User:Jackson Peebles/Adoption/Tattoodwaitress Exam 6

I thought that to test this section, I would ask a few broader, more basic questions, and then create a few pages as hypothetical scenarios. For the hypothetical scenarios, simply state what you'd do if you came across this article in mainspace.

Broad questions

1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you'd use PROD instead of sending an article to AfD.

A- If an article does not fall into the 8 topics listed under the speedy deletion part of the lesson and you believe or are a bit unsure that the article just isn't suitable for keeping on wikipedia you can prod it which will promote a discussion with what to do with it. I guess for a scenario lets say someone writes an article about a new type of Lemon where it grows etc and that particular lemon is not listed on the article already existing about Lemons. You might want to prod it so it can be discussed and the new info might be added to the existing article rather than just straight up deleted. Hmmmmm hope that works.

• 3/5 I think that the answer to this is inherently vague, as PROD is a bit of a vague concept. For your hypothetical situation, I'd propose an incorporation (merge), instead. Your initial answer is correct, though, that if it doesn't fall into CSD but may be eligible for immediate deletion (non-controversial) without a full-blown discussion, you can use it. It's a safer alternative to CSD in many cases where you can't meet the CSD requirements.

2.) Q- You tag an article for speedy deletion under criterion A7. The creator of the page then blanks it without an edit summary. What do you do?

A- Basically this can be taken as a deletions request and you can tag for deletion with the dbblanked tag

• 5/5 Yup.

3.) Q- Why should you wait 10-15 minutes before tagging an article for CSD under criteria A1 or A3?

A- To give them time to add content. They might be working on it as you are tagging it for deletion. Keep in mind that an article can be very short.. one sentence.. and still qualify as a stub.

• 5/5 Yup.

Hypothetical scenarios

1.) Scenario I

A- Mark with db-ad

• 5/5 Good. Not that important since I'm assuming you'd use Twinkle, but it would be "DB-ad" - templates are case-sensitive. Also, it's easier to find what you mean if you use the code (e.g. G1, A7, etc.).

2.) Scenario II

A- Mark with db-nonsense

• 5/5 Perfect.

3.) Scenario III I am unsure but taking a shot at this.

A- Mark with the subst:prod|little or no content, no sources although this (could actually be a stub if it had sources)

• 4/5 He does seem notable, so you're right to not tag this as non-notable; that was one of the traps. I would actually just call it a stub that has no references. I'd try to fix it, personally. So, I would not PROD this.

4.) Scenario IV Same here unsure but taking a shot.

A- Oh gosh and am going back and forth with this one. It is a stub however I don't think the sources are reliable one is just like a blog post, one looks like its using original research/ and one link is bad, also MOS issues. My final answer is actually a clean up tag would be better such as {cleanup} with reasons given of course.

• Excellent. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Y 32/35 Great work!

Once you have finished, please notify me on my talk page, then proceed to Lesson 7: Copyright.