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

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

Preliminary questions

1. What is the purpose of new page patrol? Be specific, what kinds of content do we want to accept, what kinds of content do we want to keep out, and what kind of maintenance should we be performing beyond accepting/deleting articles? New page patrollers are the guardians at the gate. They are responsible ensuring that inappropriate pages are deleted; nipping plagiarism in the bud, catching attack pages, flagging promotional pages, and nominating articles that do not meet our notability standards for deletion. They are also among the first editors to edit and improve new pages ensuring that the article has proper categories and is embedded to the web of wikilinks on Wikipedia so it can easily be found. They ensure that the article is based on good sources and adheres to our policies on the biography of living people. They are also one of the first editors to interact with new users interested in creating articles. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC) 2. How do GNG, SNGs, and CSD criteria interact in the NPP process? One of the primary goals of the NPP process to find and tag pages that meet one of our CSD criteria. The process serves as a multi-layered sieve to first catch some of the most serious violations of our policies and guidelines such as WP:ATTACK, WP:COPYVIO, and unambiguous WP:SPAM. In a second layer, the use of WP:PROD to nominate pages for deletion when the subject has little to no chance of meeting our notability standards. The third layer brings the matter to an open discussion such as AfD or RfD. Having said that, I am not very confident about SNGs. While I understand how to evaluate if an article meets either GNG or SNG, I am not comfortable in how to treat articles that appear to meet an SNG criteria but do not meet GNG.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC) While you're right about CSD being important (and useful), in my experience I come across it rather infrequently, and when I do it's usually a clear cut case of copyvio. As for cases of conflict between SNG and GNG, the purpose of SNGs is to be shortcuts for GNG. A good SNG (like provides tells a reviewer to check for a clear marker of importance that all but guarantees that sources exist somewhere out there that make that subject meet GNG (e.g. WP:NGEO). Unfortunately, some SNGs are subjective (e.g. WP:NACTOR), in which case you need to make the call of whether it seems like the subject's importance and circumstances (plus whatever sources short of GNG that you do have available) are likely to guarantee that enough coverage exists somewhere. Finally, you have some SNGs that just aren't good indicators of actually meeting GNG (e.g. WP:NFOOTY, WP:NSONG). In these cases, you'll sometimes come across an exceptionally weak article that makes a claim to some trivial feat (e.g. song by a no name artist that charted on an obscure chart in a genre not known for its music journalism), and you'll have to judge whether it's worth trying to delete it despite it meeting an SNG (that having been said, I would not advise you to fight NFOOTY for the time being, the AfD will get dogpiled, and it will close keep). I'll give you some practice problems on this down the road. signed, Rosguill talk 07:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC) 3 What is the role of IAR in the NPP process? IAR is not to be taken lightly. It is only intended for situations where the normal processes are unable to handle the situation. There are numerous tools available to a NPP reviewer and, at this time, I cannot think of a situation in which it would be necessary. Even in situations involving BLP, there are tools available upon request like WP:CSD, WP:REVDEL, WP:OVERSIGHT, moving articles to draft, or simply deleting any unsourced claims from the article. I have racked my brain and just can't think of a situation where there is no other solution besides IAR. The process appears to have many solutions for almost any situation. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC) In my opinion, the spirit of IAR is similar to what's expressed at WP:BURO: at the end of the day, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to methodically apply a set of rules and guidelines. Yes, we have a lot of rules and guidelines, and yes it is usually correct to apply them, but that is not why we are here: we are here to build an encyclopedia. Invoking IAR on serious matters or in a deletion discussion is a radical and potentially disruptive act that you should not do lightly, but there's also a softer IAR of not going through the full bureaucratic motions of reverting a bad move and sending the issue to a noticeboard when you could just fix it yourself (although you do need to learn how to say no as a new page reviewer, you are not obligated to do other people's work for them, and in the case of articles where there's the possibility of promotionalism, I would suggest that you decline making substantial improvements to them as a rule). IAR can also mean that if you come across an article that doesn't meet GNG, but is somehow otherwise neutral, well-written, verifiable, and of some value as knowledge, you can let the article through with just a {{more citations needed}} tag. As an addendum, it's ok if you like doing bureaucratic tasks! I certainly do (to a point), and NPP tends to attract that sort of person. You can take pride and joy in doing a good job making sure every article is filed into its correct place, but it's important to remember that we're doing this for a reason, and not just because placing templates is fun. signed, Rosguill talk 07:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC) 4 How do you feel about patrolling the front end of the queue versus the back end? Do you have any interest or experience in patrolling redirects? I assume you mean oldest versus youngest articles. I am uncomfortable reviewing the newest articles. I find messing with a brand new article very disconcerting. I usually avoid reviewing articles that were created in the past 7 days. I am most comfortable reviewing the oldest articles and articles that were recently converted from a redirect. I have almost no experience at RfD but I am interested in reviewing redirects. I have created many redirects myself which you have reviewed. If your reviews and lack or RfD-ing my redirects is any indication, I appear to have a clue. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Redirect patrol is rapidly changing because thanks to the efforts of a few dedicated editors, we've managed to automate a significant amount of the work. We'll work through other topics first, and come back to it once I'm confident that I have advice to give that will remain pertinent. signed, Rosguill talk 07:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Patrol walkthrough 1 AJ Salvatore I only saw this flowchart yesterday. But it seems great and I will be using it. This article is written in English and does not meet G1, G2, and G3. Also does not meet G10 or G11 (exclusively). Neither A1 and A3 apply. While checking for COPYVIO, I discovered the page was almost entirely copied from https://en.everybodywiki.com/AJ_Salvatore. I don't see any previous deletions in our logs so I don't think the everybodywiki version created on 28 August 2018‎ is copied from Wikipedia. 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) Coffeeandcrumbs, so yes, if you come across compatibly released content you should follow the instructions at WP:FREECOPYING. However, everybodywiki.com is where non-notable (usually promotional) biographies go when they get rejected here. If you look at the creator's talk page, they attempted to submit another version of this article about a year ago and were rejected at AfC only for it to be deleted in draft space. I don't need to undelete it to know that the deleted version is likely almost identical to the one on everybodywiki. signed, Rosguill talk 07:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Same user means there is little to no chance of a loss in author attribution. I think a history merge would be extreme so I guess I can move on. I need to remember to check for logs in the Draft space and the talk page of the creator. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC) The sources cited do not show signs of meeting GNG. None of them appear independent. Every source reads like a press release or is an interview. Routine coverage by niche publications. possible "Credible claim of significance": a track that "peaked at No. 12 on Billboard's Dance Club Songs chart" and signed to Sony Check for GNG on Google etc.: nothing there that is better than what has already been cited. Check for WP:NMUSICBIO: Is Dance Club Songs chart included in WP:MUSICBIO #2? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Coffeeandcrumbs charts other than the Top 100 and Top 200 fall in a gray area, so you need to assess whether other factors make you come away thinking that the subject is notable. However, note that the citation supporting the charting history is [1], which does not actually mention Salvatore at all. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC) @Rosguill: Nominated for AfD. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC) Should I mark it as reviewed? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC) Coffeeandcrumbs, best practices are to mark AfD nominations as reviewed. I think you made the right call here, although you maybe could have tried nominating for PROD before AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC) Patrol walkthrough 2 Punjab & Maharashtra Co-operative Bank No qualifying CSD criteria. No apparent copyvio. Mirrored in several places since creation in September. Meets GNG. Moved article to COMMONNAME Tagged with {{recentism}}. Added WikiProject rating to Talk page. Marked reviewed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 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

Extended content

1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at WP:SNG) into the following three categories A: Primarily additional criteria that are likely to indicate notability WP:NACADEMIC, almost antithetical to GNG requirement Y WP:BOOKCRIT, however, criteria #1 would fit in B Y WP:MUSICBIO, but criteria #1 and #4 depend on coverage Y the placement is correct, but WP:NMUSIC has a lot more criteria than just WP:MUSICBIO, most importantly WP:NSONG and WP:NALBUM WP:BIO, describes several additional criteria that are likely to indicate notability Y WP:NSPORT, in most cases, annoyingly ignores if there is coverage at all Y B: Primarily additional considerations that define or restrict the nature of coverage or sources required WP:EVENTCRIT, almost entirely predicated on coverage Y WP:NCORP, almost entirely describes coverage needed Y WP:NWEB, almost redundant of GNG. I see nothing not covered by GNG Y You're right that it's mostly redundant. For this exercise, I would have placed it in category A, since it does provide one additional criterion, that of having won a notable award (which is admittedly pretty banal and applies to most subjects across the board). I think that the most useful part of this guideline is its instructions of what to do if notability is not met. Even mix of the previous two categories WP:NASTCRIT, criteria #1 and #4 are A, #2 and #3 are B N I would generally put this in category A, since criteria #2 and #3 are not actually unique to astronomical objects: listings in comprehensive databases generally do not count toward GNG, and #3 is just restating GNG without any real further restrictions. WP:NGEO, coverage seems relevant in several cases described but there are also several criteria that indicate outright notability N Similar to the previous one, the source restrictions here rule out "maps" and "censuses", which are as a rule primary sources and should not be counting toward GNG under any circumstances. They're included in the guideline to provide guidance for new editors, but for our purposes there's no additional restriction beyond GNG being imposed here. WP:NFILM, several criteria hint at outright notability but can also be interpreted as defining a type of coverage Y WP:NUMBER, a good mix of delineating coverage and defining clear criteria likely indicating notability Y This was a great exercise. Thanks! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC) I'm glad you enjoyed it, you did quite well. My one additional note would be to suggest that you restrain your contempt toward some of the looser SNGs, at least for now. You're entitled to your opinions, but you should be aware that acting dismissively toward a guideline could cause other editors to get annoyed at you. I would reserve strong judgments of SNGs until after you have several months of new page reviewing under your belt. signed, Rosguill talk 20:31, 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? I interpret them to mean one of several things. I would ask myself these questions: Can the content be merged into an article about a broader subject? Is there some semi-strong argument for GNG which in combination with meeting a SNG criteria or two that would lead me to think that this subject is notable Conversely, is a single qualifying SNG criteria really an indication of notability with almost no significant coverage? Does a combination of meeting several minor SNG criteria lead me to believe that the subject is notable? Essentially, I think, the idea is to consider SNG criteria holistically in combination with any indications of meeting SIGCOV, even if not clear cut. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Y good answer signed, Rosguill talk 20:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Scenarios 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. Scenario 1 An editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2019 without providing any sources, is the subject considered not notable and why? If forced to only consider SNG, strictly, I would say, no, not notable. WP:NSPORTSEVENT could be interpreted to apply to the 2020 Summer Olympics but I am not sure it could be extended to apply to a sports event that has not even began the qualification process like the 2024 Olympics. Of course, this argument goes out the window when considerin GNG. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Y In this case, the article makes a claim that would meet an NSPORTS criterion, but a source isn't provided so it doesn't count. However, in a real reviewing situation, would then do a BEFORE, see sources meeting GNG, and let it through with a tag. Let's say that the question is instead about 2040 Summer Olympics, how would you proceed once you've determined that the article doesn't meet SNG or GNG? signed, Rosguill talk 20:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Scenario 2 A New York city based 2019 start up software company , specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund. Not notable. WP:NCORP is almost entirely predicated on significant coverage. In fact, it restricts the application of GNG rather than add to it. USD 200K investor fund means nothing when considering WP:ORGCRIT. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Y Scenario 3 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. She is 8–0 undefeated now (not relevant to SNG criteria), having fought in 3 UFC matches (relevant). UFC is top-tier and therefore she meets WP:NMMA. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Y Scenario 4 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. Based only on WP:NFO, not notable. Reporting will likely be mostly speculative. Perhaps once production begins the coverage may be significant enough to meet other criteria but WP:NFILM deals mostly with films that have been released. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Y Scenario 5 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. Senator is a pretty high level position. Only receiving local coverage after announcing a run for the Senate indicates to me that the person is not notable. The subject particularly does not meet WP:NPOL which only makes an exception for SIGCOV. Only having local coverage may also indicate lack of independent coverage besides press release generated journalism. Local coverage is often based almost entirely on press releases. At the same time, even The New York Times is a local paper in New York and I would not be quick to ignore coverage from a "local paper" with significant following nationally and internationally. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Y When evaluating "local" coverage from national or international sources from NYT, pay attention to the section that the article is listed in, as well as the content. It's pretty easy to tell NYT's local coverage of weddings and promotions for cultural events apart from its more reputable news coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 20:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Scenario 6 A singer who self produced his first album in May 2019 and his songs are listed in Spotify. Anyone with USD$10 can publish a song on Spotify and several other platforms. Perhaps WP:MUSICBIO should consider streaming figures but that is now considered in charts like Billboard. Not notable if only based on this.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Y Scenario 7 Carlos Alós-Ferrer WP:NACADEMIC #5 and #8. Perhaps some others. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Y Scenario 8 Alistair Overeem Both WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Y Scenario 9 Jennifer Lopez WP:MUSICBIO #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12. WP:NACTOR/NMODEL #1 and #2 WP:FILMMAKER #3 as producer --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Y, although producer credits generally do not count toward FILMMAKER. A producer may not be doing anything more than fronting money for production, we need to see coverage in RS saying that they played a significant role, at which point we've generally met GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 20:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Scenario 10 Three Mile Island accident WP:EVENT, especially WP:LASTING. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Y Scenario 11 Persepolis WP:GEOLAND as formerly populated place. WP:NBUILD, especially because of UNESCO designation. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Y 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

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 1 Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania (1937) 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. Fallingwater, which has been called "the best all-time work of American architecture." 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. References This stub makes a clear case for GNG. While Ref #2 does not count towards GNG, the other three sources, particularly Ref #4, consist of significant coverage by independent and reliable sources. I generally distrust NY Post on most cases. I would object to its use here when alternatives are obviously available. This stub also makes a clear case for all 4 criteria at WP:ARCHITECT, especially #2, #3, and #4a. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Y 2 Jordan Lennon (born February 22, 2000), is a British film producer and actor. Lennon is currently a member of BAFTA. He continues to work aside 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros, Wicked Wales, Capture Studios, Cineworld, Paramount Pictures, and Rockefeller Foundation. 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. In December 2018, Jordan and Rowan finished British Film Academy. 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 IMDb is an unreliable source as a user-generated website. BAFTA Cymru may be a reliable source but the link does not verify the content and, even if it did, it is not independent and therefore cannot count towards GNG. As for SNG, BAFTA membership has no relevance to WP:NACTOR. LinkedIn, while technically acceptable as a source per WP:BLPSELFPUB, does not count towards GNG. Also, BLPSELFPUB sources cannot be used for "unduly self-serving" claims or "claims about third parties" such as association with notable film studios, as done here. I see no indication that Behind The Voice Actors and Tape Community Music & Film are reliable sources. This stub fails every test. There several claims of notability but none of the are verifiable. After BEFORE, I would try A7, then PROD, and then AfD. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Y 3 Sonny Bill Williams 2010 Sonny William Williams (born 3 August 1985), who is a Muslim, is a New Zealand All blacks rugby union footballer, Williams was a Marist Saints junior when he was spotted playing in Auckland by Bulldogs talent scout John Ackland. 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. References Ignoring the elephant in the room (i.e. a deprecated source used to make a claim about the person's religion as the very first descriptor) Ref #2, by itself, is enough to pass WP:NRU. Refs #3 and #4 show clear signs of GNG. Y I would note that I don't think GNG is met directly from the sources provided, but you don't get coverage in the SMH like that without having coverage elsewhere as well. signed, Rosguill talk 07:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 4 David Petraeus 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, until his resignation on November 9, 2012 after his affair with Paula Broadwell was reported. Petraeus was born in Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York, the son of Sixtus Petraeus (1915–2008), a sea captain from Franeker, Netherlands. In 2003, Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division in the fall of Baghdad References Clear signs of meeting GNG Also meets several criteria at WP:NSOLDIER, especially #2, #4, and #5 WP:POLOUTCOMES also indicates that Director of CIA is notable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Y 5 Martina Hingis is a Swiss former professional tennis player. She won five Grand Slam singles titles. Hingis was one of the highest-paid female athletes in 2000. 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, which led to a two-year suspension from the sport. References Even competing in a Grand Slam tournament is a yes at WP:NTENNIS. Especially so for winners. Ref #2, #3, #4, and #5 show clear signs of meeting GNG. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Y

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

Please do the following

1. 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.
2. Bookmark Earwig's Copyvio Detector in your computer.
3. 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

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.	Y
2	G2	test; pages created purely to test editing; excludes WP:SANDBOX, any user pages, or unused templates	Y
3	G3	vandalism, hoaxes, or pages created to intentionally misinform the reader; redirects that are a by-product of cleaning up page move vandalism	Y
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.	Y
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	Y, 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	Y
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	Y 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;	Y
9	G9	office actions; deletions by direction of the WMF	Y 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	Y
11	G11	pure and unambiguous WP:PROMO; articles that would need to be "fundamentally rewritten" to become encyclopedic in any way	Y
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	Y
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	Y
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	Y

Article and redirect category CSD

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.

Y all correct. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Scenarios

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)

Y although I think that even in the case of a name like John Smith, G10 would still be appropriate. If the name is fake beyond a shadow of the doubt (e.g. Zorgblax the Inhibitator), then G3 is the sole option. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 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)

Y, there's also another CSD code, WP:U5, which could apply here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 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)

Y

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)

Y This is a borderline case: I think you're right that there is no Hall of Fame for roadies, but it's plausible enough that an admin may choose to decline the tag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 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)

Y

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)

Y

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)

Y

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)

Y

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)

Y A9 is the correct answer here, and you're also right about ORGNAME. As currently enforced, there's a chance G11 would be declined, since without the word "exciting" the article could be considered neutral. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 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)

Y

Arbitrary break

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)

N 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)

Y 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)

Y 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)

N 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)

Y, you should also follow up by placing a {{uw-coi}} on the initial editor's talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 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)

Y, although I don't think G2 is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 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)

Y

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)

Y, although you should spare a second thought to check if there's a revision worth restoring to in the article's history. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 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)

Y I'm assuming you meant borderline G11, as G12 is copyright infringement. I would also start with PROD, SPA editors often don't try to contest deletion nominations. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 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)

N I think it's borderline as to whether it's R3-worthy, but it should be taken to RfD at a minimum. If I came across this myself, I would probably tag it as R3 and have another admin decide whether to pull the trigger on it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 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)

Y 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)

N 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)

Y, a similar redirect, Noo Yawk, was recently closed as keep at RfD. FWIW, I think that nominating this for RfD is defensible, although I would probably vote keep myself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 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)

Y 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

Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and answer the following question

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:

1. Usernames that are clearly related to the subject
2. Writing biographies that include professional-quality headshots of the subject which are then claimed as "own work" by the editor
3. 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)

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)

Y {{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)

Y 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

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)

Y

2. What should we do before we PROD a page? And what should be considered during a nomination?

Answer:

Check that...

1. ... there is a valid reason for deletion per WP:DEL#REASON and no valid alternatives to deletion per WP:ATD
2. ... there is no good revision to revert back to if vandalized
3. ... it has not previously been PRODed, REFUNDed, or discussed at AfD --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Y

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:

1. Find and add references
2. Redirection or CSD. If completely negative in tone, consider G10. If entirely promotional, G11
3. See if there is an acceptable revision to revert back to --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Y, PROD or AfD may actually be more applicable than CSD (if the article qualified for CSD, you should probably tag for that instead of BLPPROD). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:16, 5 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)

Y

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)

Y, AfD may be relisted for additional weeks (usually not exceeding 2 relists) if insufficient discussion has occurred. PRODs will either be deleted or declined once an admin reviews it following the seventh day. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:16, 5 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)

Y 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)

7. When do we decide whether an article should be PROD or WP:BLPROD or WP:AFD?

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)

Y once we're talking about adding content to an existing article I wouldn't phrase the question in terms of notability, but otherwise this is correct. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

9. List 10 reasons we may WP:REDIR instead of deleting.

Answer:

1. The subject already has an article under a different title
2. When the subject is not independently notable and is covered by a closely related article about a subject, such as parent company or subsidiary
3. ENGVAR variations of the same subject
4. Foreign language name of subject that is sometimes used by English-speakers
5. Not an independently notable person, to the article about a closely related notable person or group
6. Not independently notable subject, to a notable list article that includes the subject
7. Plausible misspellings or misnomers of notable subjects
8. Plausible alternative capitalizations or punctuation
9. Where there is significant history that should kept for attribution
10. 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)

Y, although note that keeping for attribution is only necessary for articles whose content has been merged elsewhere. If an article is extremely lengthy but content there has never been moved elsewhere, then this is not a barrier to deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:59, 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)

Y 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)

Y, 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)

Y 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

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)

Y 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)

Y, although I don't know about them being good predictors of RfC results. Basically, when you come across this sort of essay, just use common sense as to whether it makes sense to apply it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 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)

You're welcome, don't hesitate to ask for help if you need any down the road. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)