User:Barkeep49/VermontNPP

Getting started

Hi Vermont. We'll use this as our workspace for NPP work. You've actually had the user perm longer than me so you're definitely a different kind of person than who I normally take through NPP School. So can you tell me a bit about what you're hoping for from this so I can craft experiences that will be useful? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Barkeep49! I've been inactive on this project for a while, and inactive in NPP for even longer. I'm hoping to start back up here and am uncertain on my present NPP skills; I'm sure I could apply CSD criteria and all that, but I'm nowhere near where I used to be. Best, Vermont (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Glad to have you dip your toes back in the enwiki waters. If you look at the NPP syllabus Vermont it sounds like we should do some speedy deletion work. What else would you like to do? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess just a general overview of the topics needed to pass graduation criteria. Vermont (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Drafts

Vermont, we'll start by doing some practical work with articles submitted through the Articles for Creation process. For each draft below say what you would have done if you had found these while doing New Page Patrol (there are a few differences in practice between AfC and NPP - for this assignment pretend they are not drafts but are instead in article space). I've picked these articles based on their preview snippet and so I don't know exactly what we'll find. This will give me a sense of your thinking and approach. From here (or perhaps after another set or two) we'll go to some focused generic exercises. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:Okcoin

  Though I generally do not like getting involved with cryptocurrencies on Wikipedia due to the frequency of meatpuppetry and similar issues, I would AfD this for notability. It seems to me to be somewhat but clearly under the standard for notability on this project. The big-name news networks that covered Okcoin did so purely in passing mention, usually mentioning the CEO or COO's comments on a particular subject and not Okcoin itself. The other references are mostly cryptocurrency blogs or otherwise unreliable crypto-focused news sources and press releases. I'd also do some formatting cleanup. Vermont (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  I certainly agree that crypto is full of abuse here on enwiki. I certainly agree with you that it's not notable and should end up at AfD. And yes you are correct that RS quoting the CEO doesn't give it notability. Do you know the applicable guideline that tells us this? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Off-hand, no, unless you're referring to just WP:RS. Vermont (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  I am actually referring to WP:NCORP which would apply to this as it's a cryptoexchange. In reality even a cryptocurrency is likely to be evaluated using the stricter application of NCORP. ​Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:L.A. Hill

  AfD. Everything's a primary source, I was unable to find any secondary sources in a decently thorough search, and a decent portion appears to simply be a hoax. I would consider moving it to a draft but it's incredibly unlikely to ever be mainspace-ready. Vermont (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Definitely not notable. I admit I didn't look into the hoax. What tells you it's a hoax? As for me I found a different major issue with it as it's a pretty textbook case of original research. Looking at it with that idea what would you identify?

  Regarding what tells me it's a hoax, a significant portion seems over the top and is unsourced other than to itself. On the topic of original research, it incorporates information not found in reliable sources; due to that I think it's more likely that the subject and creator of the article are one and the same, but it is still considered OR. I didn't think it necessary to note that beyond the possible hoax bit and lack of notability. Vermont (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah the author of the article is definitely doing their own literary assessment of Hill which violates OR. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:Singleton Coleman

  Some formatting changes, and approve. I love articles like these; I just wish we had more sources. Fortunately, the few we do have establish notability. Vermont (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  You're correct it's notable. What guideline would support that? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  WP:NPOL. Vermont (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yep. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:Shyam Steel

  My inner checkuser is screaming: Udaysm made Draft:Shyam Steel, RityIssac made Draft:Shyam steel. On the topic of the content, it's promotional, probably paid, and a lot would need to be removed. The sources that exist are mostly unreliable and unverifiable, most seem to be paid PR pieces. Even with that, coverage is borderline. I'd AfD or move to draft space, probably AfD. Vermont (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Unusual capitalization is often a big warning sign that's something isn't right. So good job picking up on that piece. In this case the dueling articles suggests to me UPE more than some kind of direct socking. We'll cover moving to draft space later on but since you've mentioned it here a couple of times, I'll note that WP:DRAFTIFY can be an "easy out" for new reviewers and an over used tool. There are pretty set criteria for when it should be used and not just when a decision is hard or an AfD could go either way. Based on DRAFTIFY's criteria would there be justification for moving it to draft space if you had found this doing NPP? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Reading over DRAFTIFY, I don't think so. I'd AfD it. Vermont (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  I think that's the right decision. If there was stronger evidence of UPE the support for Draftify would be there but as is, I think AfD would be the better venue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Vermont: see follow-up questions above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Vermont: this is the kind of useful discussion that lets me see what you know and don't know and how you think about articles. Let's do a few more covering a different range of topics. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:Usteq

  I'd accept it. Vermont (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Say more about why you would accept it. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Notable subject, decent stub. I don't see why not. Vermont (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  Definition pages like this are always a bit tricky. It would clearly merit inclusion in Wiktionary but since we're an encyclopedia and not a dictionary it's less clear that the term has such widespread usage as to merit inclusion. For instance I had trouble finding it in a Google Scholar search which would be a place I would expect to see this word used. You are correct that we apply a more forgiving standard to something like this than say a BLP or a company. I'm honestly not sure on this one, one way or another. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:Kendall Smith

  AfD, WP:NPROF. Doesn't seem to meet notability criteria; nearly all coverage is of Smith's work and very little about them. The content that is there is unsourced and likely OR or UPE/COI. Vermont (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm glad you identified NPROF. That is definitely the right place to be thinking about this. For articles about academics it's not unusual for all sources to lack independence; that is it's normal for all sources to be references either to a university bio and/or their published work. So that alone is not concerning here. Even with that I agree it has issues with sourcing and I definitely agree its wording is suspicious. I would, however, mark this as reviewed if I were to find it while doing NPP. Can you work backwards why? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Do one of the positions Smith held confer notability themselves, or memberships in one of the institutes or academic positions? That's the primary reason I could think of; my understanding of academic rankings and medical position terminology is rather limited. Vermont (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  You got it. His being "Elected as Fellow to the American College of Physicians" likely meets NPROF criteria 3. Beyond that as a rule of thumb if someone is a full professor at a major US university/college (like Dartmouth) they're going to be notable under some criteria. If not for all this I would have looked to see if his 2018 book satisfied criteria 4. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:Clover Lane

  AfD per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums. Not independently notable; most sources are blogs/Wordpress sites, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Vermont (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  I agree it's not notable but we actually have an alternative to try before AfD. Any sense of what it would be? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Merging, I would think. Though the artist themselves appears to be barely notable, if at all. Vermont (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  I agree the artist is borderline notable but in this case I would probably just redirect rather than doing a full merge. We'll cover alternatives to deletion later on, but it's great that you're thinking about these things now (like with Blighttown). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:FC Berlin

  I don't like to mess with NSPORTS for...obvious reasons, and to be honest I'd leave it for the next person. I don't think this meets GNG but I'm not comfortable arguing against it at AfD. Vermont (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough on not wanting to mess with NSPORT. However, this is a good example of how you can get a rough sense of how Wikipedia judges notability by looking at OTHERSTUFF. For instance there are very few teams that are blue links at United Premier Soccer League and some of those are curricular redirects. Bottomline, the fourth tier in the US is pretty low level and thus it's not surprising that teams aren't notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:Blighttown

  I'd say merge into the appropriate Dark Souls-related section or article. The majority of sources are from gaming blogs and are passing mentions, with a handful of articles directly mentioning it in the context of development updates or game information. It does not seem independnetly notable. Vermont (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yes this kind of WP:FANCRUFT can often be merged. Side note: did you know that when I first started editing, I did a fair amount of editing that was eventually (properly) deleted as FANCRUFT? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  I did not. I'll be sure to bring this up if you ever request more advanced userrights. Darn cruft-writers... Vermont (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Good job here, Vermont. Couple follow-up questions above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Bit more feedback Vermont. I'm going to take us onto our next activity in a day or so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability

Question 1

In your own words, how is notability defined on Wikipedia?

Question 2

What are the differences between the WP:GNG and the subject-specific notability guidelines? How do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article?

Subject-specific notability guidelines

1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines) into the following three categories

Primarily additional criteria that are likely to indicate notability

Primarily additional considerations that define or restrict the nature of coverage or sources required

Even mix of the previous two categories

2. Virtually all SNGs that provide additional notability criteria specify that these criteria may indicate that the subject meets notability guidelines. How would you interpret this caveat as a new page reviewer?

Scenarios

For scenarios 1-6 review just based on "subject notability guidelines" (SNG) "alone" for sake of the exercise. Do not consider any sources or other policies. Please answer if the subject meets the SNG guidelines based on the given content below, and specify which notability criteria they meet or fail.

For scenarios 7-11 specify which SNGs would establish the subject's notability.

Scenario 1

An editor creates an article about "2028 Summer Olympics" without providing any sources

Scenario 2

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

Scenario 3

Movsar Evloev who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 12-0.

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.

Scenario 5

A political candidates, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2020 election for a Senator position in United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy.

Scenario 6

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

Scenario 7

Carlos Alós-Ferrer

Scenario 8

Alistair Overeem

Scenario 9

Jennifer Lopez

Scenario 10

Three Mile Island accident

Scenario 11

Persepolis