User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Path slopu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Graduation requirements

The successful NPP School Graduate will be able to:

  • Successfully use the NPP flowchart, or other system, to arrive at a correct reviewing outcome 90% or more of the time
  • Accurately identify when an article has satisfied GNG
  • Accurately identify appropriate SNG claims an article
  • Accurately evaluate articles against specific SNG criteria
  • Find and accurately apply common Wikipedia practices when evaluating notability
  • Differentiate between spam, vandalism, nonsense, and foreign language articles
  • Identify and appropriately remedy copyright issues in at least 90% of instances
  • Understand, explain, and apply appropriate Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines including, but not limited to, BLP and COI
  • Engage in appropriate and useful conversations with other editors about NPP
  • Appropriately apply warning templates to users
  • Know when to appropriately nominate an article for deletion, including how to have done a BEFORE search
  • Know when and how to use PROD and BLPPROD
  • Know when and how to soft delete an article
  • Use the Speedy Deletion criteria with at least 90% accuracy
  • Apply appropriate tags to article with at least 90% accuracy

Path slopu this will be our workspace as we go our work with NPP. I would recommend watchlisting it (I have already done this). 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. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Hi greetings, I read WP:NPP and watched video tour. I understood about WP:NPPCV, WP:NPPDEL, Page curation tool, New page feed, etc. But still I want to know more about PROD, COI, some user scripts, etc. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 05:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Just so you know it's my understanding that the video is a little out of date. I'm glad you feel strong with Copyright and deletion - these are two important areas. PROD is, quite honestly, less useful for NPP (in my experience) but CSD is something we will definitely spend time on so you can get it right. I'll suggest good times to install/start using the most useful user scripts as we go so no worries about that. More to come soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft Work[edit]

I like to get started with notability. It is at the heart of NPP - if you're great at communicating, and tagging, but just so-so at notability, then you'll be bad at page patrolling. Rather than deal with pages in the abstract I like to use pages in the drafts queue as jumping off points. I have picked the three pages below based on the preview text - I don't know exactly what we'll find. If you don't think you can get to them in the next day just let me know and I'll do them myself and wait for you to tell me you're ready - I'm placing them under review and I don't want their creators to see that status for too long. It's important to note that drafts and new pages are evaluated under slightly different standards but we'll treat all of these like they are new pages for our conversation. For each draft say what you would do if you found them as new pages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Draft:Teodor Giusca:-The article slightly passes WP:NTENNIS, but not enough to pass WP:BASIC. The sources help to pass WP:V, but not WP:RS, WP:BIO. Tag with {{BLP sources}}, {{unreliable sources}}, etc.PATH SLOPU 16:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Good job knowing about NTENNIS. As a note that if someone passes an SNG like NTENNIS (or BASIC) they are presumed to be notable. This gets more complex and we'll cover it more detail when we focus on SNG, but for now if someone meets an SNG you should presume (assume) that they're notable. In this case it does not appear to me that Giusca meets any of the specific NTENNIS criteria. Which specific criteria did you think he passed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Yeah he doesn't have anywhere near the coverage necessary for NCOLLATH. This one is not notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
  • Draft:ContentBI:- The name of article is same that of user name. If this is new article, it does not satisfies WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Slightly satisfies WP:ORG. Passes WP:ORGIND since sources are independent. Since stub template not given tag with {{lead missing}}. Also tag with {{more citations needed}}. If there is no category I'll tag with {{uncategorized}}.PATH SLOPU 16:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Again good job applying NCORP to this article. We'll spend more time talking about this because it is a very important criteria to understand fully - in this case the sources all have issues. More importantly this article is promotional. If I found it while doing New Page Patrol I would nominate it for speedy deletion under criteria G11. If the content were written more neutrally, and true, this would be notable. Because of the other problems I haven't researched whether its claims could be supported by better sources. And yes it is definitely at the wrong name. If you found that article in mainspace (and it was written neutrally) what would you do about it being at the wrong name?Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
  • I'll give friendly message to user about naming of article (creator might know the apt title for his article.). If (s)he doesn't responding I'll go on as per WP:RM or WP:RFC (since, we don't know about the title of article must be.)PATH SLOPU 06:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This should be uncontroversial and so you should just do the move page yourself. RM is not generally necessary when doing NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
  • Draft:Unemployment Insurance in the U.S. Territories:-Some sources are WP:SPS. But some sources help to pass WP:GNG, WP:V, etc. Tag with {{self-published}}, {{original research}}.PATH SLOPU 16:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • The question for notability for a topic like this would be "Is there coverage of this topic as a group?" Clearly there's been coverage of unemployment insurance in each territory but has something addressed Unemployment Insurance in US Territories as a set? Otherwise it is OR as you said. In this case I think the OR tag is likely correct because there are some US government publications which address it but the overall coverage of it as a topic is weak. But it is a It would not get the self-published tag - the sources themselves are fine.Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
  • Thank you. I thought that the US-government publications will meet WP:SPS. PATH SLOPU 06:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Government published sources generally will have an editorial process. They are generally considered RS but are also often times WP:PRIMARY which means they do need to be used carefully. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
  • Some sources are not enough to satisfy WP:V. Some are same sources. Slightly passes WP:RS.PATH SLOPU 06:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
All of those sources are identifiable. Off-line sources are 100% ok. I'd suggest you (re)read WP:OFFLINE. Also RS is about how to judge each source. So a source may slightly pass RS but an article uses (or doesn't use) RS. Does that make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
  • Most of the sources are not verifiable. Only two satisfies WP:V. They satisfy WP:RS. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 06:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
See my comment above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I can't tell my views are right. Please verify my edits and please help. PATH SLOPU 17:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Path slopu: Strong first set. A few follow-up questions for you above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I answered to the questions. Please check it. Regards.PATH SLOPU 06:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Path slopu: So good job on this set. You got the big question for this task - are these notable or not - nearly all correct, and importantly, for the right reasons. For the other areas we'll have a chance to work on them more as we continue. I will post another set of drafts for us to do later today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Set 2[edit]

@Path slopu: This next set contains some harder ones. I hope we'll get some good discussion from them. As before, for each draft say what you would do if you found them as new pages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You are obviously correct about Underlink and having a single SPS. When you say "poorly satisfies NSOFT" do you mean it doesn't meet the criteria or that it does so but not in a strong way? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I mean that it passes criteria but not in a strong way. Regards.PATH SLOPU 04:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
So it's important to know as an NPP that you have to look at all sources, not just sources in the article before taking an action. In this case there are no good sources suggesting notability and so this article would need to be nominated for deletion were it in mainspace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Good find on the mainspace redirect. So we shouldn't be adding the under construction tag as NPP - that should only be used when you're the one doing the constructing. It does, however, need a {{bare urls}} tag. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I choose this one because it's a list. Lists have their own ways of being notable which you can find at WP:LISTN - WP:SAL incorporates some of that and also covers other ground. You should know that NVEHICLES is merely an essay - so it can be helpful in some ways but should be given much less weight than something which has community consensus. In this case I would not consider it because SAL/LISTN give us more than enough information to see that the list is notable. For me, once I decide I've seen enough to decide it's notable I stop looking about that and move on to considering other factors (e.g. tagging, COPYVIO, etc). I agree that this is notable and should have more references. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Cryptocurrencies/Bitcoin are under community General sanction. People try to use Wikipedia to promote topics in this area for their own financial gain very often. For articles in this content area if there is not sourcing from the strongest of sources proceed carefully. It is my opinion that the sources do not meet the NCORP - only the first source appears to be significant independent secondary coverage from a reliable source. All the other sources appear to be some combination of not reliable and not independent - that is many of them are based on press releases. If this were found while I was doing NPP I would nominate it for deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I see almost no coverage of this site by reliable sources. To be notable under ORG (or NCORP, my preferred shortcut for that) an organization/company must have all 5 of (1) multiple (2)independent (3)secondary (4)reliable sources that discuss it in (5)significant detail. As of now there 1 one source - itself. Bigger issue - this article is promotional. If this were in mainspace I would nominate it for G11. Something can be notable and still be G11. This appears to be neither. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a doubt. I would like to know why do you prefer NCORP instead of ORG. Is there any reason? Kindly please help. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 04:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes the article should have its external links removed. And I agree it's not notable - NTEAM says that there basically are no criteria for teams so they are expected to meet WP:GNG. No team in its league, which has multiple levels, appears to have an article, and the coverage for the team is minimal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:I added my views about given draft. Please check it. Regards.PATH SLOPU 05:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Another good set with some follow-up questions for you Path slopu. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Thank you very much for the clarifications. I understood about different guidelines about lists, NCORP, etc. Regards. PATH SLOPU 04:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
See my comment about VFSync above. From what I'm seeing so far you've got a good sense of GNG, know about the various SNG and seem to do a pretty good job in applying the ones about people. Let's do one more set of drafts with a focus on NCORP/Products and the like to see if we can get those concepts down a little better. I'll find and post them sometime today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Just of out of curiosity. Please don't see this as stupid. I would like to know why do you prefer NCORP instead of ORG. Is there any reason? Is this also for any other policies. I'm asking this for following it. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 14:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Path slopu: Totally fair question. A lot of policies have multiple names. I tend to find some of them easier to remember than others. For whatever reason I find WP:! what comes to my mind first rather than WP:NOT which is pretty silly of me all things considered. For NCORP, it is less silly. For notability guidelines I like using the shortcut that starts with N because even if you don't know what the the shortcut is, if you know enough about Wikipedia you can figure out I'm referring to something notability related. With that I find NCORP easier to figure out what it's about - N CORP - rather than NORG which could also be read as NO RG (whatever RG might be). 100% personal preference. You should keep using ORG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Thank you very much. I asked this because several users use shortcuts starting with N instead of others in notability related guidelines. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 15:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Set 3[edit]

Poorly satisfies WP:NSONGS. A promotional article. Passes WP:V. Tag with {{more citations needed}}, {{one source}}, etc.PATH SLOPU 06:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the article does not demonstrate notability. What would you do next? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I'll either tag or G11.PATH SLOPU 02:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
So it wouldn't be G11 - the content is neutral. It's likely not any speedy criteria. It is a good example of a candidate for a redirect. Don't worry that you didn't know this - we'll talk about it soon and I wanted to see what you already knew. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Satisfies WP:NJOURNALS. There is only one source and passes WP:V and WP:RS. Lead is absent and tag with {{lead missing}}. Actually The American Economist is redirecting to another page. Tag with {{more citations needed}}, {{one source}}, etc.PATH SLOPU 06:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
NJOURNALS is an essay rather than a formal guideline/supplement. Even so, how, in your opinion, does it meet NJOURNAL (which I agree is useful)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I meant WP:JOURNALCRIT. PATH SLOPU 02:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
JOURNALCRIT is even better. Which criteria do you see it meeting? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't see anything else. PATH SLOPU 06:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Will say more below about this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
There is an article with same name exist. May be result in Merger (duplicate in WP:MERGEREASON). Slightly passes WP:NCORP but a promotional article. Most of the sources are SPS and some primary sources. Tag with {{self-published}}, {{unreliable sources}}, etc.PATH SLOPU 06:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
It does indeed exist - confirming your idea that the topic is notable. Good catch. And also good catch that it is promotional. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Article is verifiable and passes WP:NCORP. Some sources are WP:PRIMARY. Tag with {{more citations needed}}, etc. PATH SLOPU 06:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Say more about how you think it meets NCORP. Also what, if anything, should be done about the template that's not working at the top of the article? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
It slightly passes WP:ORGCRIT, not whole. Also remove the <nowiki> to activate template.. PATH SLOPU 02:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Which are the multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing it in significant detail that you are seeing? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I think 11th, 14th, 15th, etc are secondary. PATH SLOPU 06:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
11, 14, 15 are all press releases. This means they are not reliable independent secondary sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Duplicate of Sherdil. Merge as per duplicate in WP:MERGEREASON. Satisfies WP:NFILM. Since there is an article with same name and with more reliable content, merger is better. PATH SLOPU 06:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
For this one the article exists but hasn't yet been reviewed by a new page patroller. How does it satisfy NFILM? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
It slightly passes but not whole the guidelines of WP:NFO. It hasn't any notable awards, etc. PATH SLOPU 06:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
See more about this below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Plus one "bonus" that let's us talk about something else important that we haven't addressed yet.

Satisfies WP:NMEDIA, WP:BROADCAST, etc. Most of the sources are SPS. Tag with {{self-published}}, {{unreliable sources}}, etc. PATH SLOPU 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
So NBROADCAST is part of NMEDIA and yes I agree it meets the criteria of NBROADCAST. You should read the first section and look at the rest of, if you haven't already, WP:OUTCOMES. OUTCOMES is tricky because it's useful for the new page patroller in making decisions, but should not be used as the sole reason to make a decision - otherwise it carries more weight than it should. Instead my guidance is to use it when you don't know about a topic to point you in a general direction and to know what it says so that if you make a reviewing decision that's different than what it has noted has happened in the past you can give a reason for why your instance is a special circumstance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

@Path slopu: New group above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:I added my views about articles. Please evaluate it. Regards. PATH SLOPU 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Path slopu: See my note about outcomes above. Will get to the rest of the drafts soon but wanted to make sure you didn't miss that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Path - Couple more questions. Also, I will be largely offline until 22 April so we'll need to pause our work until I return. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Thank you for your helps. I will also in offline until April 22 for some reasons. Hope that we can join after some days. Thank you PATH SLOPU 03:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Path slopu: I'm back and know you said you'd be returning soon too. Please see the questions above for American Economist, Bitglass, Sherdil. Also let me know what you learned from reading OUTCOMES. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I answered to your questions. Please check it. From OUTCOMES, I learned what should be the outcomes after AfD on various topics such as people, companies, etc. especially the article that we discussed come under WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. Since the KBMF is a low power radio and not inherently notable according to this. It slightly passes NBROADCAST as said above. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 06:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

SNGs[edit]

As we've done our work it's clear that you are good at knowing about the various SNGs (Subject Notability Guides) that are out there. Good job with that. Let's talk about how to use them. For most SNGs there will be different criteria. WP:NASTRO has 4 criteria, while WP:NBOOK has 5. For most SNGs if the article meets any 1 of the criteria it's enough to think of it as notable. Let's use NBOOK as an example because I write in that content area. So for this article I created it's notable because of Criteria 1 - I have put multiple reviews to show this. Importantly if someone else had made an article for this book and not included the reviews it would still be notable. What matters is if things can be found not if they are in the article at that moment. For this article it's notable because of Criteria 2 - the Caldecott is a major literary award. So when looking at article covered by an SNG it's important to figure out which criteria it seems to be meeting. So for Draft:The American Economist and Sherdil which specific criteria do you think it's meeting? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thank you for the advises on SNG.
I agree. I have moved the draft into mainspace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sherdil:- Satisfies criteria 1 in WP:NFO and criteria 3 in inclusionary criteria of NFILM. Please check this Thank you.PATH SLOPU 09:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any awards it has won either in the article or when I google so I don't think it meets 3. Did you find two reviews for criteria 1? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:I agree with you. There is no criteria that satisfied by this. So it mayn't notable. PATH SLOPU 11:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
So what would the next step be? I'll also try and get the next area for us to work on ready today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Our next area of work will be deletion. There are several different types of deletion processes:

  • Speedy - For major problems not worth community discussion. The scope of these kinds of deletions are intentionally limited and are the most controversial.
  • PROD and BLPPROD - While BLPPROD has a useful function in NPP, I have found PROD to generally be less useful. Sometimes when patrolling from the back end of the queue (e.g. drafts that are 45 - 60 days old at the moment) you could successfully PROD something but in general these tend to get declined and end up at AfD anyway. PROD is much more useful outside of NPP in removing uncontroversial non-notable stuff. Unlike other tags, obviously it's ok for anyone, including the page's author, to remove. For BLPPROD there are also limited circumstances you can apply it - a biography with no references (including something like an external link that could be a reference) but in order to remove it a reliable source must then be added.
  • Soft redirects - This isn't really addressed directly in the NPP tutorial but is a real thing which has more limited oversight than other forms of deletion, and speedy deletion, and so needs to be used responsibly. This lack of oversight also makes it controversial among many in the community. An example when you would do this is in the clear case of an SNG. Like if a notable musician has an article made about a new album that's not yet shown as notable by NALBUM or a song from a notable album that doesn't yet qualify for NSONG. If this gets reverted, out of respect for the community's unease with this, I tend to let another reviewer decide whether or not to restore the redirect (though I will "tag team" in some clear cases). The other time to do this is when an AfD had come to that consensus and the recreated page (normally available by the history) is substantially identical. In this case if I'm reverted I will restore the redirect myself. One option when you think a redirect is the right outcome but have been reverted is to go to AfD. There's a misconception, even among some sysops, that you can't do this. They're wrong. It's definitely OK and normal to nominate an article at AfD that you think should be redirected. If you ever run into this feel free to leave me a message and I'll layout evidence of why it's OK.
  • AfD - Our formal method for deletion which normally deletes non-notable entries though in rarer circumstances will delete notable entries with other substantial issues. Before nominating for AfD it's important you do a WP:BEFORE search. If you haven't read that essay yet please do that now.

We'll practice all of these for sure except PROD/BLPPROD which we might or might not see a candidate for while doing our work. To start let's begin with formal AfD discussions. For your next work find 5 articles from the NPP Queue that you think lack notability - both GNG and SNG - and could be deleted. Post those articles here and I will give my feedback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:I had found some articles. Please check.
  • Hazrull Hafiz- lacking notability according to NFOOTBALL.
    • For most countries, certainly ones as large as Malaysia, playing in the top league will make you notable. The full list of leagues where you're notable can be found here.
  • Tori Dam- There is no sources to prove notability.
  • Ajit Pal Tyagi- Less context to understand. May be lead to A1 or A3
    • Very poorly written but more than enough context to avoid A1 or A3 - he's a politician. As someone elected to the state legislature he passes WP:NPOL
  • Anil Sharma (politician)- No context. A1. Less notable.
    • Definitely not A1 - same as with Tyagi
  • Concertino for Clarinet (Donizetti)- less notable.
    • Possibly notable but clearly not ready. I don't know enough about classical music to do a proper BEFORE but there's a good chance you're right.

Please check this.PATH SLOPU 11:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

See above. Let's try this again and see if we can get a higher percentage. It's ok if it takes a few days to find all the examples. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:I found some more from NPP queue. Please check this.
It's been deleted as A7 - I didn't look at it before but obviously an issue.
Absolutely it is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
So this was bad, but not a G14. I fixed it. How did I fix it? Why? And why wasn't it G14 Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I saw the way you taken to solve this problem from page history. You moved page Ekaterina Morozova to Ekaterina Morozova (football) by page mover right. Then you moved page Ekaterina Morozova (football) to Draft:Move/Ekaterina Morozova. Then moved Draft:Move/Ekaterina Morozova to Ekaterina Morozova. I think the disambiguation page had only one entry and there is no indication that it is not PTOPIC.PATH SLOPU 09:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon
Thumbs up icon - this is absolutely a good example of an article that should be brought to AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
@Barkeep49:Thank you for the helps. I found some more. Please check.
Had been moved to draft space but I think it's almost for sure a notable topic - there's the the source listed and I was also able to find a book about the company he founded. Historical people are much harder to find sources for online but if they're written about they're much more likely to be notable than someone today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Same thing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Path - see my comments and questions above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:-Please check my answer. Thank you PATH SLOPU 09:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Path slopu: Apologies for the slow response as I have been debating about what the right next step for our work is. I think staying on deletion is a good place for now. In looking at your AfD stats I think you're out of alignment more than the ideal. So I think a useful thing would be for you to get some more experience there. Take a few weeks to find some nominations (20+) to participate in. If you have questions feel free to ask them here and I'll be happy to give my thoughts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Some of the AfD discussions I had participated. Kindly please check.PATH SLOPU 07:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

AfD Part 2[edit]

It is helpful to say which sources, either already in the article or ones that you've found, you think meet the stringent NCORP standards rather than just saying passes GNG. I haven't done a full looking but I think this would likely be a delete for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I agree with you.PATH SLOPU
Thumbs up icon Sound reasoning. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Thumbs up icon Clear speedy keep. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
This one's a bit complicated but your !vote seems reasonable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Thumbs up icon
Again would be helpful to say why you think it passes those things not just that it does. Especially because of the relisting comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Disclosure: this is a deletion area I follow so I have opinions and I think you're factually wrong here and the nominator is right. It's OK to avoid SNG areas where you lack enough subject knowledge to make good decisions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Thumbs up icon
Your !vote should probably just be merge since Keep means that the article itself should be kept. Unless you mean that the article should be kept and info incorporated into the town article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I mean merge the article by keeping content.PATH SLOPU
If it weren't from 2006 I would think it should have been speedied. Is there a reason you only left a comment as opposed to a !vote? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I only left a comment because it is only my opinion that it is a promotional language. I feel so. Thank you.PATH SLOPU
All of this is just our opinions :). It's ok to cast a !vote for delete because it's promotional. Ex: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cao Son Nguyen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Wilson. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I didn't know the answer for this one myself so I asked a couple experienced sysops and they said the AfD should run its course. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Reasonable !vote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
How does he pass WP:NACADEMIC, WP:BIO? E.g. meets criteria 6 because XYZ. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
@Barkeep49:I added the reason in AfD page. Please check.--PATH SLOPU 15:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Same question as Robinson though it's a little more clear what you're saying in this instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments.PATH SLOPU
Same as Southeast Manor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Same reason.PATH SLOPU
Thumbs up icon
Same question as Robinson. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.PATH SLOPU
Thumbs up icon
Same thought as Logos but I could see how you'd rather comment than !vote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I added it as comment because it is only my opinion that it is a PROMO. It may be or may not. I think it needs a check from an experienced users like you. Regards.PATH SLOPU
This is the kind of explanation I'm talking about. Good job with this one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I'll try do so in next discussions. Thank you.PATH SLOPU
Same thought as the other two Indiana ones. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments.PATH SLOPU
Thank you for your advice on explanations in AfD. I'll try to do so in future discussions. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 15:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Path - I think overall your thoughts on what's notable or not is fair. You are more inclusionist than I am but not to an extreme extent so that's fine. What's important, especially as a new page patroller, is to be able to explain clearly what you think and why. You're doing the first part of this (explaining clearly what you think) but I would encourage you to focus on the why a little bit more. I left you a question at the Robinson AfD as an example for how you could explain why completely. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I replied to your question. Please check it. Thanks.--PATH SLOPU 14:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
That is indeed the sort of explanation that is helpful in an AfD discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thank you very much for your help. What should I do next? Please help. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 16:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for my being slow. I've struggled a little with work that will honor your strengths while building skills to be an effective patroller. Look for something new in the next day or so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:I found some more AfDs. Please check. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 02:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense but would encourage you to say which sources or statements in the articles back-up the idea of WEBCRIT/PRODUCT rather than just saying it does. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
As was pointed out to you, state legislators are covered by NPOL, county are not. Learning these distinctions are important. This is something I've had to educate myself on in regards to other countries to figure out which levels of government are and are not covered by NPOL. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I'm not sure how much this redirect is useful given that he is no longer serving and it's unlikely any text about him would ever appear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Same comment as Fitzpatrick
It's important to remember that at AfD all sources that exist matter not just what is currently in the article. On a related topic, this article would not be eligible for BLPPROD because the external links could be considered sources (bad ones but enough of a source to make it ineligible for that tag). Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Communication[edit]

Sorry I largely ended up taking off the 3 three day weekend from Wikipedia. While notability is the most important concept for a reviewer, communication is our most important responsibility. I am guessing you've read WP:BITE before but if not please do read it. Communication takes a few forms for the NPP reviewer:

  • Tone and substance are important. While doing NPP you will normally be dealing with newer editors. It's important to try and be as welcoming as possible - even when they're not doing things correctly. Most of the time people doing something wrong are doing so out of ignorance not malice. This is different than in counter vandalism where problems are more likely to stem from ill intentions.
Besides being friendly and professional, even in response to people who are not friendly (or even outright hostile), making sure to include enough information so that the other editor can figure out what you're talking about is important. I tend to use Wikilinks attached to everyday words in my messages, rather than just to the wiki shortcuts when in discussions with new editors.
  • Always using clear and helpful edit summaries while patrolling - While using edit summaries is generally good practice, when doing NPP it's important to take it a step further. For instance, a common occurrence will be to find an album by a musician with a page, but a particular album doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUM. The normal patrol action here is to redirect the album to the page of the artist. An inadequate edit summary would be "redirecting" or some such. I prefer a more complete summary along the lines of "No indication in article of how album is notable per WP:NALBUMS. Redirecting as an WP:ATD."
  • Edit summaries are not a replacement, however, for real communication. Depending on context this should either be done on the talk page or the user talk page of the editor. This is especially to be done even if the other editor is only communicating through edit summaries. We have a higher obligation to do it right. Doing this proactively is great. Just as frequently it will be more reactive - for most editors who contact you it will be out of confusion or ignorance. However you will get some angry ones as well. In all cases being the calm professional one in the conversation is important.
  • The final main mode of communication is through the toolset itself. Find a great article? Make sure to leave a comment. See a few articles in a row by a newer user all of which are notable? Leave some wiki love.

To put this into action, you should ask to be added to the the AfC user's list. After getting that, you should install the helper script. Then at your convenience, go ahead and use the AfC side of the new page feed to find a few drafts to decline where you would also be able to leave a comment explaining further context or helpful tips (the script will, in the decline reason, give a stock message which you can see ahead of time by clicking preview). An example of a comment I left (though not for a decline) can be found here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thank you for help. I added my request for AfC user. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 09:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Apologies for the delaying of our work. I'm waiting for the response of my request in WT:AFCP. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 16:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries I had seen the delay. But I see you got the OK a few hours ago. Let me know if you have any questions as you get to work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Thank you very much for your help in AFCP. I had found some drafts from AfC submission. Please check.--PATH SLOPU 10:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon
Passes BOOKCRIT criteria 3 from what's in the article. What was your thinking? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I agree with you.PATH SLOPU
Great. I'll let you accept it. ​. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Yes and there's already an article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I'm going to guess he is actually notable - though one book written about him doesn't prove it. This is a translated French article, commenting about that would have been helpful explaining why it's not automatically OK on English Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I agrre with you.--PATH SLOPU
This got deleted so I can't see but assume you were brilliant :)
Your comment is correct. But it would be helpful to say why, probably including a link to WP:BAREURLS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
I'll add the link in future reviews.--PATH SLOPU
Yeah this has the BAREURLS and double referencing so a more general comment makes more sense. But this is, honestly, perhaps a case where the default template would have been all you needed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Likely autobiography about a 13 y/o (if I did my math right). This needed something bey
I agree with you. It's an autobiography. PATH SLOPU
With what are you seeing it as a COPYVIO? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Please see this [1]. The editor removed copyvio content.--PATH SLOPU
Thumbs up icon

Few comments about path. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thank you for comments. I answered to your questions. Please check it. Shall we go on? Regards.--PATH SLOPU 13:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I left one comment above. I'll post our next set of work soon but a couple notes at this stage. First, communication is a big deal for NPP. Hopefully you get some questions about your declines from new users so you can demonstrate your skills. Second, hopefully you can start putting everything together. It seems like you're 75 - 90 percent there with what we've covered. Putting all those skills together consistently is an important element of effective new page patrolling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Revisited[edit]

While you did a little work with speedy deletions before, I think doing some focused work on those, and if applicable their cousin the BLPPROD, could be useful. I think you already have good grasp on what's a COPYVIO, but if you have any questions about when to tag something G12 and when to revdel please ask. Try to find 6 articles from the new page queue that merit speedy deletion. Have 2 of these be G11, spam or promotion, and the others be at least 2 kind of tags. Before attempting this, if you haven't read Wikipedia:Speedy deletions recently now is a good time. Let me know if you have any questions, and as always, no rush - so take the time you need to do this successfully. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Apologies for the delaying. I had found some new articles. Please review
All revisions of this had content so it's never been eligible for A3. It literally has to just be blank except external links and the like to be A3. Barkeep49 (talk)
As of this edit it is not eligible for A3 and since it occurred within 10 minutes of creation it should never have been tagged as such. All versions of the next two by the same editor are also a3 ineligible. They're bad articles (maybe notable but still bad) but that doesn't mean they can be speedy deleted. Barkeep49 (talk)
Not SPAMMY enough. Barkeep49 (talk)
Also not spammy enough. Barkeep49 (talk)
This is on the border is, of the ones posted here, the closest to actually being something which could be speedy deleted. Barkeep49 (talk)
Just because an article fails a SNG doesn't make it A7 appropriate. There has to be no claim to notability. The governor of a state actually not only isn't A7 it passes NPOL. Someone who played international soccer at the youth level probably doesn't pass notability but also isn't speedy deletable. Someone who plays soccer on a 14 year-old local team is speedy deletable. Please make sure you read Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance.

--PATH SLOPU 13:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries about the timing. I have not been doing a ton of editing myself as I'm a bit dispirited about Wikipedia at the moment. What questions do you have about speedy deletion that I can help clarify? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarifications. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 13:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Since this wasn't at the level of accuracy I was hoping (and I'm guessing you were hoping) again are there questions I can answer? We can try again but I worry that it will only be slightly more successful. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Yes, I agree with you. I'll try to find some more articles merits speedy deletion. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 01:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This is definitely G11. Barkeep49 (talk)
Not as clear G11. The difference between these two is in the amount of promotional language in the two with Abzooba clearly trying to promote themselves much more. Barkeep49 (talk)
Tricky this one. Technically info in an infobox is content that can make an article ineligible for speedy deletion: "Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet another speedy deletion criterion.". I think it gets accepted some fair percentage of the time but there's enough context and information that a majority of the time it'll be declined especially because supreme court cases tend to be notable. Barkeep49 (talk)
I think this article cannot pass any notability criteria. It have only one sentence about the topic. The whole content are in the source. Am I right?--PATH SLOPU
Many/most US Supreme Court cases are notable. This particular one definitely is - example coverage: [2] [3]. Federal court rulings are all public domain so they can be extensively used without copyvio. With the article expanded I have marked it as reviewed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
This has too much neutral information to be an attack page. Barkeep49 (talk)
I have a doubt that, is this article meets any deletion criteria? ( I think the content starting with On June 16, 2019, in section career is inappropriate.)PATH SLOPU
This has now been nominated for deletion. Barkeep49 (talk)
Not G11 and while it's been draftified it is a reasonable A7 tag in my thinking.

@Barkeep49:Thank you for advices. Please check the articles posted by me. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 11:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:I have some doubts (above). Kindly please check. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 14:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I think answered all your questions above. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Thank you very much for giving the advice. Shall we go on? Which is best choice, staying in deletion or going to next one? Please help. Regards.—PATH SLOPU 14:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Path slopu: I don't think we're ready to move on yet. Going back to the graduation requirements I don't think you're at the necessary level of competency around speedy deletion (and maybe deletion more generally) that is expected. Some growing pains with speedy deletion criteria is OK - I had some myself - but showing that the growth has happened is important. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:I have found some more articles from NPP queue merits CSD

Congrats![edit]

@Path slopu: I see that Lourdes has given you the new page permission. Cograts! As you start to do NPP please feel free to ask questions. All the questions I asked at the start of my time as a New Page Patroller helped make me effective. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thanks for being my trainer and guiding me towards the right path in New Page Reviewing. I am grateful to you trainer! Being a trainer isn't easy, so I just want to let you know that I appreciate all of the hard work that you have put in. You are more than a trainer to me. You have been a wonderful mentor and an amazing companion for me. I feel grateful for having such a wonderful trainer. I'll work as much as possible with this new user right. Hope that you'll help me in future reviewing also. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 11:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I have found some articles from NPP queue and marked as reviewd. Kindly please check. Thank you.
Most of these looked good Path slopu. There are a couple which I don't know if I'd have marked them as reviewed from what I saw. However I didn't really examine them too closely and assume you did. The two basketball related entries, however, seem more questionable. The team is a pretty minor league team - there are some reasons to believe they might be notable so while I BOLDLY redirect to the league your review wasn't necessarily wrong. However, Eric Stutz pretty plainly doesn't meet the SNG and it's not clear to me that he meets GNG - did you find sourcing to suggest he does? Like I said overall a good start. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Thank you for the advices. I agree with you in the case of the article Eric Stutz.PATH SLOPU 14:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Hi greetings, I have found some articles from NPP queue. I have some doubts on there notability, RS, etc. Please help. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 15:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, who coincidentally is a former NPP trainee of mine, redirected this. That seems like the right thing to have done. Barkeep49 (talk)
What are you thinking here? Barkeep49 (talk)
I agree with you. Barkeep49 (talk)
Full professor at any reputable university is going to be considered to pass NACADEMIC. I have marked it reviewed. Barkeep49 (talk)
  • Jamie Gardiner-What should we do in this situation? There is a template of major expansion. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 15:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't have tons of time at the moment but in terms of the template on Gardiner - that doesn't prevent us from doing NPP. If they're notable great. If they're definitely not nominate for deletion (or maybe draftify). It does mean, outside of G11 or G12, you probably should not nominate for speedy deletion. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Path see my comments above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Thank you for the comments. I have a doubt on one of the article created by me which is now moved to draft. I added some more sources including one from a biographical dictionary published by Sahitya Akademy, the apex organisation dedicated to the promotion of literature in the languages of India. I think it could satisfy the 3rd criteria in WP:ANYBIO. Kindly please help. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 14:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Path slopu: which article are you referring to? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:I'm really sorry for my mistake. The article is Draft:Cheppad Bhaskaran Nair. Regards.PATH SLOPU 14:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Children's literature sources tend to be a little harder. Because he writes in Malayalam this is even harder. I see he won the Kairali Children’s Book Trust Award. It's hard for me to tell if this is an important award or not. Do you know of any reviews in any language of his works? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:I think there is no major reviews about this person. Kairali Award is not an important award. But he is listed in a biographical dictionary. Please check. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 16:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Path_slopu&oldid=905957684"