discussion and consensus building. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- This answer is 99% correct, but it also includes a common misconception, that policies have more support than guidelines. Policies and guidelines are actually established through the same process, and thus require the same level of consensus to create or modify them. The difference between them is a question of scope: policies are intended to be universal on Wikipedia, whereas a guideline is written with the expectation that it applies either only to a specific subset of articles or that it is a recommendation which could be reasonably overruled in a foreseeable context. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- 2. Some WikiProjects have published essays on notability for topics related to their project, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. As a new page reviewer, how should you use such essays?
Answer:
These essays should guide a new page reviewer as long as they are not counter-indicated by any policy or guideline. These essays are generally a good indication of how RfC discussions will resolve but should not be viewed as the final word. WP:GNG for example is a much stronger guideline of argument than the notability guide at WP:MILHIST. However, those that qualify under the WP:MILHIST guide may have a strong posibility of meeting WP:GNG with an extensive BEFORE. In this case, I may post at WT:MILHIST to see if there are editors with resources to show that the subject meets WP:GNG. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, at this point I think that you've done an excellent job and could start reviewing new pages. There are a few modules that we haven't gone through but which are likely unnecessary given your existing knowledge of Wikipedia (specifically, these are: Tagging, Civility, and coached practice for reviewing articles or nominating them for deletion). If there's anything you wanted to cover I can walk you through it, otherwise I'm happy to consider you to have graduated this course. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Rosguill, thank you so much for doing this! I feel much more comfortable to review new pages. I hope you will welcome my questions on your talk page if I ever find myself in a pickle jar. You patience and guidance is very much appreciated. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)