User:Onel5969/NPPSchool/A.WagnerC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome A.WagnerC 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 (I have done so already). 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). I know that you said in the email on my talkpage that you feel you have a grasp of many the core policies, such as RS and NPOV. That's a very good start, and will help us move quickly through some areas. And that you would like to work on your knowledge of notability and deletion. While in doing NPP you do have to understand the different forms of deletion and where and when to use them, so this will definitely help you in that area, and of course, one of the foundational concepts we use in reviewing is notability, so you will be well served in that area as well.

Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Notability as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, 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. I will normally try and put assignments in bold though follow-up question will just use normal Wikipedia conversation methods. Let me know at any point if you have questions.

Getting Started[edit]

The first thing is to read, really read, WP:NPP and then let me know what you think are the two or three parts of that you feel your skills are the strongest and two or three where you could still grow.

Strong points

  • NPP Professionalism - Usually, I have no difficulty in differentiating between good faith and bad faith editions. So I am aware of the warning level that should be sent to some user. In pt wiki, I am cautious with quick elimination markings. I believe that new users who edit wrong, but in good faith, it will not be a problem for me. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Article titles - I already created some articles in enwiki, ptwiki and simplewiki, and I never had any problems with article titles. I am aware of the rules, and when in doubt, I consult the manual of style. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Proposed deletion of biographies of living people (BLPPROD) - I am very cautious about biographies, especially of living people. The rules for eliminating this type of article in enwiki are very clear. I read it carefully. I believe that I understood it perfectly and I have the confidence to apply it. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Points for grow

  • Tools - In enwiki I have more dominance with Twinkle and RedWarn. I do not know the other tools, but I believe that I will have no difficulty in learning how to handle them, if necessary. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) and Proposed Deletion (PROD) or Draft - I am aware of certain articles that can already be indicated for speedy deletion, such as those that violate copyrights, but I believe that I need to master the rules more to better use CSD, or PROD, or Draft. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Now we begin. Onel5969 TT me 00:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Section 1: Notability[edit]

Questions[edit]

A. Notability is a test guidelines to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article in Wikipedia mainspace. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, General Notability Guidelines, Specific Notability Guidelines, Stand-alone list (some of which you have already done) before completing the following tasks.
1. In your own words, how does notability is defined in Wikipedia?

Answer: Notability is an essential requirement for the entry to have a Wikipedia article. There are two kinds of notobility: general (GNG) and thematic (SNG). The general requires the following criteria, cumulatively: independent sources, reliable sources and significant coverage. If the entry meets these requirements, it is assumed that it is notorious. Regarding to thematic notability, it has some specific requirements for notability. These requirements are often similar to the general ones, but there are themes that carry different requirements. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

checkY - very nice. Onel5969 TT me 17:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Does a step by step instructions on how to "Change a car tire" considered a notable topic in Wikipedia?

Answer: Usually not because it meets WP:NOTGUIDE. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 17:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
3. What are the differences between A WP:GNG and a specific notability guidelines (SNG)? how do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article?

Answer: GNG applies to all themes; SNG to specific themes. First, I think it is more important to check if the article meets the GNG. If it do, it has notoriety. If it does not meet the GNG, it starts to analyse if it complies with the SNG. First see GNG, later SNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

checkY - you're correct that GNG trumps SNG's, but in terms of process, most reviewers know the SNGs pretty well, and the main concept behind SNGs is that there is a presumption of notability. We'll get more into the differences between various SNGs later in this process. Onel5969 TT me 17:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
B. Subject-specific notability guidelines
1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines) into the following three categories
Okay, this is a tricky one to lead off with, but you've got a good grasp. The second group is indicative of WP:NCORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH, which is more restrictive than GNG, similarly, WP:NPOL and WP:NEVENTS also work like that. The third category would include WP:NFILM and WP:NMUSIC. All the rest would go in category 1. Onel5969 TT me 04:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Without considering GNG at all, simply based on SNG's, please decide which of the scenarios below would pass an SNG, and specify which SNG would apply.
Scenario 1.

Will Manny is a lacrosse player, currently playing for Archers Lacrosse Club, who are in the Premier Lacrosse League, the highest level of professional lacrosse in the United States.

Lacrosse is not listed under "Professional sports people". Then need see if the player meets the basic criteria. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
checkY - perfect, you recognized there was no SNG for lacrosse, so you went right to the appropriate SNG. Onel5969 TT me 04:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 2.

An unsourced article about the 2028 Summer Olympics.

It does not meets WP:NSPORT. Actually, that article implies WP:CRYSTAL. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 04:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 3.

A New York city based 2020 start up software company , specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund.

It does not complies WP:SIRS. Just the news that you received 200k USD is not enough to meet the SNG for companies. It's necessary significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
checkY - wow, I don't think I've ever seen SIRS invoked before. While a bit off, WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH would be the more appropriate guidelines to cite. Onel5969 TT me 04:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 4.

An upcoming action-drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, which will be in production in January 2021 and to be released on August 2021 in the cinemas.

As August 2021 is near, it is possible for the film to meet the criteria (WP:NFSOURCES) if there are independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. 2028 Olympics Summer, most likely there will be no sources. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Red XN - remember that this exercise was about SNG's. Is there an SNG which applies to this? Also, not sure what the Olympics inference means. Please take a look at WP:NFILM and re-answer. Onel5969 TT me 04:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 5.

A political candidate, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2021 election for a Senator position in the United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy.

Meets WP:POLITICIAN. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Red XN - running for office does not meet WP:NPOL, only holding a position which is mentioned in the SNG meets the requirement. Onel5969 TT me 04:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Scenario 6.

A singer who self produced his first album in May 2019 and his songs are listed in Spotify.

It is necessary to see if it complies WP: COMPOSER. If there is only this simple information, it probably does not meet the SNG for music. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
checkY - most likely doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:MUSCIBIO, and in this instance, COMPOSER wouldn't really apply. Onel5969 TT me 04:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Background for trainees[edit]

I'm going to break this into several subsections, so as to not overwhelm you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, claims made in articles should be supported by independent (secondary), reliable sources for verification. Please read WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:RSP, WP:V, WP:PROVEIT, WP:Primary, WP:Secondary, and WP:Tertiary and answer the below questions in your own words.
You can contact WP:RX if you could not find the sources yourself either on the web due to paywalls or offline-only sources.

Exercises[edit]

1.
Topic Definition 5 Examples Comment by Trainer
Reliable source Reliable sources, according to WP: RS, briefly, it will be found if at least one of these points is present: material derived from locals who follow a reliable publication process; authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject.
  1. (example)The Guardian newspaper
  2. NY Times
  3. The Telegraph
  4. Polygon
  5. IGN (except wikis)
 checkY, although be careful of IGN. There is a WP:DUE consideration, and there are certain internal contributors which are considered unreliable, the "N-Sider"'s Onel5969 TT me 03:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
User generated sources It is content edited by the user, such as blogs, social networks, etc. They are usually unacceptable
  1. Facebook
  2. LinkedIn
  3. Twitter
  4. Instagram
  5. Reddit
 checkY - two other big ones you'll come in contact with are imdb.com and other wikis. Although imdb has certain things which they are acceptable for. Onel5969 TT me 03:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Non Independent source According to WP:IS, they are sites that show interest in covering the Wikipedia entry. To reach such a conclusion, it is necessary to see the context in which this source was inserted. Non-independent sources can be used to reference certain information but its use must be controlled so as not to contaminate neutrality
  1. Mayor Website (article about the city)
  2. Fifa (article about soccer)
  3. White House (about President article)
  4. Arab News (article about the government)
  5. Fumitsu (games from Enterbrain)
  6. The Ultimate Guide To Super Metroid (I use this source only to reference plot and gameplay. Informations that will hardly be cited in other sources)
 checkY - While your answer is correct, it is not comprehensive enough. Yes, if a site has a vested interest, it is not independent. But even more than that, if the source has a connection to the article's subject, than it is not independent. I think you understand this, based on your examples, (such as the mayor website and White House), but I wanted to highlight it. Other examples would be an article about a video game published by the game's creator/manufacturer, an article about an author by their publisher, etc.
2.
Type Definition Examples (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary) Comment by Trainer
Primary It's source from people who are directly involved
  1. (example) scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results
  2. Manual of any game (In the Sonic the Hedgehog 2 in ptwiki, I used the manual for ref the plot)
  3. Nintendo (for games from Nintendo, like Zelda)
  4. Barcelona official site (article about Barcelona)
  5. NY Times (if the article is about NY Times)
 checkY - particularly liked your answer about the NYT. Onel5969 TT me 03:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Secondary It comes from people not directly involved
  1. (example) newspaper
  2. NY Times
  3. Famitsu (magazine about games in jp)
  4. GameSpot
  5. Adoro Cinema (source from br about films)
 checkY
Tertiary Usually sources from encyclopedias, which are often sourced from primary and secondary sources
  1. (example) encyclopedias
  2. Encyclopædia Iranica
  3. Enciclopédia Barsa
  4. Encyclopædia Britannica
  5. Encyclopedia Americana
 checkY - also textbooks are something you'll come across. Onel5969 TT me 03:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
3.


Subject Primary Secondary Tertiary Comment by Trainer
Example: Art Example:Sculpture Example:Article critiquing the sculpture Example:Encyclopedic article on the sculptor
History Own person's writing. Ex: own Colombus writing about himself NMAAHC Americana checkY Onel5969 TT me 03:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Science author's own research New Scientist Britannica checkY Onel5969 TT me 03:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Athletes Man Utd Website Globo Esporte Encyclopedic article on the athlete checkY Onel5969 TT me 03:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


4. Please explain in your own words why the content claimed needs to be verified?

Answer:

Content must be verifiable to avoid including false information. Reliable information needs a reliable source. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 16:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
5.Could we used Wikipedia as the source? and why?

Answer:

No. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. All the content present in it is derived from a source, as it is not possible to research unpublished in this encyclopedia. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
checkY, although a better way to say it would be as per WP:CIRCULAR. Onel5969 TT me 16:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
6.Give an example and explain why a source is reliable but not independent of a subject?

Answer:

Mayor's website about its city. In theory, it is considered a reliable source about the city, since the source is from an official government agency. On the other hand, it's not considered an independent source, as there is an interest from that source in portraying the city positively. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 16:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
7.Give an example and explain why a source is independent source but not reliable?

Answer:

IGN Wiki. IGN is considered a trusted site for information about games but the Wikis on that site are not. IGN Wiki is an independent source as there is no interest involved in writing, in theory, but it is not reliable because it can be edited by any registered person. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
checkY - although a better way to say it would be that it has no editorial oversight. Onel5969 TT me 16:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Pls indicate "y" for yes or "n" for no after "ind", "rel" and "sig" (see first example) and give a brief explanation of why you place "y" or "n".
8.
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,[1] until his resignation on November 9, 2012[2] after his affair with Paula Broadwell was reported.[3]

Petraeus was born in Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York, the son of Sixtus Petraeus (1915–2008),[4] a sea captain from Franeker, Netherlands.[5]


In 2003, Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division in the fall of Baghdad[6][7]


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/ Yes There is not conflict of interests. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Yes "There is consensus that USA Today is generally reliable" WP:RSP. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Yes Several paragraphs dedicated to Petraeus. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC) ✔ Yes
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/09/06/petraeus-sworn-into-cia.cnn?iref=allsearch Yes There is not conflict of interests. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Yes Reliable, per WP:RSP. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC) No It's shown 1 minute video of Petraeus’s possession but no analysis is done by CNN. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC) ✘ No
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893 Yes There is not conflict of interests. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Yes Although the subject involves a bit of politics, in the context at hand, the source can be treated as reliable, as it is from 2012. Yes Several paragraphs dedicated to Petraeus. ✔ Yes
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012 No I don't know the site, but apparently, a family member could edit it, if registered or has a pro subscription No Someone in the family could edit No Only one profile of his father ✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005 Yes There is not conflict of interests. Yes In that context, yes Yes Several paragraphs dedicated to Petraeus. ✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html No It's an interview Yes I don't know the source and I don't saw the source in WP:RSP Yes Several paragraphs ✘ No
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html Yes There is not conflict of interests. Yes Reliable in WP:RSP Yes Several paragraphs ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  1. ^ "Petraeus sworn in as CIA director". CNN. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  2. ^ Johnson, Kevin (November 9, 2012). "David Petraeus resigns from CIA". USA Today. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
  3. ^ "Petraeus Shocked By Girlfriend's Emails". HuffPost. 2012-11-12. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  4. ^ "Sixtus Petraeus". geni.com.
  5. ^ "David Petraeus' Winning Streak". Vanity Fair. March 30, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  6. ^ "beyond baghdad". www.pbs.org. 2004-02-12. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  7. ^ "David Petraeus: General Surge". The Independent. 2007-09-08. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
checkY, mostly. Couple of things, the PBS is independent (but it's primary). And the VF piece, while, independent, reliable and significant, it's an interview, so it's primary, and therefore wouldn't count towards GNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
9. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.
He meets WP:GNG. Multiple reliable sources and significant coverage. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
This exercise isn't about GNG, but about whether or not they meet any of the SNG's. Please answer again if Petraeus meets any SNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
10.

Jordan Lennon (born February 22, 2000), is a British film producer and actor. [1] Lennon is currently a member of BAFTA.[2] He continues to work aside 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros, Wicked Wales, Capture Studios, Cineworld, Paramount Pictures, and Rockefeller Foundation.[3]

At age 16, the Vice President of 20th Century Fox, Paul Higginson. Who previously worked on Star Wars, Titanic, and Independence Day took on Jordan and Rowan Snow as a mentor.[4] In December 2018, Jordan and Rowan finished British Film Academy.[5] Jordan lived in Skelmersdale for 10 years before moving to Rhyl, North Wales. He's currently writing 'Stranger in the Night' scrreenplay for Warner Brothers.


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8902348/ No It can be edited by any registered user, therefore there is a possibility of conflict of interest. No It can be edited by any registered user. Yes The page is dead; but there is usually a citation of several works ✘ No
http://www.bafta.org/wales Yes There is not conflict of interest Yes It's an important award with worldwide notoriety No The link says nothing about Jordan Lennon. It's only the initial page. ✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125 No Usually, written by the himself No Usually, written by the himself Yes It depends, if the person writes a lot on his profile... ✘ No
https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/ Yes There is not conflict of interest Yes They claim "to ensure each and every profile, credit, and database entry on the site is crafted with care, our team members' personal touches, and the time and attention they need to create a unique visual and audible experience for fans and visitors." So, I presume it is reliable No Very little information ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  1. ^ "Jordan D. Lennon". IMDb. Retrieved 2019-01-21.
  2. ^ "BAFTA Cymru". www.bafta.org. 2014-06-16. Retrieved 2019-01-21.
  3. ^ Lennon, Jordan. "LinkedIn Account". LinkedIn. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
  4. ^ "Jordan David - 2 Character Images". Behind The Voice Actors. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  5. ^ "BFI Film Academy". Tape Community Music & Film. 2016-08-24. Retrieved 2019-01-21.
checkY, again mostly. Behind the Voice actors is of dubious reliability. The content is user-generated, so I would not class it as reliable. In addition, it is about a different Jordan (Jordan David), so it discusses zero about the subject. Onel5969 TT me 03:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
11. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.
He fails in WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY - yup, meets neither GNG or any SNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


12.

Martina Hingis is a Swiss former professional tennis player.[1] She won five Grand Slam singles titles.[2] Hingis was one of the highest-paid female athletes in 2000.[3] She retired in November 2007 after being hampered by a hip injury for several months and testing positive for a metabolite of cocaine during that year's Wimbledon Championships,[4] which led to a two-year suspension from the sport.[5]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.instagram.com/martinahingis80/ No It's a primary source. The content is produced by the athlete herself. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Yes As it comes from an official (verified) account, I assume that certain information can be trusted. But this type of font is not recommended in the article Yes Yes, lots of posts ✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-us-open-hingis-20170910-story.html Yes There is not conflict of interest Yes Los Angeles Times is reliable, according to WP:RSP Yes Several paragraphs ✔ Yes
[3] Yes There is not conflict of interest. A book from journalist Yes I saw no evidence of poor reliability No Few lines at least on the page quoted ✘ No
https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/21171438/tennis-another-twist-bizarre-career-martina-hingis Yes There is not conflict of interest Yes ESPN is reliable Yes Several paragraphs about her ✔ Yes
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/nov/01/tennis Yes There is not conflict of interest Yes The Guardian is reliable Yes Several paragraphs about a controversy ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  1. ^ "Martina Hingis (@martinahingis80) • Instagram photos and videos". www.instagram.com. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  2. ^ "Martina Hingis wins her 25th Grand Slam championship, the women's doubles crown at the U.S. Open". Los Angeles Times. 2017-09-11. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  3. ^ a b Paul Fein (30 January 2003). Tennis Confidential: Today's Greatest Players, Matches, and Controversies. Potomac Books, Inc. pp. 197–. ISBN 978-1-57488-526-2.
  4. ^ "Done again? Why Martina Hingis decided to retire for a third time". ESPN.com. 2017-10-26. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  5. ^ Staff; agencies (2007-11-01). "Tennis: Martina Hingis retires amid cocaine controversy". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
checkY - but Instagram is never a reliable source, user generated content with no editorial oversight. Just like Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites. The rest is spot on. Onel5969 TT me 03:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
13. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.
Yes, she has notability. She won a important tournament, attending WP:NTENNIS. There is also significant coverage from secondary and reliable sources regarding her WP:GNG.
checkY she passes several of the criteria found in WP:NTENNIS. #1 (it's in the lead), #2 (8-time Fed Cup participant), #3, for her Grand Slam tournament participation, #5 (although I expected her to have more than a couple of appearances), and #6 with several records. She is not eligible for #4, since that series is for men only. Onel5969 TT me 03:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


14.
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.[1][2] Fallingwater, which has been called "the best all-time work of American architecture."[3] This is one of Wright's most famous private residences (completed 1937), was built for Mr. and Mrs. Edgar J. Kaufmann, Sr., at Mill Run, Pennsylvania. Constructed over a 30-foot waterfall, it was designed according to Wright's desire to place the occupants close to the natural surroundings. The house was intended to be more of a family getaway, rather than a live-in home.[4]


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://nypost.com/2017/06/07/frank-lloyd-wright-was-a-house-builder-and-homewrecker/ Yes There is not conflict of interest Yes The source is reliable Yes The text is about him ✔ Yes
https://franklloydwright.org/work/ No There is a conflict of interest, as it is a foundation of the architect Yes Apparently yes. Primary source Yes A text about the works ✘ No
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_3153_db078.htm Yes There is not conflict of interest Yes Reliable source, according to WP:RSP Yes The text is about him ✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC Yes There is not conflict of interest. It's a biography produced by third Yes I couldn't see the information about the author but apparently is someone who knows the story of Frank Wright Yes A book about him; a biography ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

  1. ^ Hoffman, Barbara (2017-06-07). "Famed architect Frank Lloyd Wright had a dark side". New York Post. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  2. ^ "Frank Lloyd Wright's Work". Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  3. ^ "BW Online | July 28, 2004 | Frank Lloyd Wright: America's Architect". 2008-03-02. Archived from the original on 2008-03-02. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  4. ^ Robert C. Twombly (24 April 1987). Frank Lloyd Wright: His Life and His Architecture. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-85797-6.
checkY - spot on, except that franklloydwright.org is not a reliable source, on top of being primary, it has no editorial oversight. Onel5969 TT me 03:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
15. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.
There is also significant coverage from secondary and reliable sources regarding her WP:GNG. "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." WP:ARCHITECT. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 03:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
16. One last thing before we move on to the next section. This is just to get you used to identifying sources at a glance, and not having to look them up anywhere. So without going to any of the resources such as WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG or WP:RSN, assess whether the following sources are reliable. If you are totally unfamiliar, go to their WP page, to see if they exist. In responding, please be as possible as to why you derived your conclusion. Feel free to offer topic-scoped assessments such as "likely reliable for claims related to pop culture" or "reliable for non-political subject matter".
A. USA Today It's normally reliable. It is one of the largest newspapers in the USA. Recently supported Biden. In articles related to politics or politicians, it is interesting to see if the content is impartial. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
B. The Hindu It's reliable. It is a very old newspaper from India. I didn't see any partiality report about the newspaper. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
C. Anadolu Agency Caution. They usually serve as positive propaganda about the country or the government. Certain matters about the government or the country, the source should be treated as non-independent. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY - be very cautious about this source. Because of it's lack of independence in a country with historic issues regarding freedom of the press, its use should be very limited. Governments can be presumed to have POV on virtually everything. Onel5969 TT me 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
D. Popular Mechanics It is a newspaper considered reliable, including it has already received awards, however recently they wrote two controversial articles but at first it doesn't seem something usual. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
E. South China Morning Post After 2016, it became a newspaper without impartiality. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY - your assessment regarding the date is spot on. But even before 2016, it was generally considered reliable. Onel5969 TT me 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
F. Seventeen It is not a very useful source for an encyclopedia but apparently it’s reliable
checkY = It can be used in some very specific situations, but you have to be careful with it. Onel5969 TT me 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
G. Egypt Today It's reliable. I didn't see any negative reviews about the quality of the newspaper. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY - I would probably lean more to reliable than not. You'll find issues like this with many Indian newspapers as well, where they seemingly print press releases as news.
H. Xconomy It's reliable. I didn't see any negative reviews about the quality of the newspaper. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Red XN - PR press mill. You have to be very careful with trade publications. Onel5969 TT me 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Although they claim to be impartial, there are controversial articles, as in an article related to Spanish immigration. Because they are liberal and conservative, articles related to politics tend to be partial. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY - it's generally considered reliable, but your cautious approach is valid. Onel5969 TT me 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
J. Blesk Normally, tabloids are reputed to be hyped but I found nothing controversial about the newspaper. In the Wikipedia article, Blesk "is a tabloid newspaper and is neutral in its political and religious leaning". Then, apparently is reliable. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY - can be used, but ini a very limited capacity, your understanding that it's a tabloid is correct, which makes it less than reliable, normally. Onel5969 TT me 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
K. La Jornada It is a newspaper that has a political; left-wing position. For policy-related matters, it can be partial. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY - generally considered reliable. Onel5969 TT me 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
L. The Forward Left-wing position. For policy-related matters, it can be partial. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
M. The Daily Californian It is a student-run newspaper. I don't know how rigorous they are in checking their publications. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY (I think) - student publications, even when they read "independent" are rarely considered independent. They can be used for certain instances, but never for notability, or for claims which are subject to intepritation (e.g. "best hostel", "first fraternity...", etc.). Onel5969 TT me 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Content Policy[edit]

Article titles[edit]

Please read WP:TITLE and answer the questions below


1. Article name "Hannibal Barca" - Does the article name need to be change? and Why? (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian general and statesman who is widely considered one of the greatest military commanders in history. His father, Hamilcar Barca, was a leading Carthaginian commander during the First Punic War (264–241 BC).[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Eve MacDonald (24 February 2015). Hannibal: A Hellenistic Life. Yale University Press. pp. 48–. ISBN 978-0-300-21015-6.
  2. ^ John Whitaker; Hannibal (1794). The course of Hannibal over the Alps ascertained. John Stockdale, Piccadilly. pp. 1–.
  3. ^ Patrick N Hunt (11 July 2017). Hannibal. Simon & Schuster. pp. 214–. ISBN 978-1-4391-0977-9.

Answer: Difficult question. I will give my opinion about it but I believe that there would be room for a debate. The fonts present in the article very much use the name "Hannibal" without the surname "Barca". Then, in a first analysis, it should be called Hannibal. But researching the Hannibal name on the Internet, I noticed a lot of trouble finding content about the General. But in WP:COMMONNAME is also cited: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Thus, to avoid disambiguations, to facilitate research, I would also consider the use of "Hannibal Barca". ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

checkY - your first impulse was the correct one, as per commonname. That's the over-riding emphasis in title names, think of Cher, Madonna, Pele, and Caligula. Rarely is Hannibal ever used with Barca. Sometimes the most common name is a phrase, like Alexander the Great. And then there are folks who are known by their nickname or stagename, like Haystak. If there is an issue with disambiguation, like Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer), you still use the single name, and handle it with a dab. But you're right, it was difficult, for exactly the reasons you stated. Onel5969 TT me 23:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


2. Article name "Magic Johnson". Does the article name need to be change? and Why?(please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is an American retired professional basketball player and former president of basketball operations of the Los Angeles Lakers of the National Basketball Association (NBA). He played point guard for the Lakers for 13 seasons.[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Roselius, J. Chris. (2011). Magic Johnson : basketball star & entrepreneur. Edina, Minn.: ABDO Pub. Co. ISBN 9781617147562. OCLC 663953248.
  2. ^ "Magic Johnson | Biography & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  3. ^ Stein, Marc; Deb, Sopan (2019-04-11). "Magic Johnson Always Set His Sights Beyond Basketball". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  4. ^ "Magic Johnson: Michael Jordan said Stephen Curry not Hall of Famer in fear of tampering fine". sports.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2019-10-23.

Answer: Magic Johnson is worldwide known by this nickname. I don't see plausible reasons for changing the title name, as WP:COMMONNAME. I also did not notice any problems with disambiguations in relation to this nickname. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 23:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons[edit]

Please read WP:BLP and answer the questions below.

3. Please explain if the content of the below text is acceptable for inclusion and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Conor Anthony McGregor (born 14 July 1988) is an Irish professional mixed martial artist and boxer. His is a former Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) featherweight and lightweight champion.[1]

On 15 August 2019, TMZ Sports published a video that appeared to show McGregor punching a man at The Marble Arch Pub in Dublin.[2] The incident happened on 6 April and was originally reported by Irish media, although without the video that showed the attack. Irish police stated in April that they had opened an investigation.[3] McGregor was charged with assault and first appeared in court on 11 October 2019.[4][5][6]

In April 2019, McGregor is the father of Terri Murray's son, Clodagh. Murray bedded McGregor in 2017 at his hotel after the Aintree Grand National just four weeks bofore McGregor's girlfriend Dee Devlin gave birth to their son.

References

  1. ^ "The most surprising stories behind Conor McGregor's incredible success". IrishCentral. 13 December 2016. Retrieved 3 September 2017.
  2. ^ "Video of Conor McGregor Punching Old Man in Head in Whiskey Dispute". TMZ. Retrieved 2019-08-22.
  3. ^ Gaydos, Ryan (2019-08-15). "Conor McGregor seen on video punching bar patron in face over whiskey". Fox News. Retrieved 2019-08-22.
  4. ^ "Conor McGregor charged with pub assault, to appear in Dublin court next week". RT International. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  5. ^ "UFC: McGregor charged with assault for punching elderly man". South China Morning Post. 2019-10-05. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  6. ^ "McGregor appears in court in assault case". ESPN.com. 2019-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-23.

Answer: The last paragraph cannot be accepted for the following reasons, cumulatively: it is an intimate or controversial fact; it is unaccompanied by references; it's irrelevant information for an encyclopedia, which looks more like tabloid content. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 18:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)



4. Please explain if the content of the below text is acceptable for inclusion and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)

Diana Nyad (née Sneed; born August 22, 1949) is an American author, journalist, motivational speaker, and long-distance swimmer who lives in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. and could be contacted at +0-202-456-6213.[1] Nyad gained national attention in 1975 when she swam around Manhattan (28 mi or 45 km) and in 1979 when she swam from North Bimini, The Bahamas, to Juno Beach, Florida (102 mi (164 km)). In 2013, on her fifth attempt and at age 64, she became the first person confirmed to swim from Cuba to Florida without the aid of a shark cage, swimming from Havana to Key West (110 mi or 180 km).[2]

References

  1. ^ Anne-Marie Garcia (September 2, 2013). "Diana Nyad completes Cuba-Florida swim". USA Today.
  2. ^ Alvarez, Lizette (September 2, 2013). "Nyad Completes Cuba-to-Florida Swim". The New York Times.

Answer: The information is accompanied by reliable secondary sources, for this reason, it can be kept in the article. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

checkY - while the information is cited, inclusion of addresses and phone numbers is against WP:BLPPRIVACY, and needs to be removed. Onel5969 TT me 18:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


Images copyright[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. Please answer the questions below and (1) provide an explanation based on Wikipedia guidelines and (2) provide the guidelines/links in your answer.


5. Could this image-1 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? and why?

Answer- Explanation: Yes, the image isn't protected by copyright. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

checkY - exactly. Onel5969 TT me 02:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


Answer - link/guideline: WP:PDI US Government. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

checkY Onel5969 TT me 02:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


6. Could this image-2 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? Why?

Answer- Explanation: Yes. It's from Flickr and is marked as Public Domain. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

checkY Onel5969 TT me 02:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


Answer - link/guideline: WP:PDI

checkY Onel5969 TT me 02:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


7. Could this image-3 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? Why?

Answer- Explanation: Yes. The image it's from Pixabay, under the license Creative Commons Zero. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

checkY Onel5969 TT me 19:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: WP:IUPC CC0

checkY Onel5969 TT me 19:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

8. Could this image-4 be uploaded into C:Main Page and used in Wikipedia? Why?

Answer- Explanation: No. Image protected under copyright. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

checkY Onel5969 TT me 19:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline: Fair use/non-free

9 Certain types of images are a giveaway of COI and/or paid editing, despite not being direct violations of our image policies. Can you guess what kinds of images these are?

It is necessary to visit the original source and see under what conditions the image can be used. The files from publicdomainpirctures are free, but the files with superior quality are paid. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
checkY - although the biggest giveaway is when the photo from the article is marked, "own work". Onel5969 TT me 19:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

Please read WP:NPOV and MOS:PUFF. Point out the WP:NPOV words/pharses and rewrite the paragraph in Questions 9& 10 from a neutral point of view.

10. She is a brilliant boxer with a rare and exceptional beauty. She turned Pro at the age of 19 after winning one amateur fight on December 14, 2013 where she destroyed her opponent in 20 seconds. Her talent and marketability made her a fighter to watch right out the gate and she fought under XXX promotion on her next fight on February 2014.

Answer: She is a boxer who became a professional at the age of 19 after winning an amateur fight on December 14, 2013, with a knockout in 20 seconds. Because her skills and also marketability, she came to be observed. She fought under XXX promotion on her next fight on February 2014. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
checkY - although I would get rid of the "marketability" thing, as even if the source says it, it's subjective.Onel5969 TT me 22:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

11. He is a popular, acclaimed Bulgarian actor, who loves by all who have watched his films. He was born in Veliko Tarnovo and started working in the film industry since he was at the tender, innocent of the age of 14 and he has featured in 44 films.

Answer: He is a Bulgarian actor born in Veliko Tarnovo and started working in the film industry since the beginning of the contest, at the age of 14 and has already participated in 44 films. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
checkY, although see my edit above. Onel5969 TT me 22:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

12. Please read WP:DUE and in your own words, please explain why it is important to provide balance and due weight content in an article.

Answer: As the community understood that Wikipedia should be a website with a view to presenting information without being attached to a point of view, the Wikipedia adopted the principle of impartiality in its articles as one of its five pillars. Given this principle, Wikipedia articles should present the topics in a neutral way, without exposing the editor's opinions, although, depending on the number of sources, it is possible to expose the opinion of critics, however, this exposure needs to be as balanced as possible. In Portuguese, we use the term to describe the Wikipedia text of informative-expository. It is a text type where the objective is the transmission of information without presenting a judgment in relation to the fact. One way to avoid this is moderation in the use of adverbs and adjectives. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
checkY - your understanding of the balance needed is very important. Onel5969 TT me 22:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No original research[edit]

Please read WP:OR and WP:NOT and answer the questions below

13. In your own words, why is Wikipedia not a platform for publishing original research?

Answer: In the five pillars it is stamped that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that in this encyclopedia one must not publish unpublished research. Indeed, Wikipedia works with topics that are notorious, and the notoriety is demonstrated through secondary, reliable sources with significant coverage on that topic. And in a way, original research needs to be screened by experts before it can be published, something that Wikipedia does not have for all article. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

checkY - good understanding of the principle. Onel5969 TT me 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

14. In your own words, please provide one example with explanation when it is appropriate to insert an original content or synthesis in an article.

Answer: If the original research is also covered by other sources, such as Game theory, it is possible to have an article on wikipedia about the entry. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

checkY - yes, although some might argue that's still a secondary source. There are 4 main areas where you will see OR: uploading images you created, translating languages, performing basic mathematical calculations, and creating film/book/video game plot sections. This last one is probably the most prevalent, since so many articles are created in those venues. Onel5969 TT me 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

15. See this video and write an article paragraph that properly presents claims supported by the source. Assume that Alsuleiman's opinions are DUE for inclusion as part of this response.

Answer: Alsuleiman, when asked if Muslims women could wear jeans, said that Muslim clothing needs to be baggy and loose and also can't have atractive colours. Regarding Jeans, Alsuleiman stated that it cannot be 100% fit and it shall be loose and baggy. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

checkY - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional OR practice[edit]

For each of the following, state whether the prompt is an example of original research, as well as your reasoning

1. An editor writes a new article about an album. The entirety of the "Reception" section is just "According to Pitchfork" followed by a direct quote from a review in Pitchfork.

Apparently not, but the reception needs to be addressed by multiple criticisms and not just one. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
checkY - exactly. It's not OR, but there is most likely a GNG issue. Onel5969 TT me 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Source A in an article about Green Wugs states that 70% of green wugs have a checkerboard pattern in their feathers. Source B states that green wugs with checkerboard patterns have a high incidence of sickle cell anemia. An editor writes in the article 70% of green wugs have checkerboard patterns in their feathers and sickle cell anemia and cites both sources

False. It's original research. It cannot be said that all Green Wugs with checkerboard pattern in their feathers have sickle cell anemia because source B uses the term "high incidence", which is different from 100%. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
checkY - although it's a specific form of OR called WP:SYNTH. Onel5969 TT me 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Source A in an article about Green Wugs states that 70% of green wugs have a checkerboard pattern in their feathers. Source B states that all green wugs with checkerboard patterns have sickle cell anemia. An editor writes in the article 70% of green wugs have checkerboard patterns in their feathers and sickle cell anemia and cites both sources

Yes, here is not original research because of the term "all". ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Red XN - still SYNTH. Yes, it makes absolute sense, but there is no source which states the fact asserted in the article. Onel5969 TT me 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

4. In an article about Human rights in South Asia by country, almost all of the sources specifically analyze one country at a time. An editor writes a lead that summarizes the information in the article, including phrases such as roughly half of the countries in South Asia allow for the use of the death penalty and Most countries in South Asia developed their modern legal codes based off of British colonial law.

The correct thing would be to say which countries still allow the death penalty and not to state half of them, since the source analyzes each country individually. codes based off of British colonial law. Original research. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

5. In a review for a song, the editor includes an analysis of the song's lyrics and their meanings that are cited to Genius (website)

It's not original research but also is not reliable. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
checkY - spot on. Follow up question: so in this instance, what should you do? Onel5969 TT me 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

6. In an article titled International reactions to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, an editor creates a map based on the information in the article where countries are colored in based on their public stances on the issue. These stances are individually supported by citations in the article's text, but no map is cited.

No, because all information is extracted from the source. The difference is that the information was displayed in the form of a map instead of text. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
checkY - perfect. This falls under what I said in the above section, about pictures you make yourself. In this case the picture is a map. But because it's based on cited research, it's okay. I actually did this for the Southwestern United States article (which has since been replaced by a much better map). Onel5969 TT me 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

7. In an article about a company, Source A says that in 2018, the company made $100k in revenue selling Product X. Source B says that in 2018, the company made $200k selling Product Y. An editor writes in the article In 2018, the company made $300k in revenue from selling products X and Y.

If it were sales made at very different times, I would assume that the editor's claim is erroneous because of the inflation that alters the currency's value. But I would particularly change that edition to 100k on one sale and 300k on another sale. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
checkY - you could certainly change it, but the 100k and 200k are cited in the same year. As per my comment in the above section, simple math calculations like this are okay. Onel5969 TT me 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

8. In an article about the Climate of South America, a source provides measurements in Celsius. An editor converts the measurements to Fahrenheit in the article.

No, it is not original research because they are constant units. If it were currency conversion, it would be wrong because currency always changes the value in relation to the other. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
checkY - yup, again simple math. But beware, there will be some editors who get the conversion wrong. Onel5969 TT me 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability[edit]

Please read WP:V and answer the questions below
16. In your own words, why does content in Wikipedia need to be verified?
The content needs to be verifiable, through sources, to show that the informational content is true. It also serves to show that the content is not the result of the editor's opinion, thus respecting impartiality. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
checkY Onel5969 TT me 18:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
17. If the subject has two sons and it is supported by three independent, reliable sources but in reality he has 3 sons. Could we change the content from "2" sons to "3 sons"? and why?
It is possible that this happened because, at the time of the publication of the sources, the subject had 2 sons. the change is possible, as long as a new source is added. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
checkY - exactly, as long as there is an additional source. Onel5969 TT me 18:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
18. Looking at Saint-Germain River, the article cites two references. Please explain if you feel that the information in the article is acceptable as per WP:VERIFY.
The maps mention scales. From them, it is possible to obtain the distance between the locations. I believe that if the intention is to inform the distance from the river to certain places, there is verifiability. It is the information of a map converted into text. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
checkY - to be clear, source #1 does not meet WP:VERIFY. You need to be able to click on the source and go directly to the information cited. This is pure WP:SYNTH. So for instance, there might be a link to a pdf file which is 400 pages long, if there is no page # in the citation, it does not pass verify. In this case, the link is to the database, but does not bring up the information in the article. I used this example on purpose, because this was a big discussion amongst several NPP editors, so it's perfect for Verify. The information in the second source does pass VERIFY. Onel5969 TT me 18:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Filtering - Criteria for speedy deletion[edit]

PART 2

We have looked at the requirements needed for a page to meet notability guidelines, content policies and the types of sources needed to merit a page in Wikipedia in Part 1 (Assignment 1, 2 & 3). In assignment 4, we look at what type of articles need to be filtered out from our system when reviewing a page. There are many criteria of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. Here we discuss (1) General criteria (G1-G14), (2) Article criteria (A1-A11) and R2.
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. Install CV-revdel. After saving, you may have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

General criteria[edit]

1. Please review (G1-G14) at General and answer the following questions in your own words. When providing examples, be specific


No Criterion Application Example Mentor comments
1 G1 Widely used in hoax, articles with absurd content. Not applied to users sandboxes An article about a country that doesn't exist, but that the article treats as if it were real. checkY - hoaxes are not covered under G1 (they'd be G3), but absurd content (e.g. gibberish) would. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2 G2 Applies to pages created for testing editing. Does not apply to users sanboxes checkY Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3 G3 It can be applied to articles intended for fake news An article that claims things based on dubious sources checkY - also used for hoaxes. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
4 G4 It is used when a user recreates a page that is almost identical (or with the same problems) as a page previously validly deleted. Almost equal copy of a deleted movie on AfD checkY - the problem with this one, is that if an article has been deleted, you won't know if it's "essentially identical". So if an article has been deleted through AfD, I tag it with this. The admin will check the prior version. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
5 G5 Created by previously banned users who are using a new account to bypass the block checkY Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
6 G6 These are uncontroversial eliminations, listed in G6 empty category page checkY - the most common use of this I've found is for redirects which are blocking page moves. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
7 G7 Author requests deletion Some article I created wrong (PS: I don't have) checkY Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
8 G8 Accessory pages that had the main ones deleted talk page of a deleted article checkY Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
9 G9 Pages the Foundation asks to delete I never saw one checkY - neither have I. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
10 G10 Dangerous pages that belittle, threaten, spread hate, in short, are harmful to a group, entity or category of people a racist page checkY - usually these are personal attacks against either public figures or some regular person. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
11 G11 It is applicable when the article is used for the sole purpose of promoting something Draft:Silicon Mechanics checkY - this is one of those which is tricky. Some cases are obvious, but some are simply trying to tell about the person/product/company. The line between informative/NPOV/Blatant Advertising is pretty subjective. I've G11'd some articles which are deleted, while other articles, virtually identical in tone, are not deleted. Depends on the admin. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
12 G12 pages that violate the author's copyright A music page where the content is exactly the lyrics of the song checkY - If the lyrics are not copyrighted (e.g. a song from 1910), than that wouldn't apply. The earwig application is great for uncovering these types, but you you have to be careful of WP:MIRROR. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
13 G13 Abandoned drafts This kind of elimination once occurred with ARIDA. But then an editor asked to restore. I made some changesT checkY - There are several editors who stay on top of the list (I used to be one of them). But if you come across one, be aware that just because there hasn't been any activity, does not mean that the draft should be deleted. I've actually taken several articles I've found on the pending G13 list, worked them into shape, and moved them into the mainspace. Some editors will simply remove a g13 tag stating, "looks notable", at which point the 6 month clock starts ticking again. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
14 G14 Applies to unnecessary disambiguation pages disambiguation page with 2 hiperlink Red XN - 2 links would be acceptable, only a single link is the qualifying factor, since then the dab is unnecessary. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Article and redirect criteria[edit]

1. Please review A1-A11, R2, and R3 criteria at WP:CSD#List of criteria and answer the following questions in your own words. When providing examples, be specific.


No Criterion Application Example Mentor comments
1 A1 An article without enough content to be an article or a stub An article about a city where the content is: Swan City is a city checkY Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
2 A2 Used for articles written in other languages Parappadi junction, diff checkY - it's not strictly articles written in other languages, those are handled under a different process (tag it with {{Not English}}, and list the page at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for review and possible translation). It's for articles copied from a foreign language WP. For example, there's an article about a plaza in Bologna in the Italian WP, someone has simply copied it in whole (in Italian) from that WP onto English WP. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
3 A3 Articles witnout content A blank article checkY Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
5 A5 An article that only brings a dictionary definition, without working on other aspects If this were an article checkY Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
7 A7 Used for articles where there is not a minimum of source to demonstrate notability on the subject. Gaza–Israel clashes, Elhuyar. A7 for person checkY - the key here is not notability, but "a credible claim of significance". For example, if an article on Tom Seaver was created and simply said, "Tom Seaver played for the New York Mets and Cincinnatti Reds." But was wholly uncited, A7 would not apply, since playing for a MLB team is a claim of significance. If it was unsourced, you could tag it as needing sources, or draftify it. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
9 A9 Applies to articles that do not have the minimum to meet the GNG or SNG. On enwiki it is applied to music articles A song created by me checkY - but the key is that there is no article about the artist. If there is an article about the artist, or the artist's discography, then you would redirect there. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
10 A10 Article that duplicates an existing one A second Super Metroid article checkY - typically, this occurs when there is an article, say "Bob Jones" about a singer, and another editor creates an article about the same person, but names it "Bob Jones (singer)". This happens a lot in films. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
11 A11 Article about something that only exists in the editor's imagination Super Metroid 2 checkY - that's one way to put it. Something that is obviously made up. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
12 R2 Applied to main domain redirects checkY - the most common I've seen is when an article is draftified, and there is redirect left from mainspace to draftspace. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
13 R3 Redirects created with wrong name Super Netroid checkY - although be careful, it has to be an "implausible" typo. Some might say that confusing N for M is plausible. But very few editors would say Super NNNNNNetroid would be a plausible typo. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Scenarios[edit]

Scenario 1

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text:

John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.

Reply: seem is an account created to vandalize. I would report the account to WP:AIV. Later, I would tag the article created for WP:CSD, with G3 and G10. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

checkY - spot on, G10 would be the more appropriate one in this instance. Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 30 January 2022 (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.

Reply: I would tag the article created for WP:CSD with A7 ("No indication of importance (company or organization") and G11. I would also warn the user about WP:SOAP and also its name change and about WP:COI ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

checkY - nice. I would also report the user to WP:UAA as a promotional username, or a username which indicates shared use. Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 30 January 2022 (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.

Reply: Possible WP:COI too. WP:CSD - tag A7 ("A7: No indication of importance (musician(s) or band"). ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

checkY Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Scenario 4

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content:

Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.

Reply: CSD - A7 - No indication of importance (organized event). ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

checkY Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 30 January 2022 (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.

Reply: Looks like a snippet from a court case or a lawyer's petition. The article also brings a value judgment " that officer could not, by virtue of his writ, lawfully take the property from the possession of a third person". A11 or Custom rationale using {{db}} template. In the latter, I would explain that the content of the article is not encyclopedic. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

checkY - this is a tough one. While the A11 tag might apply, A1 might be better, since there is no context given. However, in this case, since your instincts point you to it being a potential snippet, a copyvio check might make it eligible for G12. I personally would either prod it, or WP:DRAFTIFY it. Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language. Reply: CSD - A2. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

checkY - A2 only if the article exists on another language Wiki. If not, then tag it for non-English, and log it at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Or, if there isn't enough sourcing, then you might draftify it.Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest and paid editors[edit]

Please read WP:NPPCOI, WP:COI and WP:PAID and answer the following question
11. How do we spot a COI/PAID editor?

Answer: This is a difficult issue, as the two policies do not mention how to spot, which is left to the discretion of each editor. But from the little experience I have of these cases, some indications that we can observe: the username (most obvious case); lack of impartiality in the article; When the editor him/herself manifests... ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

checkY - I agree, to me this is the most difficult, yet one of the most important aspects of NPP. I never tell potential COI/UPE editors why I believe they are. If other experienced editors are brought into the discussion, I'll email my reasons, but I don't like to give away hints at how to evade detection. The three main red flags are: 1 - excellent formatting and structure from a brand new user; 2 - use of PR language; and my favorite, 3 - a professional headshot. This last one is one of the biggest give-aways, particularly when the photo is the work of the article's creator.
12. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a COI editor?

Answer: On WP:COICOIN page, there are guidelines on how to handle with editors in that situation. The first step is to contact the editor him/herself. On the page, there is guidance on how this contact should be made. There are some templates to be used in the article and also on the user talk page. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

checkY - although I always automatically send to draft (which creates a comment on the user's talkpage, satisfying COICOIN). In the reason for draftifying, I put, "Segregating UPE/COI", and insert the following after "is not suitable to remain published":
"It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) In addition, there appears to be a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself.""
13. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a paid editor?

Answer: According to WP:COICOIN, you should, at first, contact the editor via the talk page. Twinkle and RedWarn have templates about it. If unsuccessful or if for some reason it is no longer advisable to contact the editor on their talk page, it's possible to open a request at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

checkY - In addition, if there are strong enough indications that they are UPE, I almost always draftified the article.Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Additional COI practice[edit]

For each of the following prompts, identify how likely it is that the described behavior is COI or PAID editing (not COI/unlikely/possible/likely/very likely), as well as what measures would be appropriate to take (both in terms of messages sent to the involved editors and whether to approve/delete/draftify/tag the article). Don't assume any information about the scenarios beyond what is written: if you feel like you would need additional information to provide a proper answer, describe the various outcomes you would consider based on additional hypothetical evidence.


1 An editor makes 10 edits to a variety of articles, then creates an article about an obscure businessperson in a single edit, and does not make any additional edits for 3 months. The article appears to meet notability guidelines.
Not COI or unlikely. There are no concrete elements that there is a COI. If the article meets notability guidelines, it can be approved. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Red XN - always tag this article with possible COI. This is one of the most common ways UPE's attempt to "beat the system", and the second easiest way to spot probable UPE/COI.Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


2 An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics makes a new article in a small amount of edits about a new TV show. The article is not neutrally written. Since having finished the article, the editor has continued to make a handful of contributions to other articles.
Possible COI. It could be an article about a program that the editor likes or dislikes. Considering the information provided on the prompt, tag the article with Template:POV and open the discussion. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
checkY - while it could be COI/UPE, much more likely it is a fan. Definitely tag POV. Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


3 An editor makes 10 edits to articles about locations in Georgia, then creates a meticulously sourced article about a species of tree native to Georgia in a single 50,000 byte edit. They have not made any additional edits since then.
Not COI. The prompt does not inform if the article meets the notability criteria or if it's Copyright violation. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
checkY - another indication is the subject matter. COI is usually going to be about companies or people.Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


4 An editor with the username "ApuOcalanPKKForever" creates a biography about a Turkish dissident. The article is not neutrally written.
Possible COI. If the article is not properly referenced, delete it. If the problem is just the lack of neutrality, tag the article, although opening a discussion for deletion (AfD) is also not ruled out if it doesn't meet notability guidelines. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
checkY, although we don't "delete" articles, we only mark them for deletion.Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


5 A new editor with the username "BillieFan214" writes a non-neutral article about an upcoming Billie Eilish album. They have not made any edits to other articles since completing it
Very likely but not necessarily a paid edition. As Billie Eilish is a notable artist, her album is potentially notable, I would mark it as draft. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
checkY, highly unlikely to be UPE, since they rarely use so blatant a username. If it is properly sourced, tag it with POV and mark it reviewed, as the album is most likely notable. If not properly sourced, draftifying is acceptable, or simply tagging it as needing more sources would also be appropriate.Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


6 A new editor with the username "BEOfficial" writes an article about an upcoming Billie Eilish album. They have not made any edits to other articles since completing it.
Very likely. Possibly a paid editor, no sure. Move it to draft. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
checkY - very definite COI, most likely UPE. I would definitely draftify it, after marking it as potential UPE. I would also report the username as inappropriate at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, since it appears promotional.Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
7 Over the course of 5 years, an editor writes several articles about a small group of academics and their business ventures. The articles are well-sourced and neutrally written. You've come across their most recent creation, which appears to be notable. Every single article that they've edited in the past five years appears to be somehow related to this group of academics
Possible. Might be a paid editor, but there's no hard evidence, just suspicion. If the article meets the notability guidelines, it deserves approval. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Red XN - this is the other type of COI editor. More than likely it is someone who has a close connection to the group, and is creating these articles. While not UPE, this is most likely a colleague of those they are writing about, perhaps even one of them. Either tag or draftify. I would definitely draftify. Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


8 An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics named "Ismail Oyo" makes a new article about a notable businessperson from Nigeria, and claims the photo in the infobox as their own work.
Possible. There are no elements in the prompt to approve or disapprove the article. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
checkY - while this could simply be a case of marking the photo with the wrong licensing, this is the key way to spot UPE/COI editors, when they add their own photo. Especially if the photo is a professional shot. Candid shots, e.g. a shot of a speaker at a dais taken from the audience, could simply be a fan, but more than likely this is COI. Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


9 An editor with 50 edits to a variety of topics is named "StacyRichardson". Included among these edits are the creation of two new articles about businesspeople from Russia. You are reviewing the most recent article, and it does not appear to be notable, although it is neutrally written.
Not COI. There are no elements for COI. In the indicated circumstances, the last article may be nominated for speedy deletion - A7. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
checkY - while the A7 tag is not incorrect, this is most likely a COI editor. This is another common tactic of COI/UPE editors, selecting what looks like a "normal" name, especially in the high-COI editing area like businesspeople.Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


10 An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with less than 50 edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked for sockpuppeting. The subject appears notable
He/she could be a sock from some blocked editor. Leave the article on the draftspace. However, if is proven that the article was created by a banned person's sock, rule G5 may apply. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
checkY - Yup. And I would research for possible sockpuppetry, and open an SPI investigation if warranted. Once the SPI is over, if a proven sock, G5 it.Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


11 An article is moved from draftspace by an AfC reviewer with several thousand edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked as NOTHERE. The subject does not appear to meet GNG.
Not COI. If an experienced reviewer has moved the article, at first I prefer not to interfere. At most I can contact he/she on his/her talk page ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
checkY - spot on. You'll get to know AfC reviewers over time. Some I have zero issue with (they can be my wing man anytime Face-smile.svg), others, you'll find that they may have some of their articles AfD'd after they move it to mainspace. And others, who don't last too long at AfC, have a lot of issues. Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


12 An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with a few hundred edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by an account that has been blocked for violating CIVIL. The subject is a borderline case for notability.
Unlikely. Draftspace seems correct to me. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
checkY - simply follow normal NPP process. Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Filtering - Criteria for speedy deletion[edit]

PART 2

We have looked at the requirements needed for a page to meet notability guidelines, content policies and the types of sources needed to merit a page in Wikipedia in Part 1 (Assignment 1, 2 & 3). In assignment 4, we look at what type of articles need to be filtered out from our system when reviewing a page. There are many criteria of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. Here we discuss (1) General criteria (G1-G14), (2) Article criteria (A1-A11) and R2.
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. Install CV-revdel. After saving, you may have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.

General criteria[edit]

1. Please review (G1-G14) at General and answer the following questions in your own words. When providing examples, be specific


No Criterion Application Example Mentor comments
1 G1 Applies to totally incomprehensible and meaningless articles. Poorly written article, per se, does not apply if it is understandable a blank article
2 G2 It is a very specific criterion, when an article is created to test some function An article created to test a function
3 G3 Applies to pages that contain false information, distorted from reality As an example, some articles created by a Chinese user about Russian stories, but all fake
4 G4 Applies to pages identical to the deleted content Identical recreation of the article List of America's Funniest Home Videos episodes
5 G5 Applies to pages created by banned users but after banning. As example, banned user that sign up a new account and using it create a new article. Such article is eligible for deletion by this rule. Quintinense, an old acquaintance from ptwiki, blocked globally, creates an article
6 G6 Technical eliminations. Usually does not apply to articles empty categories, order created in the wrong place and that it is not possible to move to the correct place
7 G7
8 G8
9 G9
10 G10
11 G11
12 G12
13 G13
14 G14
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Onel5969/NPPSchool/A.WagnerC&oldid=1100990618"