User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Usedtobecool

Hi there. This is a space we can use for our work on NPP related topics. We'll obviously cover CSD but can also touch on anything else you'd like to review. I've added it to my watchlist and encourage you to do the same. Since we're focusing on CSD, I'd encourage you to go ahead and read/re-read WP:CSD. Generally speaking, in what circumstances should a page be speedy deleted? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Just checking in to see if you're still interested in doing this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I am. And thank you for taking me on. I had 3 - 4 concurrent incomplete projects open in my tabs and they required substantial amount of research, lot more than I'd expected. I had to get rid of the clog on my browser. I am done now, just published the last article.

• My understanding is that CSD is for pages:

1. which are undesirable/unacceptable and
2. unsalvageable either by a quick edit/stubbing or reversion to an earlier acceptable version (although I don't see a lot of the former option being taken, probably because these kinds of pages almost certainly are on subjects unlikely to meet notability as well) and
3. any reasonable editor without a COI is expected to agree with the assessment of the page as satisfying 1 and 2, such that it would be a waste of time to include the wider community in deciding the page's fate.

Additionally, I consider it a duty of any policy-abiding wikipedian and/or a decent human to CSD a page meeting G10 or G12. With some of the other things, I am not sure when or why to speedy. For example, is it my duty to speedy a G11 page, or just a prerogative? I am also not sure how much promotional is CSDable promotional. Some deletions give me the impression that an WP:AUTO is deleted regardless of its merit, contrary to policy. And then there's A7 and G2, which confuse me still.

About the other question, I have been dying to have someone to ask about any and all things that confuse me. In the context of the NPP, that would be some of the crazy SNGs that I don't get. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 16:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

So working backwards, know that I am happy to lend my thinking about NPP. I know when I started I had a lot of questions and TonyBallioni among others was gracious with his time and expertise in answer them. So yes please feel free to ask questions about SNGs or other areas that you encounter whatever else we might working on.

As for the obligation to do speedy delete, I would certainly agree that anyone comes across a A10, G10, or G12 should nominate it. With G10 or G12 it might be appropriate to delete a smaller chunk and ask for revision deletion - I recommend this script which makes it much much easier to make such a request. However, this is a volunteer project. In the end you are under no true obligation to do anything. However, this can mean doing nothing. So if something is a G11 you can do nothing or nominate it for G11. You shouldn't use the curation toolbar to mark it as reviewed. Does that make sense? We'll definitely try to cover all the different CSD you might encounter with NPP (so we won't be covering most of the F criteria) in our work together.

Your summary of why speedy deletion is a pretty good one. Essentially, is there a)a significant problem which b)ordinary effort will not fix and c) it fits one of the preset reasons. So there are some topics which might have completely non-notable entries which are not written well but not qualify for any speedy deletion. That's OK. In the next day or so I will post several hypothetical deletions for us to start working on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC

Practice Set 1

@Usedtobecool: Below are some sample articles. We'll probably do a couple of these sets as there are quite a few deletion criteria as well as some common situations for some of them. What would you do if you saw the page listed in each scenario? Note that not all scenarios may warrant speedy deletion. Feel free to take a few days as you have time to do these. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, did my best. So far, I've mostly only CSDed pages, declined drafts. I only mark as reviewed or accept draft in case of 100% notable, well-sourced ones. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: nice job with this set. See some comments below. Let me know when you're ready for the next set. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, thank you, very helpful feedback! In the first read, I had thought I needed to ask a few follow-up questions, but having taken a few days (re-reads; and on-wiki experience: the USGOV copyvio issue actually came up in the last few days involving mistaken tagging by an experienced editor, and deleting by aforementioned ANI admin, subsequent discussions shed a bucketload of light on the matter), things are reasonably clear for me here. Let's proceed further, as we could always revisit, pause, slow down, if need be, when things start getting trickier, tougher. Proceeding, I would like to take up to several days and add responses in batches over time. When I'm done, I'll ping you. So, you can ignore my edits to this page that do not ping you, until I ping you. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

• Ans:G10, G3, A1, A7 come to mind quickly. All of these, of course, apply only under the assumption that there is no such non-subjective global ranking as "Worst elementary school teacher on the planet." I would tag with G10, G3 and A1 probably, leaving A7 alone because I feel A7 implies more good faith than is due, not because the claim of significance is credible.

I would definitely check the user's contributions history for NOTHERE behaviour. I think I would also report the username ticking "Disruptive" and "offensive" boxes from TW (this I would do only because I have yet to be told that I have made bad reports). Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Y The username report might not be acted upon but it's not a frivolous request especially in light of the article as NOTHERE feels very much in play. As for the CSD, A1 is out because there is enough of a context to figure out what's going on. A1 is fairly rare since ACPERM in my experience. No A7 is correct, because being the worst teacher is a significant claim though whether it's a credible claim is questionable (see Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance#Two-part_test). However we don't need to think too hard about that because it's pretty much the definition of G10 - it's possible it's a hoax but seems less likely. In theory you could tag both OK. Barkeep49 (talk)

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.

• Ans:CSD with G11 and U5. Leave user talk page message with "Welcome" if not already there, and about policy against using wikipedia for promotion. Then, report the username as promotional. Check contributions and if applicable, report to AIV for promotion only account. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Y For the userpage message Twinkle will already have some nice templates to use. Barkeep49 (talk)

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.

• Ans: A couple weeks ago, I would have CSDed it with A7, hoping to learn from reviewing admin's decision. But recent AN(/I) threads seem to suggest some (/times) admins may delete without checking whether the tag is correct, so I am not sure. I think pages like this should be CSDed but A7 doesn't seem to strictly meet the criteria, and I can't think of any other criteria that comes as close to A7 to applying. BLPPROD seems to be a waste of time for article on clearly non-notable a subject. So, if it's up to me to handle it, AfD as of now, otherwise, I would just watchlist the page to see what becomes of it when someone else comes across it, and move on. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

YYou're right that there is the most variability with A7. Despite the AN/ANI threads I would tag it A7 because an obscure actor/songwriter has no credible claim to significance. If the administrator deletes without reading well that's on them. However, you are always with-in policy for an A7 to choose a different deletion process. As written this would be an excellent candidate for BLPPROD, as no sources are present. So AfD is certainly an acceptable outcome but might also involve more editor time than is necessary for this article. Barkeep49 (talk)

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.

• Ans: I have no idea if being a Hall of Fame roadie makes one notable. A quick search tells me Bazz and Lemmy are/were real people, and Lemmy indeed has an article while Bazz doesn't. If it was sourced, probably cut it down to "Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie" and tag it with "Notability". Since that's not the case, I am thinking A3, per A4 of WP:OCSD. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Y The point of this scenario (which is modified from Ritchie333 via a former NPP graduate of mine) is to have you do some quick searching. So well done there. And yes a Hall of Fame roadie, whatever that might be, would certainly make it ineligible for A7. I think some sysops would accept the A3. However, I would suggest it's A3 ineligible because Cheers Bazz isn't necessarily correspondence. If all you had was "Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie" you'd have a potential BLPPROD but not necessarily anything that could be speedy deleted. This is definitely one of the trickier scenarios. Barkeep49 (talk)

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.

• Ans: G12| url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/181/562/. If it wasn't a violation, I would leave it alone. I have no idea what determines whether an article is deserved by subjects like this. On the one hand, these could be inherently notable, on the other, these might need to have impact like that of Miranda v. Arizona to deserve an article. I am leaning toward requiring it to meet GNG. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Y Here's another tricky scenario. Yes it's a direct copy paste and this would normally be a copyvio. However, it's not actually G12 eligible (which is why I could include it here without any problems). It's a US Supreme Court ruling and US Federal government work is all public domain and thus compatible with our license. In some countries government text is under copyright, Copyright of official texts can be useful there and in the US some, but not all states, issue copyright for their works which is just extra confusing. While it's not eligible for G12 it is an excellent candidate for draftify. Barkeep49 (talk)

Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.

• Ans: Tag with {{not English}}. I would need to understand the article and be able to check whether it exists on sister projects in order to CSD it. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

YYep. I'd think about running it through Google translate so you could maybe see if it was A2 (sometimes the Wiki coding can be a hint, such as if it's calling templates that don't exists on EN). Barkeep49 (talk)

Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.

• Ans: G7. If that was not their intention, they can contest it, or ask for refund later. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Y

Scenario 8

A user creates an article which is an identical copy of another article on Wikipedia.

• Ans: See if the title is useful, if it is blank the article and redirect it to the existing article. If the title is useless (would need to be CSDed as a redirect as well), CSD it. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Y - if it's a useless redirect A10 would be the speedy you're looking for. But most of the time turn into a redirect will be the right outcome. Barkeep49 (talk)

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. 

• Ans:A9. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Y

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.

• Ans:Watchlist it and come back later. Meets A3 after another 5 minutes. But I'd probably wait for 30 mins after creation. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Y Yes the waiting is what's important here. Minimum of 10, though longer can be OK too. I'll check to see if they've made any edits after 10 minutes somewhere else as an indicator of whether or not they're still working on it. Barkeep49 (talk)

Practice Set 2

@Usedtobecool: Happy for you to take a few days with this new practice set. Let me know when you're ready. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Barkeep49: Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: See my comments below. I think I have enough for one more practice set but will likely need a few days myself for this as my wiki energies will be focused elsewhere in the near term. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Not that you're likely to need it, but Good Luck! -- Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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]]}}

This is one of those subjects I've stayed well out of the way of. Oxford City apparently plays in a league that's in the sixth tier of English football. Whatever that means, doesn't sound like that makes the players playing in them SNG notable (one enWP article says, without inline citation, that most clubs belonging to this club's league are semi-professional, and the league is not included in the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues, which can't be an oversight since England is the premier Soccer nation, and in the first world). Some players on the club's current squad have articles on them, but I am assuming that's because they've played for better clubs before, or meet GNG. Google search suggests to me, Mr. Footy (may not be a real name) doesn't meet GNG. I can't find any Larry or Lawrence with a credible claim to notability currently/recently connected to Oxford City. Since the only claim to notability made in the article is being a player for Oxford City, I would CSD it with A7. I would have redirected it to Oxford City FC if the article's squad had someone with that name listed there. A3 says if another criteria also applies, infobox-only articles can be tagged with A3 as well, which makes no sense to me. Are some CSDs additive? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, may be G3 also applies, but I did/do not want to do additional work to make absolutely sure. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Y You're certainly not the only reviewer to stay away from FOOTY. However you can't really avoid seeing it while doing NPP. In this case I made up Larry Footy so sorry for the rabbit hole I sent you down there so no hoax was intended (will fix that in the future given that I use real names for other examples). But that's not really the important piece here. As you note infobox only is not a reason in and of itself to be speedied. As for some other criteria making this eligible for A3 as well, why not just tag with the other criteria, so I'm with you in not 100% understanding the intent there. Redirecting to the team if there's a squad listing is a good instinct. However, I would suggest A7 is going to be declined most of the time in this case. It might be 6 levels down in the English football pyramid but there are some notable players in the league. So for this one I would suggest it's going to be a prod or AfD outcome. Barkeep49 (talk)

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.

Tag with A7 and A11. There may be a case to be made for G11 as well, since the most credible purpose of the article is to advertise the (date of the) event so more people attend this year but I can let that go because A7 and A11 are sufficient for one, for another, if the article was on a notable subject, the info on when it happened last and when it will happen next wouldn't be considered advertising but legitimate encyclopedic information. Gamerfan123 doesn't seem to be anything/one of significance, so username doesn't matter. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

YI don't think we know that it's made-up. I mean an event in a garage seems plausible enough to me. However it's certainly a good A7. Barkeep49 (talk)

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. Not an "inherently notable" kind of subject. No other claim to notability made. Company profile on a local newspaper isn't even an acceptable source for the purpose of establishing notability. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Y With ACPERM we don't get too many of these kinds anymore, fortunately, but yes it lacks a credible claim of significance as an A7. Barkeep49 (talk)

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.

G5 doesn't apply (in case that's what this is testing for). I am assuming that the fact that this page still exists means that the community deliberations did not decide to mass-revert/delete the user's contributions, irrespective of merit. It looks like an article that could be created by a using a bot, by feeding it a template and a list of names of people whose article is to be created using that template. However, that's not relevant to this article's merit. The subject meets NPOL. BLPPROD is acceptable, however, since we need to have this article for completion's sake, and the creator is already banned, meaning that the PROD might legitimately expire causing the article to be deleted, I would myself look for a source and add it there. Add cats, projects, tags, etc. and leave it as reviewed. I would not go looking for other articles created by the user unless I have a lot of time to kill because this tells me this user has probably created a lot of legitimate articles that ought not to be deleted but policy requires them to be either deleted or worked on to make them acceptable. At any rate, the community is already aware of their contributions in detail, so I don't need to bring them to anyone's attention. I don't much care whichever way the community handles the user's other contributions. I would ask for restoration if this page is deleted later on, but that would be all. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Y G5 was what it was testing for in combination with knowledge of meeting NPOL. Applying G5 correctly is one that has tripped up otherwise competent CSD taggers (including me at least once) and so it's good that you found that. Your desire to do the work of improving rather than merely tagging is admirable. Good job here. Barkeep49 (talk)

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.

A11 doesn't apply, the claim of significance is credible. I can't find any proof that it's not a hoax, so CSD with G3, and see what happens. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This is another one I made-up (PhilHDoc...PhD was going for a little humor there). Searching patents is definitely possible. But I wouldn't take it as a hoax just because you didn't find a listing. Now in this case it was a hoax but I would suggest some caution. Barkeep49 (talk)

Set 3

@Usedtobecool:, this next set is designed to let us investigate some nuances. For 17-19 please assume that each is the only version of that article which has existed on Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, yup! Nuanced it is. Very confused! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

For being confused you did a good job. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2019 (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>]]

I would simply restore the redirect. If it was a new article, I'd just want to get it deleted. I'd try tagging it with G2, G3 first. I don't think G1, A1 apply, because I looked up "Tayo, Gani, Lani, Rogi" and it was enough context/sense to tell me it should be a redirect to Tayo the Little Bus anyway, that is if it wasn't a DAB that it is right now. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Y Yes as a created redirect the best path forward is to just restore the redirect. As I got the text above from the Sandbox it is definitely an example of test editing so G2 would apply. Sometimes you can stack CSDs, like something can be a copyright and an A7, but in general I urge caution against a "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks." As you say this is a real thing so G3 as pure vandalism or hoax is probably not fair in this instance. If you ended up debating between G2 and G3 and went with G3 that's probably not the worse outcome, but I would have some faith that the sysop who looks at it will have some sense and make a good decision. Barkeep49 (talk)

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.

(Caught the reference this time, though I haven't watched any)Tag it with paid and warn the creator to disclose and use AfC, and then talk page, for any more paid editing. If the company is obviously notable from the sources cited, which it looks like it is, leave it as is, again emphasizing that the creator is to refrain from directly editing the page, but use edit requests instead. If notability is not obvious, draftify and ask them to work on it some more. This is assuming the creator hasn't been informed before. If they have been warned before, COIN is an option. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Y - in this case because of the writing the paid editor label might not be appropriate on the article itself, it might only be needed on the talk page. The idea behind the paid editor tag is to make sure that information is being presented neutrally. Helping the editor out with norms around how to do paid editing is a helpful way for NPP to lend our expertise. In this case it might be more helpful to discuss how to do an edit request than AfC because that would be their way to make changes in the future. Barkeep49 (talk)

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. Warn the user against promotion and UPE. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Y It's this scenario where AfC would be the helpful direction to point. Barkeep49 (talk)

Scenario 19

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article.

Acme Inc is the premier[1] award-winning[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 shown themselves to be the best in the business and only has the greatest things ahead of them.[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

Again G11. #2 is probably RS, notability would depend on the award, other sources aren't acceptable for notability consideration, so their claims need not be considered. If G11 is declined, draftify and leave a comment that it reads like an advert, requires independent RS and violates MOS:WE; or alternatively depending on the quality of #2, stub it to "Acme Inc. is an award-winning Indian widget company.[2]" and add paid and notability tags. Guess paid template generates a misleading message in this case but I'd add it anyway because John/sock is likely to edit it again and I might miss it. I wouldn't mark it as reviewed. Warn the user as before. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Y This definitely leans towards the G11. If it were a little more neutrally written that it wouldn't quite require a fundamental rewrite to be neutral, this is where the paid editor tag could apply. Barkeep49 (talk)

Scenario 20

A user Someguy54321 makes the following article and 3 days later gets indef banned for violating their AP2 topic ban.

Cecilia Rich is a state senator in the New Hampshire House of representatives.[1]

==References==
1.^ New Hampshire General Court. www.gencourt.state.nh.us

(Reading it as indef blocked for violating topic ban; you did this in an ANI close too, didn't you? ) Tag it with G5. Or, if I'm feeling diligent, google the senator and replace the source with something that verifies the claim and mark it as reviewed. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Y The source is OK - it's not secondary but it verifies that they're a state senator (New Hampshire calls the legislature the general court). Because it was in violation of a topic ban it can be deleted. Some people don't like G5 in general because it does remove content that would otherwise benefit our readers. You can decide where you fall in the DENY vs readers debate. Barkeep49 (talk)

@Usedtobecool: Another nice job. If you'd like more of these I can do that but if you feel ready to move great. If you are ready, some thoughts about what you'd like to focus on next would be appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, I guessed a page in that website would identify senators, but the homepage doesn't, I don't think. Otherwise, I would accept the source, I have a pretty reasonable sense of what RS is, and what primary sources are acceptable for. I guess we could open a new section where I can come with questions about what I find confusing while patrolling and then move on from CSD. The most trouble I have is with deciding what to do with borderline notable cases, like footballers who have played in age-group internationals and supposedly big clubs which may or may not be professional (like how do you keep track of 200 countries and their clubs), professors that don't seem to have RS coverage but some amount of citation stat seems to make them notable enough, don't know exactly how much and which sources are to be consulted for such stats, artists (every page looks like what I imagine Van Gogh's page might have looked like when he was still alive) covered not in traditional RS but seem to have their own little universe and every artist looks to be doing something pretentious and of very little interest to the general public, and so on. I could bring pages and discuss my thoughts and my dilemmas about them if that would help. Then there's the fact that our most prolific reviewers seem to be able to do a lot, while for me, exploring the criteria, the sources, the reliability of sources from unfamiliar countries and languages, suggests that reviewing each page ought to take a long time, for most of the articles in the backlog, since the obvious cases are dealt with on the first day itself. I'm not sure. Does this help you decide? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 21:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's definitely do that. The borderline cases make for good discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Articles for Discussion

@Barkeep49: I would like to ask questions like these (hopefully with plenty of follow-ups till I'm sure/satisfied, and hopefully without having to make you repeat things for me). If any of it gives the impression that I've missed something that's already there in PAGs, essays, help pages, RFCs, etc., feel free to point them out as well.

Category:Hindu living goddesses articles except Kumari (goddess)

I think this would help because entries in this one are people who started at the same place but went on to rise to different heights. So, it'll either reveal that I'm completely wrong about certain things, or otherwise just might help mark the line of notability on borderline cases in biographies.
Let's start with Samita Bajracharya, and the assumption that sources already in the article are all that there are. I don't think a child who has done nothing more than obey her elders diligently, should be considered notable just because she has retained a placeholder position for a notable entity, namely Kumari (goddess). I don't think source#1 amounts to a sigcov, and am of the opinion that even when it is discussing her, it's mostly actually discussing a generic child who's in the position of a Kumari and not her per se. How do I go about determining if my arguments are policy-compliant? My initial thought is she fails BASIC, but ANYBIO#2's part of the enduring historical record might make her arguably notable (I understand it's talking about contribution not the person themself?). Do we have any other specific SNG consideration for godpeople? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright definitely a lot here. There is no SNG that covers this outside of BASIC/ANYBIO. The BBC article is borderline sigcov for Samita. It's definitely sigcov for Chanira. I also think that assuming that there is Nepalese coverage of this is fair so I would judge just based on existing coverage. ANYBIO criteria 2 might cover this. I think that has to be weighed against the fact that by definition these are children. In the end I think this is a worthwhile article to bring to AfD but it's also one which might very well be kept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49, hope you're doing well. I think I understand what you mean. Let's look next at Dhana Kumari Bajracharya which is incidentally not yet reviewed. I think the cited source is as SIGCOV as one can ask for, yet it is just the one. If there were another, it would be a clear pass from me. So, I googled. And there was plenty of independent RS, but all covering the exact same thing-- Kumari walks for the first time, courtesy earthquake. So, obviously, I need to ask, how to evaluate "multiple sigcov"? Is the fact that multiple RSes saw fit to publish sigcov on her enough, or does the coverage have to be independent as well, meaning not clones of each other? Secondly, suppose the earthquake coverage wasn't enough, and I couldn't find older SIGCOV, would it be an acceptable reasoning to say she must have had SIGCOV when she first became the goddess, and definitely would have had it when she was controversially dethroned, without her consent. So, it's reasonable to assume she meets GNG. I would mark it as reviewed. Your thoughts, please. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

These are all great questions. I think Dhana Kumari Bajracharya probably passes AfD and thus it would be fine to mark it as reviewed. But maybe not. I think picking of these people to be a test case would be good. Since there's coverage of her as an adult I think it's a less great test case than Samita Bajracharya but you might know of something better still. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Afraid I'm a bit lost. "[T]est case" for discussion here, or are you saying that I should (/could) nominate these at AfD to get a better sense of the lines? I've marked it as reviewed btw. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you (or someone) should bring one or two of these to AfD. I think the most likely outcome is that they are kept. But it's not the only outcome and then we have some data. For these articles the only two options are to bring to AfD and maybe delete or mark as reviewed and definitely not have deleted. If you wonder about notability AfD gives an answer (ultimately). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I think I wanna go with Sumika Boyrachasya (unless you think being the first to be educated is important enough trivia to make her claim to notability stronger than Samita Bajracharya's) with the following rationale:

Most of what little coverage there is, is largely about Kumari (goddess), with little attention given to who the person taking the role is. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Any novel case for inherent notability as a godperson (not yet in our guidelines), I considered and rejected. There isn't just one Kumari. Every Newar community can have one, many in fact do, making them number several at a time, reigning as little as four years. Royal Kumari as apparently the most important Kumari, gets a recurrent discussion on the Kumari main article. Whatever the fact behind that may be, the subject isn't one, anyway. These appear to be just children who take a role for a few years and then go back to their normal lives- normal schools, normal jobs. And the subject has also done just that. In short, fails GNG, isn't covered by any SNG, and there isn't a good reason to consider adding a new SNG.

What do you think? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Really strong statement. I think you should move forward with the AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok! I'll do so once the current batch clears. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, that was rather tame. Another editor agreed with deletion comparing it with beauty pageants, and that was that. Talk about much ado, LOL! Might have to wait for any more useful insights. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It was indeed incredibly low stakes and got deleted without much ado. Considering our analysis that's a good thing I suppose. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children (poem)

Are my comments here appropriate? Or is it better to just go there when I have made up my mind about everything already, and just say "Fails NBOOK, fails GNG", which brings me to my next question, does NBOOK apply to an individual poem from a book, or does it have to meet GNG alone, are there any other considerations that apply? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your comments are definitely OK. A poem would need to establish its independent notability. Poems and short stories can use NBOOK though it wasn't designed with them in mind. So there was a poem I voted on at an AfD a few months back that was part of the French school curriculum and so this NBOOK kind of criteria keep was important in the overall discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It worked out. Cleaned up almost a dozen spammy stuff, around that subject. Although, turns out AfD nom is logged in as a "delete" in AfDstats, which is unfair as it shows as result mismatch when it is closed as merge or redirect, which is not really a mismatch, is it? Anyway, thought that was interesting. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah AfD mismatches are a bit annoying because whether the sysop chooses merge or redirect - which can often end up functionally being the same - makes a different on the stats match. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Beauty pageant winners

So, Priya Sigdel's claim to notability is that she won miss Nepal earth, and participated in Miss Earth pageant, one of the four top global beauty pageants. I am not convinced, but I can't find the guidelines to see if I disagree with Wikipedia policy or just the article creator. From comments I've previously seen, I know that winning national level competitions, or nationally televised competitions is one of the SNG criteria (for whom? is where?) but our subject didn't win the competition. Someone else won the Miss Nepal crown and qualified for the Miss World, and our subject was one of the other three who won the other titles to qualify to represent Nepal in the other three global pageants. Only Miss Nepal title win was the competition win, this much is obvious from how much coverage each of them receives. The next claim is having been a participant on Miss Earth global pageant. Again, I do not know the exact guideline to evaluate this against. I want to take this to AfD, as from my own experience as well, I know that only Miss Nepal gets GNG sigcov and other recognitions, and the rest of the titleholders are essentially forgotten soon after (except if they win big at the international stage, which our subject did not.) Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• sigh* Beauty contestants happen all the time and some prove notable and some do not. I suspect someone made an article about her because of the politics not the beauty contestant. Regardless a wide range of editors have marked other winners of national Miss Earth crowns notable. I would not be likely to challenge this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

NPP really

Barkeep49, I think I've put it off for long enough. Everytime I click an article to review, I wonder if I could be missing something and just don't muster up the nerves. I think I'll actually do a few and list them here right after for you to review, and we can see how ignorant I really am on stuff about NPP that matters. 3/4 absolute basic guidelines/essays/tutorials I must go through before diving into the deep end? Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Great. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I have done a few before, accepting neatly done and meeting GNG, NPOL, GEOLAND, etc., draftifying borderline ones that actually need a lot of work anyway, and such. But those are like 1% of all new articles that I click. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

When I patrol from the front of the queue (sorting by newest) I would estimate I only attempt to patrol about 40% and even some of those I end up deciding not to do. So don't beat yourself up too much when you skip an article. In fact I wish the NPP Browser would get fixed because that can be a great way to find articles in a topic you're willing to patrol rather than hope you stumble upon one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Saugus High School shooting

Looked like it already passed GNG, or certain to pass it within a day at most, per precedents. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Multi-victim school shootings are going to end up passing GNG, so no issue with this being reviewed. Barkeep49 (talk)

Qibla Ayaz

First instinct was to AfD it. Almost redirected it to the council on second thought. But then, considering that [e]lected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable (WP:POLOUTCOMES), the fact that the basis for NPOL is that almost all of the officeholders presumed notable are presumed as such because they are likely to have historical impact and as such liable to be/have been written about extensively by historians (which has to be the case for the chair of a constitutional body at least no less than for a state legislator) and that the subject's position as " former dean Faculty of Islamic and Oriental Studies of the University of Peshawar"source sounds like sth satisfying NACADEMIC, I marked it as reviewed. I, then, added stub tag, added a few cats myself, checked if it was an orphan, and then left. I still feel like all of (AFD, redirect, mark as reviewed) were all equally valid options for this. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you did well with this one and agree with your NPOL analysis and tags (didn't check into NACDEMIC but it wouldn't surprise me). Barkeep49 (talk)

Vorvong and Sorvong

Draftified: moved to draft with a rationale, added the afc template, and left a personal message at the creator's talk page (here). Review of the rationale given in the editsum as well as my message to creator would be helpful here, in addition to the merit of the decision to draftify itself which goes without saying. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The user note was a nice touch. However, folk lore tales are frequently going to be notable. I see evidence of this one at a government database. Results are slim but given the language that's not too surprising. I'd have probably marked reviewed myself but am not suggesting you necessarily need to reverse yourself. Barkeep49 (talk)

I might have underestimated the likelihood of draftified articles being abandoned instead of being improved. I'll go back to it after some time, and if I find it abandoned, I'll move it back to mainspace and leave it with necessary maintenance tags.Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, fortunately, the creator didn't give up on it and I accepted it back to mainspace sometime ago. I left it a while for NPP but then decided to mark it as reviewed myself. Lourdes added the NPP right when granting me AfC permission remarking it might help, so I am assuming marking your own AFC acceptances as reviewed is OK? Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Would benefit from your input regarding my drafifying of Selection Gradient to Draft:Selection Gradient

I'm thinking I draftified it too soon after creation (not that it matters as it turns out the creator had abandoned working on it and only noticed the draftification days later). Now the creator is back, and seeking its restoration so they don't lose their semester credit or whatever it's called. Their request for restoration is here, in addition to deletion review and talk page of Fastily. I replied to them that it's their prerogative to move it back and if they do, I'll have to seek an alternative to draftification which can be anything between AfD and marking it as reviewed. Was I wrong to draftify it, or draftify it without knowing for sure what I'd do if it was objected to? Etcetera. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not qualified to review math topics. I will say that C. Fred's comment backs up your action. In cases of WikiEd I act the same way I do with other editors but do make an extra effort to communicate. However, I also don't see that was ever marked ahead of time as a WikiEd related article, so how would you know? Anyhow, after being pinged by the editor I'd have gone to the course page and pinged the WikiEd contact(s) in my reply as they will normally have your back and take extra time to help smooth things over. Barkeep49 (talk)

Noted. This might be really helpful a tip, as I have come across this wikied stuff before. From memory, my impression is that the teachers themselves aren't very knowledgeable about how wikipedia works. Maybe there is a hierarchy in there, I'll bother exploring when it becomes necessary. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobe: Sorry for missing your 11/15 submissions. Left comments for all above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries, @Barkeep49:.With your ACE and offline problems and NPP coordinating; and me still not able to figure out my priorities (improving Nepal, deleting spam from Nepal, creating NPOL bios from Nepal, WIR bios, AfC, NPP, two DYK noms, regular patrolling of the Teahouse and like 20 more potential articles on my To Do list, not to mention AN, ANI, ArbCom, talks of multiple WikiProjects and PAG pages on my watchlist (and that's just in Wikipedia)), I am not only expecting things to go slow but would be very comfortable with it going slow. My only worry in this respect is occupying a trainee slot in your school for what maybe an uncharacteristically long time, otherwise I am all about WP:NORUSH. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You were partly who I had in mind when I created New Reviewer Mentorship and think of you in one of those slots not the more intensive and guided NPP slots so don't worry about taking one up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Mahadev Bajagain

A small city mayor. Looks like the very basic NPOL test. Noting it here, cos this is the first time I've unreviewed a page previously reviewed by another reviewer. A7 wouldn't work because mayors are likely to be notable the SIGCOV way. Smells of COI/Paid but falls a little short of G11 (two or three sentences could be removed instead of deleting the whole page). So, I have PRODded. I rarely ever did PROD before but it seems to work sometimes and it exists, so why not? If it gets deprodded, I'll AfD it. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't qualify for G11 (I went ahead and removed the sentences). I think it unlikely to be UPE - I think they're just interested in the topic. The reviewer you unreviewed is new to NPP (I just recently gave them temporary rights) and so they're still in their learning curve. Nothing you did here causes me any concern. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Giulio De Nardo

Happy new year @Barkeep49:! So, I watchlisted some projects' article alerts hoping to get articles I'd be more comfortable/interested-in reviewing, and that is where I encountered this article, and found that the creator has created many similar articles. I asked about it at WT:CHESS#"WP:NCHESS is total crap" and got mixed reactions. Looking at the relevant arguments, I see consensus that such articles should not be created but then there is division of opinion on whether they should be AfDed once created. I guess it would be best if an autopatrolled editor didn't create these at all but, short of that, not AfDing them for whatever reason seems to be bowing down to WP:FAIT, at least to me. Another argument seemed to be on "mass" part of my proposed AfD nom. And, although, the argument I disagree with, it does give me pause on how I would bundle them and how many at a time. One at a time doesn't seem like an option. If I did do it, I would also rather be done with it as soon as possible so that it doesn't look like I'm hung up on one user, STALK or sth like that. Seems like I'd be stepping onto the fabled "inclusionism/deletionism" war and possibly marked for life as a deleter if I did do it. I'd rather not step on to that particular aspect of wikipedia just yet, as all I want to do right now is increase and improve coverage of Nepal-related topics and the rest of the stuff is just helping out the project in my spare time. Considering AfD is an important part of NPP, I wouldn't be a good NPPer if I shied away from NOMming things when I come across them though, would I? Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: mass creation of articles that end up deleted are a reoccurring issue for anyone doing NPP. I understand those who say bundling might not be appropriate. As you come across articles that you feel do not meeting notability guidelines there's nothing wrong with nominating them. If you come across a whole bunch and want more thoughts before acting that's a time to go to WT:NPR. Also an outside observer I saw one person decide to throw your article creation back at you somewhat unfairly but otherwise plenty of support for the idea that there shouldn't be mass creation of these topics. Does that address your questions? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, think it does. I might end up doing nothing though. Editing is supposed to be fun too, isn't it? I had better not willingly get into anything that requires me to think so hard and for so long like with this case, I think having thought about it. About the particular user throwing my work back at me, I was happy to ignore that part of the comment altogether as it doesn't hold any merit on the basis of logic or policy. At any rate, my hypocrisy, if any, would be a reflection on my moral character, but simply irrelevant to the issue and indeed even my actions on the issue. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

We are all volunteers. When I am in an NPP flow there are certain kinds of pages that I will just skip and leave to other reviewers. One category I generally do that some others skip is NFOOTY. So it's fine if you decide you don't want to review chess articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 (section break)

Hem Raj BC

Barkeep49, hey! So, a disclosed paid editor created this article on a probably notable person with 100% crap sources. So, I draftified it; with some trouble too, as they had created the same in draftspace too. They have submitted the draft but recreated the article without waiting for the review (one decent source, none that add to notability). I went back to look at WP:COI; instructions there are not watertight: "very" "strongly discouraged", "should". So, the editor is still acting within policy when they refuse to come through AFC, technically speaking? I could stubify the article and ask them to refrain from editing the article directly (no CSD for a duplicate of draft in mainspace, created by a PAID editor), but again, that part is also "should" not "must". So, I wanted to discuss with you first before I put in further time and effort into the issue. How should I proceed, and is the policy really just a "should" or is it just outdated and community practice enforces "must"? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere has been trying to come up with a solution to this kind of scenario and there just isn't one really as the community isn't really willing to lose notable material just because of a COI or disclosed paid editing. He wanted to try and formalize the ability to stubify in this scenario. I don't think it would work as a formal policy but I think it's worth a shot. If they revert or otherwise continue to edit feel free to ping me and I can lay a more administrative warning on them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If notable, convert it to a Stub with the best 2 sources, and if reverted send it to WP:COIN. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 08:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, COIN is to establish whether or not an editor has a COI; this editor has already declared PAID. They were told that a paid article needs to come through AFC, but recreated the article in mainspace anyway while the AFC review was still pending. There are no good sources in the article; just one source that's passable. I could probably find some sources if I looked but I don't want to encourage bad behaviour by helping them both overrun our policies and get paid from my work. And there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to delete the mainspace article without hassle, to force them to go back to AFC; AFD wouldn't work because it only looks at whether the subject is notable. The potential problem with stubbing is that the rules don't force them to use edit requests just as they don't force them to come through AFC. So, they could just drag me into an edit war if they don't really want to heed the "strong encouragement" to not edit the article directly. I am wondering why the wording is so fuzzy, in essence, rewarding bad behaviour. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool I know, there aren't great solutions. Stubifying it is a solution so long as you have at least one editor backing you up (they can start an edit war but they will run into 3RR). In any case I've made an attempt at AfD in this case. Someone might try to invoke WP:HEY, but otherwise people at AfD are usually helpful in dealing with blatantly problematic paid editors like this that try to sidestep the process. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejía

... does not meet the narrow criterion of WP:A7, does it? I feel it should, but currently doesn't. Barkeep49 Usedtobecool ☎️ 23:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Too much big name press coverage to be A7 for my liking. Guessing the PROD will be removed and you'll need ot try AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

And it wasn't even the page creator. Came back to it already at AFD. If someone with 10K-10y tenure thinks it appropriate even after reading the rationale, it probably should never be covered by CSD. Thanks Barkeep! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)