User:Onel5969/Storchy/NPP

Welcome Storchy 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). From seeing your work in certain areas, I know you have a good grasp of the basics, but from the comments on your talk page, you can use help in some of the nuances.

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 have tasks, written in bold type - these 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. My usual rule of thumb is to check your work at least once a day, as often as I can it will be twice a day.

Getting Started

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.

Skills:

• a good eye for copyrighted text, and selection of unaltered sentences for search and match online
• empathy with new editors, and the energy (and typing speed) to help clean up promising new articles
• good general knowledge of science, geography and history, helpful for accurate categorization of new articles

Growth Areas:

• further study and practice required in several points of policy - at least two misconceptions were corrected after reading WP:NPP and the "Further reading - essential" articles at the end, and I'm bound to have missed a few more
• spotting the difference between spammy prose, written in good faith to emphasise notability of a subject, and plain old spam
• more care in checking edit histories before nominating for speedy deletion (e.g. [1]) or scripted move to draft (e.g.[2])

Okay, your first two skills are very important in NPP. I know you do a lot of categorization, and that's important in terms of WP, but not so much for NPP (it's one of my weaknesses). Your second growth area is one of the most difficult, not just because it is so subjective, but also because UPE editors are getting better. The third is VERY important. And not just for Speedy, but also Prods, and when checking for copyvio. Once thing that we'll talk about is WP:DRAFTIFY, which is getting lots of talk in recent months.

As we go through this process, remember it's a marathon, not a sprint. Take your time. We'll move at your pace. As I said, I'll try to respond twice a day, but promise at least once.

Now we begin.

Notability

PART 1

Questions

Question 1

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

In a nutshell, something (or someone) is usually considered notable if it's been written about a lot in reliable, independent sources. There's a separate definition of "reliable source", and the presumption is that if something is notable, then it will have been noticed and written about. There are things and people that we might think should be considered notable, like the head of a listed company, a professional sportsperson, or an annual event that's well attended, but if the coverage isn't there, then Wikipedia waits until that can be found. If there's a reasonable presumption that something will be widely written about soon (like an upcoming election or a professional sports season), then the article is often built up as a draft, in anticipation of a high level of coverage to come.

In addition to the general definition, notability is additionally defined with more precision in subject notability guidelines. For example, a notable academic might never get written about in the mainstream press, but can be considered notable by virtue of the impact of their work, awards specific to their academic discipline, etc.

Y Very good understanding. Of both GNG and SNGs.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Question 2

Would step by step instructions on "How to change a car tire" be considered a notable topic in Wikipedia? Why or why not?

If the article consisted solely of instructions on how to perform the change, then that would be considered outside Wikipedia's scope according to WP:NOTHOWTO, even if significant coverage were available in reliable sources of how to change a tire.

Car tires themselves can be notable, and Category:Tires has many articles about notable tire materials, notable aspects of their engineering, notable components, and so on. A very brief description of how tires are changed might in some cases be relevant as part of one of those articles (such as a novel method of tire-changing, which significantly alters the usual method).

Y Instruction manuals on WP are not appropriate, even if included in what would otherwise be considered a notable topic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Question 3

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?

SNGs essentially serve two purposes:

• They define additional notability criteria about specific criteria, which should be fulfilled in addition to general notability criteria. For example, a notable sportsperson would be expected to be widely written about in the news, but additional criteria apply for particular sports (such as athletics or golf). These don't replace the GNGs, but are meant to prevent speedy deletion, on the understanding that a sportsperson who has met a SNG is likely to also meet the GNGs, with the right amount of digging online and offline for the required coverage.
• They can define alternative notability criteria where the general guidelines don't adequately cover certain topics. As an example of this, a notable academic might never get written about in the mainstream press, but can be considered notable by criteria such as the impact of their work, peer recognition, and awards. Conversely, an academic for whom these SNGs aren't met can be considered notable if they meet the GNGs.

Y - In theory, SNGs never trump GNG, but suggest if a topic meets certain specific criteria in a given field, they must have enough coverage to meet GNG. In practice, this has pretty much stood the test of time, with several notable exceptions. First, NACADEMIC, might be the only SNG which actually trumps GNG. But that's more due to the wacked up priorities our culture has on things, so a guy who can hit a ball with a stick receives tons more press than the guy who discovers a cure for some rare disease. The other notable example is the opposite direction. NFOOTY has just recently been deprecated since it had disastrous effects on what could be included in the WP. Two other examples come to mind. BROADCAST used to get quoted a lot, but there are lot of minor stations which, while meeting BCAST, did not pass GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

SNGs are documented separately from the GNGs, but the former make reference to the latter. When an SNG doesn't exist, the GNGs apply. In the SNG for sportspeople, soccer has no specific criteria, but the SNG page for sports says "Sports which are not listed on this page should defer to the Basic criteria for guidance".

In all cases, a dollop of common sense is required. When patrolling the New Pages feed, I would expect to frequently encounter articles on fields I know nothing about. Reference to the best available SNG and/or GNG might be helpful, but, for example, since not all countries have the same level of online press, considerable effort might be needed to ferret out reliable coverage of a genuinely notable politician from another country. This might include searching in a foreign language, with a foreign alphabet (or ideograms). It would be better to withhold judgment, when I'm not reasonably sure.

This is very sound. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia:Notability (books)
• Wikipedia:Notability (events)
• Wikipedia:Notability (films)
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• Wikipedia:Notability (sports)
• Wikipedia:Notability (web)

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

• Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
• Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)
• Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)
• Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)

Even mix of the previous two categories

• Wikipedia:Notability (music)

Y - okay, but remember, there is no hard and fast rules here, but there are some good guidelines. For example, NCORP (or CORPDEPTH) does limit GNG. For example, a local factory might get tons of press in local papers, but if there is no regional or national coverage, it probably would not pass GNG. And while that is focused on companies, the same philosophy is sometimes used when talking about local people as well. On the other end of the spectrum, the qualifier in NFILM, about having started principle photography, is rarely excused. GEOLAND is another good example of a solid SNG... in reviewing, you come across a small stub of a village in India, it has census data and footnote, mark it reviewed. To be honest, in the thousands of articles I've reviewed, I've never relied on NUMBER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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

The word "may" is used in this case to show that it's a useful pointer to notability, but not a guarantee. For example, WP:CORP says "it may be notable by passing either this or the more specific guideline.", but further down at WP:LISTED, the SNG notes that "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above." To me that suggests that I need to keep an eye out for the word "may" in all SNGs, especially as they evolve over time.

Y - spot on. 20:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Scenarios

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

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

Scenario 1

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

It would pass on WP:NSPORT (particularly WP:NOLYMPICS), though it would likely need to be moved to draft until a reasonable number of reliable sources are found.

N - this was a curveball. If this had been about the 2020 Summer Olympics, those SNGs would apply, but they are only about events which have taken place, not future ones. WP:NEVENT would be the prevailing SNG, and wouldn't really help in this case, so it would have to be GNG, and since it is unsourced, would fail. Since it is the Olympics, and there is likely to be enough coverage (they tend to choose their locations a decade or so in advance), I would probably draftify it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah OK, got you. Storchy (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 2

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

It's a rare startup that's notable per WP:CORP, and receiving a six-figure round of funding is pretty run-of-the mill, but if it's got lots of investors excited because someone important has been plugging it, then it might well be notable.

Y - $200k is chicken feed. Unless the article has several in-depth sources that would help it pass WP:CORPDEPTH, this would not be notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 3

Guram Kutateladze who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 12-2.

I'm no martial arts expert, but it sounds like he would be notable by WP:NSPORT (particularly WP:NMMA, specifically mentions Sheepdog), and WP:BIO.

Y - first, I think you mean "sherdog", not "sheepdog" . And he would have to rank in their top 10, so MMA wouldn't work for notability. But BIO might.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, autocorwrecked again. But maybe he's got coverage here too. DON'T TELL ME WHAT I MEAN!! :o) Storchy (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2022 (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 December 2022 and to be released on August 2023 in the cinemas.

Unlikely to be notable by WP:NFILM (particularly WP:NFF), if it hasn't entered production yet. Some Asian films in particular get a flurry of publicity, but never see the light of day.

Y - spot on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

If he's only received run-of-the-mill local coverage for his Senate candidacy, and has never done or been elected to anything else of note, then he's unlikely to pass WP:BIO (particularly WP:NPOL).

Y - but these are some which we get the most blowback on. But you're right, not notable as per NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 6

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

Anyone cal get their songs listed in Spotify, so he's likely to fail WP:NMUSIC (particularly WP:SINGER).

Y - yup. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 7

Carlos Alós-Ferrer

Notable by WP:NPROF, though he wouldn't pass WP:BIO on its own. The sources are mostly primary, but he's editor-in-chief of a "major, well-established academic journal in their subject area". For academic impact I only have access to Google Scholar at the moment, which isn't the best measure of academic impact, citations, etc. So I would probably back away from assessing notability, if it weren't for his editorship.

Y -- and you see what I mean about NPROF being an SNG that can trump GNG? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 8

Alistair Overeem

Notable per WP:NSPORT (particularly WP:NMMA), and probably also notable per WP:BIO for press coverage of his personal life.

Y - exactly.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 9

Jennifer Lopez

Highly notable, checks just about all the boxes in WP:SINGER, WP:BIO, and WP:ENT.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 10

Three Mile Island accident

Notable per WP:EVENT for both the long-lasting press coverage and its effect on the nuclear power debate in the US and abroad, and also per WP:NGEO (particularly WP:NBUILDING) for its famous accident.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 11

Persepolis

Highly notable per WP:NGEO (particularly WP:NBUILDING), and WP:EVENT, pivotal city of Achaemenid history, UNESCO World Heritage Site, etc.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Background for trainees

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. WP:NPPSG may be a useful reference for looking up the reliability of a source that has been discussed before on Wikipedia.

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

1.

Topic	Definition	5 Examples	Comment by Trainer
Reliable source	Broadly speaking, a reliable source is a source that has proven over time that it maintains high standards of accuracy in its contributors, implements a professional level of editorial practice, and corrects mistakes quickly and transparently.	(example)The Guardian newspaper The Economist newspaper Financial Times newspaper Dictionary of National Biography Nature (journal) Office for National Statistics	Y -- pretty much spot on. Interestingly, a timely discussion just took place on my talk page, where you can see disagreements about this between 2 NPPers. With The Guardian, beware of blogposts, which are WP:NEWSBLOGS, which may or may not be considered reliable. Other types of these sources are: university-level textbooks; books published by respected publishing houses; review articles in reputable academic journals; anything "in the green" on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Be aware that even reliable sources can have information which is not. For example the Editorials at many major newspapers. They are editorial opinions, rather than actual news. Also, WP:VERIFY is a big thing, too. Onel5969 TT me 11:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
User generated sources	These implement little or no control over accuracy, granting most control over that to its contributors. They may have rules regarding libel, hate speech and so on, but we could log in and declare ourselves to be Nobel Prize winners with little expectation of immediate correction. Wikipedia is a user generated source, and is therefore considered unreliable for use in references for its own articles.	IMDb Answers.com Crunchbase Discogs Forbes magazine's "contributor" content	Y - but the Forbes issue is regarding their Forbes.com brand, not the print magazine itself, which even when it has contributor added content, has editorial oversight. The biggest offenders in this category are sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, etc. I would also point out that crowdsourced websites would also fall in this category. Onel5969 TT me 11:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Non Independent source	These are affiliated with a person or group that seeks to publish from their own point of view, with little regard for neutrality. For example, this can include official websites of public figures, nearly any corporate website, and many government websites. Some newspapers are affiliated (openly or otherwise) with political causes, political parties, or religious groups.	ConservativeHome LabourList Pravda.ru China Global Television Network LifeSiteNews	Y - Not only these particular sources, but also be aware of "types" of sources, eg. press releases, company blogs. One of the keys is the financial component. There are editors who argue that even though a source has financial backing from a certain source, they can still maintain their independence. Personally, I'm not sure how that's possible. For example, college newspapers are non-independent sources when dealing with subjects about that university. Onel5969 TT me 11:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

2.

Type	Definition	Examples (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary)	Comment by Trainer
Primary	A primary source is a firsthand, direct account of a topic, such as original research, typically from a person involved in the information gained. This includes original research, recordings, data, maps, and other forms of data directly gleaned from observation, research, or personal knowledge.	(example) scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results a Linkedin page a personal website a blog a company website a political party's website a government website a press release a book of original research or essays an interview with the person (or person representing) the subject of the article a breaking news story a newspaper editorial an autobiography social media (e.g. Twitter, Instagram) an original historical document a play	Y - excellent. Another one is something like a newspaper article, which only has a single, anonymous, source. Also, video or audio recordings.Onel5969 TT me 19:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Secondary	A secondary source interprets and reports information from primary sources.	(example) newspaper a history book, reviewing and critically assessing books of original research of essays a review of an autobiography a news programme analysing and reporting on what was a breaking news story this morning a theatre critic reviewing a play a biography that quotes interviews with its subject	Y - but remember that books cannot be self-published. Onel5969 TT me 19:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Tertiary	A tertiary source is a reference work, which presents and summarises information from primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.	(example) encyclopedias Dictionary of National Biography Handbook of Chemistry and Physics Strong's Concordance IMDb Database of Interacting Proteins	Y - interesting. I've never thought of classifying imdb in quite this way, but makes sense. Onel5969 TT me 19:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

3.

Subject	Primary	Secondary	Tertiary	Comment by Trainer
Example: Art	Example:A photo of a sculpture	Example:An article in The New Yorker that reviews a new exhibit	Example:A museum catalog entry	Y Onel5969 TT me 19:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
History	An original copy of Magna Carta	A history book about Magna Carta, using information from the text of the document along with other related historical sources	A bibliography listing secondary works about Magna Carta	Y - again, remember, the history book cannot be self-published. That happens usually on local histories about localities, like "History of Bumpkinville, Iowa" (no offense intended to bumpkins or Iowa). Onel5969 TT me 19:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Science	A scientific journal article detailing a study about a new species of butterfly	A newspaper article reporting on the study, with analysis of its implications	A Wikipedia article about the butterfly, drawing mainly on secondary sources about the new discovery The comprehensive traits database for the butterflies and macro-moths of Great Britain and Ireland, published by Butterfly Conservation and the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology	Y - Due to the tertiary source. Many people make the mistake of lumping WP into tertiary sourcing, but as WP:TERTIARY points out, "Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself". Could you give me a different example?Onel5969 TT me 19:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC) Y - that's the ticket. Onel5969 TT me 21:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Athletes	An instant report from a race detailing the times of the runners	A newspaper article reporting the win, with analysis, past scores in the race, personal bests, etc	A sports almanac summarising the results from all the years the race has been run, from secondary sources	Y - spot on.Onel5969 TT me 19:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

---

In the tables below, please 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" for each source.

4

Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania (1937)

Frank Lloyd Wright (June 8, 1867 – April 9, 1959) was an American architect, interior designer, writer, and educator. Wright believed in designing structures that were in harmony with humanity and its environment, a philosophy he called organic architecture. His creative period spanned more than 70 years. He works includes The Guggenheim, swirling, snail-shaped museum in the middle of Manhattan. Fallingwater, which has been called "the best all-time work of American architecture." This is one of Wright's most famous private residences (completed 1937), was built for Mr. and Mrs. Edgar J. Kaufmann, Sr., at Mill Run, Pennsylvania. Constructed over a 30-foot waterfall, it was designed according to Wright's desire to place the occupants close to the natural surroundings. The house was intended to be more of a family getaway, rather than a live-in home.

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/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://franklloydwright.org/work/	The source is the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, connected with Wright's estate	The source is a reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080302053743/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_3153_db078.htm	The source is a major newspaper	The source is a reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	The source is a book published by a major publisher	The source is a reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ 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

Y - although I would not consider the Frank Lloyd site reliable, since it has no oversight.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

---

5

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

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

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8902348/	Source is user-generated content, and may have been written by the subject or someone connected	Source is user-generated content, with little editorial control over accuracy	Source returns 404, so provides zero coverage (until fixed)	✘ No
http://www.bafta.org/wales	Source is an independent film trade association	Source is a reputable published source	Source redirects to the home page, so provides zero coverage	✘ No
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordan-d-98111a125	Source is user-generated content	Source is user-generated content, with little editorial control over accuracy	Source returns 404, so provides zero coverage (until fixed)	✘ No
https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Jordan-David/	Source is user-generated content	Source is user-generated content, with little editorial control over accuracy	Source contains very little content, and doesn't support the claim for which it's cited	✘ 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

Y - Although imdb is independent, no connection to the performer. Same with behindthevoiceactors. Other than that, spot on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

---

6

Sonny Bill Williams 2010

Sonny William Williams (born 3 August 1985), who is a Muslim, is a New Zealand All blacks rugby union footballer, Williams was a Marist Saints junior when he was spotted playing in Auckland by Bulldogs talent scout John Ackland. In 2002 he was offered a contract and moved to Sydney (as the youngest player to ever sign with an NRL club) to play in the Bulldogs' junior grades.

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7505117/2019-Rugby-World-Cup-Sonny-Bill-Williams-expecting-fourth-child.html	Source is a major national newspaper	WP:DAILYMAIL, famous for making shit up freely	Source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1108	Source is his team's website	Source is a reputable published source	Source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10399308	Source is a major national newspaper	Source is a reputable published source	Partial: it confirms his school, but not the important part about the scout spotting him	✘ No
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527943523.html	Source is a major national newspaper	Source is a reputable published source	Source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ 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

Y - spot on. Here's a question, if the NZH had included the part about the scout, would that have changed your view? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes I would, for a single statement of fact, and in a source as reliable as the NZH. Storchy (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

---

7

David Petraeus

David Howell Petraeus AO (/pɪˈtreɪ.əs/; born November 7, 1952) is a retired United States Army general and public official. He served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from September 6, 2011, until his resignation on November 9, 2012 after his affair with Paula Broadwell was reported.

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

In 2003, Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division in the fall of Baghdad

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/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/09/06/petraeus-sworn-into-cia.cnn?iref=allsearch	The source is a major news channel	The source is a reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-petraeus-paula-broadwell_n_2118893	The source is a well known news and commentary website	The source is up-front about their political bias, and are regarded as reliable in WP:RSP	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.geni.com/people/Sixtus-Petraeus/6000000015418360012	Source is user-generated content, and may have been written by the subject or someone connected	Source is user-generated content, with little editorial control over accuracy, not a reliable secondary source per WP:RSP	Flatly states the relationship, with no further detail, and no discussion of their source	✘ No
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005	The source is a well known news and commentary website	The source is up-front about their political bias, and are regarded as reliable in WP:RSP	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/interviews/petraeus.html	The source is a major public television channel	The source is a reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-petraeus-general-surge-401740.html	The source is a well known news and commentary website	The source is up-front about their political bias, and are regarded as reliable in WP:RSP	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ 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

Y- okay, you're getting primary mixed up with independent. A source can be both primary and independent (such as an interview). But interviews, being primary, do not count towards notability (I personally disagree with this, but it is WP guidelines). So the PBS pieces would not go towards notability. The CNN piece is a video, without analysis, so that would not go towards notability either. The Vanity Fair interview, does include other stuff, so it would. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I did mix them up there. For independence, I should have assessed whether there was a relationship between the subject and the source (for example, the Washington Post has become noticeably more supportive of private space exploration, since Bezos bought them). In this case, there's no connection with any of the sources, apart from geni.com, which a friend/family/colleague of the subject might have written on Petraeus' behalf. (In this completely fictional example, which is for training purposes only, This is a work of fiction. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events, is purely coincidental. Storchy (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

---

8

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

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.instagram.com/martinahingis80/	The source is her own social media account	The source is her own user-generated content, but as with WP:RSPTWITTER can be used as a source for an uncontroversial self-description	The source simply says "Swiss tennis player :-)", with photos	✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-us-open-hingis-20170910-story.html	The source is a major newspaper	The source is a reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=4x3fQ920EUMC&pg=PA197&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false	Brassey's Inc was an independent publisher in 2002 when this book was published; now part of University of Nebraska Press	appears to have been a reputable publisher of sports titles	can't tell, as Google Books says that page is unavailable to me	? Unknown
https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/21171438/tennis-another-twist-bizarre-career-martina-hingis	The source is a major sports, news and commentary channel	The channel and its website is a reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/nov/01/tennis	The source is a major national newspaper	The source is a reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ 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

Y - spot on. Nice dealing the with Google Books source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Questions

Question 8

Now that we've covered sources, can you apply your knowledge of GNG and SNGs? For each of the above subjects assessed in the previous section, please identify whether they meet notability guidelines (and how/why), based solely on the sources included on this page (i.e. don't go looking for more sources)

1. Frank Lloyd Wright: notable by WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ARCHITECT. Looking back, I was too hasty in calling the NY Post a reliable source: WP:NYPOST says it's a "generally unreliable" tabloid, though they can probably be trusted when they say that he was the architect of the Guggenheim.
2. Jordan Lennon: fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO, pile of unsourced claims about his career as a teen, ready for speedy deletion (unless better sources can be easily found). The image used is a selfie named "Phoenix King.jpg". Probable hoax.
3. Sonny Bill Williams: notable by WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NRU.
4. David Petraeus: notable by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There's no specific guidance on notability of military personnel, though WP:SOLDIER says there used to be.
5. Martina Hingis: notable by WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NTENNIS.

Y - spot on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Question 9

Please explain in your own words why claims need to be verified?

Claims need to be verified so that readers don't have to take Wikipedia's word for it. As a tertiary source, its role is solely to summarise and present information from reliable primary and secondary sources, and readers (and external reviewers) need to be able to check those sources for accuracy. This is why there are standards for referencing, and for reliable sources. If we poorly cite a reliable source, and the claim it's meant to support therefore can't be verified, then the reference is worse than useless: it looks like a verifying source, but isn't one. Wikipedia also doesn't allow original research in its articles.

Y - Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Question 10

Could we cite Wikipedia as a source? and why?

No, Wikipedia is a user-generated tertiary source, and is therefore unreliable for verifying itself. One exception to this is in articles that are actually about Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident.

Y - spot on. Also, be aware of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It's not using WP as a source, but it does with providing attribution.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Question 11

Give an example of a source that is reliable but not independent of a subject, and explain why.

A reliable newspaper source might not be independent in an article that concerns that newspaper. An example of this is Jayson Blair: the New York Times is a reliable source, but the article concerns a journalist's conduct at the paper, and the paper's response. [https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/us/correcting-record-witnesses-documents-unveil-deceptions-reporter-s-work.html This reference was a reliable, non-independent source, especially for the plagiarism and fabrication section.

Y - spot on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Question 12

Give an example of a source that is independent but not reliable and explain why.

The wp:DAILYMAIL is independent of many topics, but notoriously unreliable on all of them, with a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".

Y - yup.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Question 13

Describe the steps you should take when assessing whether an unfamiliar source is reliable.

This varies a great deal by the type of source, but I'll give a general principle, and then a specific examples.

Generally, the source's owners and staff providing editorial oversight should be known. It should have a reputation, in other reliable sources, for transparency, good fact-checking, and good professional editorial ethics. It should also have a good reputation for declaring its biases and its conflicts of interest. WP:RSP and its archived discussions are good resources for checking on other editors' investigations of sources.

Specifically, for a newspaper source, I would want to know who owns it now, who has owned it in the past, what's their reputation and track record for the aforementioned criteria, and has that changed following any change of ownership (WP:NEWSWEEK springs to mind here). Do they maintain lower standards for "contributor content" like WP:FORBESCON, and do they carry churnalism alongside their real journalism, and how can I check whether a particular article falls under that category. Sometimes it's as much art as science. When a news article is a bit too praiseworthy and uncritical, good editing requires a certain amount of "spidey sense". That's just a summary. I could bang on for pages about this.

Y - yup, you've got the gist. The first thing I look for is an "about" link on an unfamiliar source, that will give you good idea of editorial oversight or not. It's not the end of the process, but it's a good beginning. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Evaluating sources in the wild

Without consulting any existing Wikipedia consensuses, such as those listed at WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG or WP:RSN, assess whether the following sources are reliable. You may refer to Wikipedia articles for the publications if they exist. Be specific as to how and why you came to your conclusions. Sources are often reliable for some content and unreliable for other content: identify what sorts of articles may have reliable and unreliable coverage from a given source, and consider using examples from their website to illustrate your points. Feel free to offer topic-scoped assessments such as "likely reliable for claims related to pop culture" or "reliable for non-political subject matter". For sources in languages that you can't read, please use Google Translate to evaluate the source to the best of your ability.

14 The Moscow Times

According to the Moscow Times article, they're sufficiently independent of the state that they had to move to Amsterdam. There's little info about their editorial oversight on their About Us page, but that could be for quite legitimate security reasons. So it's difficult to know whether they're editorially independent, especially for political reporting. In this case I would go to WP:RSP etc above for further detail, or simply not make a judgment on its use in a new page. Probably safe to say "likely reliable for claims related to pop culture", at least.

Y - damn good analysis. I'm leery about them even though they claim to have moved to be safe... that seems like something the FSB would say. . Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

15 USA Today

According to the article, they're owned by Gannett, which implies they're going to stick to a fairly middle-of-the-road style of editorial policy and news analysis. They publish a list of principles of ethical conduct, which seems a bit like motherhood-and-apple-pie stuff [3], but to their credit they came down hard on two of their journalists when they found them fabricating news stories. They publish a good level of detail about their editorial board [4]. I don't see any churnalism or sponsored content, browsing through today's news. On the face to it, I'd call them generally reliable as a secondary source, especially for US-related subjects.

Y - Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

16 The Hindu

According to the article, they have a long history of good journalistic practice, and several firsts in India for transparency and good editorial standards, including a readers' editor, and praise from a notable medical journal for their health journalism.

Browsing today's news, along with film reviews and sport, they appear to shy away from sensationalist coverage; I see no churnalism or sponsored content. Changes to their ownership and editorial board appear to be newsworthy in other publications [5]. Overall they look like a reliable secondary source, especially for India-related subjects, but would also regard them as a reliable source on world news.

Y - and with any Indian news source, the key is to look for churnalism. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

17 Anadolu Agency

Like any state-run news agency, all citations from this source should be treated as official government statements, not independent, reliable news reports. For Turkey in particular, Censorship in Turkey outlines the present problem of trusting any source currently publishing in Turkey. This website could be useful for an article where verification of an official position of the Turkish government is needed, but not for independent verification of any other topic.

Y - perfect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

18 Popular Mechanics

This magazine seems fairly typical of popular science journalism nowadays: the primary goal is to entertain, and sell ads and subscriptions. The first article to catch my eye on the front page, about a brand of pliers [6], reads like paid promotion, complete with Amazon sales links inline: "We’ve received some samples of Eagle Grip pliers and clamps. Of those, we’ve tested the 10-inch locking plier. It excels in the luster of its nickel finish, the tightness of its action, and the ferocity of its grip." On the same front page is an opinion piece by the CEO of Apple, shamelessly plugging his company. [7] The product reviews section [8] doesn't seem to have a single negative or even middling review. There are some adequately written science articles, e.g. [9] [10], but with inline references to a mix of reliable and unreliable secondary and tertiary sources, ranging from Encyclopaedia Brittanica to Chinese state newspapers. The tone in many of the science articles also veers toward sensationalist "how cool is this?" coverage. Overall, I'd rate it as "use with caution".

Y - although spot on analysis. However, this is considered a reliable source. So it's really like a yellow tick on the outcome, but a green tick on the analysis.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

19 South China Morning Post

According to the article, the paper is currently owned by a large company with close ties to the Chinese government. But the relationship between Hong Kong and mainland China is complex, and as a source I wouldn't write it off simply on the basis of it publishing in China. For example, at the top of the rolling feed on today's front page is an article criticising Chinese gov't policy, quoting a source in London [11], and the headline article seems a reasonably balanced report on Chinese policy in the Arctic, uncritically quoting a US thinktank [12]. There's no evidence of churnalism or paid content. The relationship between the mainland and Hong Kong is of course subject to change, and if the PRC govt were to impose complete censorship on HK papers, it would likely do so slowly and incrementally. The "Editorial stance and staff" section of the article presents a complex picture for an against the paper's editorial independence. Overall I'd say it's a generally reliable source, but I'd likely attribute an article carefully to use it as a secondary source: "According to Joe Bloggs of the South China Morning Post....", especially for subjects related to China.

Y - spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

20 Seventeen

Bimonthly magazine aimed at teens, and that's true of the print and online content: there are articles on the current front page dated from June. There's disclosure of their editorial board [13], and when their editor-in-chief changed fourteen years ago, that was deemed newsworthy in other notable media. They're now owned by Hearst, who run a mixed stable of both real journalism and throwaway infotainment. Browsing through their current news, they have both pure entertainment articles about "things that make us LOL" and this rather good article about the repeal of Roe v Wade, explained in a non-patronising way for teenaged readers, with impeccable secondary sources inline. New articles that we might typically see cited by this magazine could include pop culture and new music releases, and a site search of WP for "seventeen.com" seems to confirm this. The beauty section strays towards product promotion at times, but the health section seems independent, looking through a dozen articles. The best I can say about the magazine as a whole is that I'd judge any secondary sources from it on a case-by-case basis; I wouldn't trust its celebrity gossip articles to reference personal details of a BLP, but for new music releases and general pop culture it seems good enough.

Y - yup, use with caution.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

21 Egypt Today

The WP article on this is quite short, so there's little groundwork done for me on this one, apart from the name of their parent company. According to Worldcat, its subscribers include many notable libraries [14]. I can't find anything in English about their editorial board. Browsing today's news, I don't see any churnalism, reposts or for that matter wire service stories. But I can tell nothing about their fact-checking or editorial policy yet. All articles seem to lack a byline, though the same can be said for reliable sources like The Economist. I would probably read or ask at WP:RSN about this, and use with caution as a secondary source until its reliability is clearer.

Y - although this is one which is closer to reliable than not.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

22 Xconomy

This upmarket blog lists its editorial board [15]. They have favourable reviews from reasonably reliable sources [16], [17]. At first it looked like they hadn't published anything in quite a while: the newest story on their central front page is from October 2020; Boston region's newest is April 2022. Yet a Google search turns up a Boston region story from last week. That alone doesn't mean they're unreliable, it could just mean they have a serious problem with their publishing system. They carry sponsored content [18], and guest contributors' opinion pieces. I'm leaning away from trusting this as a secondary source generally, though it could be useful to verify regional events, and subject-matter experts' guest columns could be useful, in the same way that we treat other professional blogs like BoingBoing and Medium.

Y - this is a press mill. Be very careful of trade publications. They have a very limited useful life.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

23 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

According to three reliable sources at Newspaper_of_record#Selected_existing_newspapers, this high-circulation national newspaper is Germany's newspaper of record. There's probably not much more I could add to that, apart from the fact that they've been banned by two totalitarian regimes, and that they're independently owned by a private foundation. Clearly a reliable general secondary source.

Y - Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

24 Blesk

I'll add a quick review for this one as well, as I'm already familiar with the paper. It's a completely unreliable tabloid rag, with deafening exclamation marks and caps on nearly all of its headlines, like the worst of the UK/German/US tabloids. Good for a laugh, but useless as a secondary source, especially for a BLP.

Y - very good. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

25 La Jornada

According to the article, it's been around for 38 years, and is commercially and politically independent. They are up-front about their left-leaning editorial policy, and they publish their editorial board [19]. News articles all seem to have bylines apart from agency articles. My Spanish is fairly good, and I can find no overtly sensationalist reporting. They do add analysis from a left-wing perspective to news articles, but since they're up-front about their stance and don't pretend to be "neutral", that's not a problem. Sponsored articles or churnalism are nowhere to be seen in Chomsky's favourite paper. They carry a fair few wire service stories from AFP and Reuters, but for a non-profit, six-figures circulation paper that can't afford full-time correspondents around the world, that makes sense. Overall they seem like a good secondary source, especially for Mexico-related news. Storchy (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

26 The Forward

According to the article, the paper (and now the website) has been around for 125 years in various forms, and remains commercially and politically independent. They are likewise are up-front about their left-leaning editorial policy, and publish their editorial board [20]. News articles seem to have bylines, apart from agency articles by Jewish Telegraphic Agency and Reuters. They are openly pro-Israel, though not uncritically so, and in some articles criticise the current Israeli government. Editorially they appear to favour a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I don't see any sensationalist reporting, and opinion columns are in a separate opinion section. Overall they seem like a good secondary source, with clear attribution to clarify the source, which represents a liberal American Jewish perspective on news about Israeli and Jewish affairs.

Y - good analysis, but be careful using this as they can be a biased source (but that's not clear until you really go into their history).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

27 The Daily Californian

It's a student-run newspaper, commercially and politically independent, and publishes its editorial board [21]. News articles seem to have bylines, and there are no agency articles. They do carry sponsored content, though this is clearly marked in each article [22]. It's difficult for me to assess whether there's any overall bias in the reporting. Since it's run by student volunteers, my assumption would be that we can't expect professional quality journalism, though I can't offer any hard evidence for this. I would lean away from trusting this generally as a secondary source, and instead judge any secondary sources from it on a case-by-case basis.

Y - it's not totally financially independent, so there is not truly independent. For the most part, all college newspapers should not be considered independent. There were long discussions about this very paper several years ago, due to several articles relying heavily on the paper and their coverage of buildings in and around the campus being used as the basis for GNG, and that was the outcome.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Content Policy

Article titles

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).

References

Answer:

By WP:COMMONNAME, we use the name by which the subject is best known, rather than the more "correct" name. For example, all three references cited call him simply "Hannibal".

Y - spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:24, 18 October 2022 (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.

References

Answer: As with number 1. above, by WP:COMMONNAME he is almost universally known as "Magic Johnson". The names of his businesses and charity reflect this: Magic Johnson Enterprises, Magic Johnson Entertainment, Magic Johnson Theatres, the Magic Johnson Foundation, etc, as well as the many things named for him: the Magic Johnson Award, Magic Johnson Park, etc.

Y - yup, COMMONNAME rules.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Biographies of living persons

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.

On 15 August 2019, TMZ Sports published a video that appeared to show McGregor punching a man at The Marble Arch Pub in Dublin. 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. McGregor was charged with assault and first appeared in court on 11 October 2019.

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

Answer:

• The first line is an acceptable description for the first line of a lead.
• The second line about him punching someone is given WP:UNDUE weight for a WP:LEAD section, and one of the citations is from RT, an unreliable source. TMZ is also a low-quality source.
• The third line is an unsourced claim about his personal life, and by WP:BLPPRIVACY should be removed from the article immediately unless a reliable source is found. Even if a RS is found, the WP:GOSSIP tone of the sentence is unsuitable, and in any case the sentence this doesn't belong in the WP:LEAD section, which is meant to summarise the most important parts of the article.

Y on all three. Although the exercise doesn't say whether or not these are in the lead. I agree the second line would be UNDUE in the lead, but is fine in the body, as long as the info only includes stuff from the RS. The third line is definitely a no-no.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:30, 18 October 2022 (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. 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).

References

Answer: This looks at first glance like an acceptable WP:LEAD section: the main claims are WP:VERIFY'd by WP:RS, and the WP:LEAD section concisely summarises the most important parts of the article.

However, there's an important unsourced claim tucked in there which looks like recent vandalism: it's extremely unlikely that she lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That's a correct and publicly available phone number for the White House, but by WP:BLPPRIVACY we don't include phone numbers and other personal details in articles. The address and phone number are also not supported by the source cited.

Y - spot on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Images copyright

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: According to WP:Public_domain#US_government_works, some but not all works on .gov and .mil are in the public domain. There's no explicit declaration of the image's license on the page. It appears to be a promotional photo, and it includes a "download image" link. Whether this entitles the downloader to then upload it to Wikipedia or Commons is a separate matter though. The safest course would be to contact the US DoD, and ensure that they give permission for it to be used on the main page.

Answer - link/guideline: WP:Public_domain#US_government_works: In short, we would have to err on the side of caution, and say no, it cannot be used since its license is unclear.

Y - nothing wrong with your answer. In practice, however, if it comes from a .gov website, it's usually safe.

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

Answer- Explanation: Yes, this image is in the public domain.

Answer - link/guideline: WP:Public domain image resources: "Free-Images.com – More than 12 Million Public Domain/CC0 stock images, clip-art, historical photos and more. Excellent Search Results. Commercial use OK. No attribution required. No login required"

Y - yup. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer- Explanation: Yes, all images released under a Creative Commons License may be used on Wikipedia. This image page has a link to the release info on Pixabay.

Answer - link/guideline: Wikipedia:Image use policy

Y - yup. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer- Explanation: No, there's no evidence that the image has been released under a Creative Commons License, and as it's a commercial site selling poster art, it seems highly unlikely that they intend to do so.

Answer - link/guideline: Wikipedia:Image use policy

Y - this could never be uploaded to the main page. But under the right circumstances, you might be able to use it in an article, but you'd have to show that no free images were available. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

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?

A posed portrait of someone gazing soulfully into the distance like Bono usually makes me suspect paid editing. :-)

More generally, if:

• it looks like a promotional photo, with good lighting technique and the subject sitting still, and especially if it has the subject "looking nice for the camera",
• it's an obvious selfie that's unavailable online,
• the uploader describes it as being supplied by the subject, whether of a person, product or place,
• it's likely "Flickr washing", which I only learned about this past weekend. On Commons this requires a deletion nomination, as it often needs to be judged case by case.

Y - all good. The biggest giveaway is when the article creator includes a picture described on Commons as their own work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Neutral point of view

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:

POV: "brilliant", "with a rare and exceptional beauty", "destroyed", "talent and marketability", " a fighter to watch right out the gate".

Rewrite: She is a boxer who turned professional at the age of 19 after winning one amateur fight on December 14, 2013, where she defeated her opponent in 20 seconds. She fought under XXX promotion on her next fight on February 2014.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 18 October 2022 (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:

POV: "popular, acclaimed", "who loves by all who have watched his films", "tender, innocent of the age".

Rewrite: He is a Bulgarian actor. He was born in Veliko Tarnovo, and started working in the film industry at the age of 14. Since then he has featured in 44 films.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 18 October 2022 (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: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as such isn't meant as a vehicle for promoting opinions or noble causes. One way to stick to this goal is to ensure that minority viewpoints are mentioned as appropriate, but are not over-represented so as to imply that they are the mainstream opinion of reliable sources on any topic. Another is to ensure that controversies are not over-represented. In very short articles, equal representation can sometimes amount to over-representation. Another aspect of the WP:DUE policy, only mentioned in passing, is WP:RECENTISM. Over-coverage of recent troubles in an organisation, for example, can imply that the organisation has always had that problem. It's only mentioned in passing at the end of WP:DUE, but I'd argue that WP:WORLDVIEW is a critical part of WP:DUE, since there are some aspects of Western culture, and that of English-speaking countries in particular, that means keeping WP:WORLDVIEW in mind is essential to a neutral, unbiased presentation of most topics.

Y - perfect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Extra neutrality practice

For the following paragraphs, identify if they need any edits for neutrality, and if so, draft a corrected version of the paragraph.

1. Goessling is member of the Cancer Genetics Program and the Gastrointestinal Malignancies Program, both at the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center. He is also advisory dean of the Irving M. London Society for HST students. He has been hailed for his accessbility, compassion and knowledge and his remarkable patient care, even while he has had to fight against his own aggressive malignancy.

Note: Unless you have a subscription to Süddeutsche Zeitung, you're not going to be able to read the entirety of source #4 (and you'll likely need to use Google Translate either way). Translate what you can, and make an educated guess as to whether it justifies the provided content.

Corrected draft:

Goessling is a member of the Cancer Genetics Program and the Gastrointestinal Malignancies Program, both at the Dana–Farber/Harvard Cancer Center. He is also advisory dean of the Irving M. London Society for HST students. He has been described as accessible, compassionate and knowledgable in his patient care, which he provides while he has cancer himself.

References

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

2. Nathaniel Coleman (born January 1, 1997) is an American sport climber. He became the first American male climber to qualify to compete in the Olympic Games after advancing to the final at IFSC Combined Qualifier Toulouse 2019 in November–December, 2019. Coleman won three straight USA Climbing Bouldering Open National Championships, from 2016 to 2018, and finished 2nd in the 2019 competition. He also finished second in the 2019 Combined Invitational.

References

(No edits are needed.)

3. The Disque Foundation is a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit created by Dr. Karl "Fritz" Disque in 2012 in response to a medical mission trip to Hati during the 2010 earthquake. The goal of the Disque Foundation is to further advance the quality of education and health care to under served communities both domestic and abroad. Through mission work and free online courses, the Disque Foundation has empowered over 1,000,000 people around the world with life saving skills.

Corrected draft:

The Disque Foundation is an American 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, created by Dr. Karl "Fritz" Disque in 2012 following a medical aid trip to Haiti during the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The foundation works to improve education and health care in areas with limited access to training and hospitals, in the US and abroad. It offers aid visits and free online courses, and as of 2019 was planning to train over 1,000,000 volunteers in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and advanced life support.

References

YOnel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

4. Patrick John Harrington, QC is a Welsh criminal law barrister and Queen's Counsel. He has acted in more than 250 homicide trials, and has been noted for work on some of "the largest and most complex fraud cases in the UK". He has been referred to as one of Wales' "most prominent" lawyers.

Corrected draft:

Patrick John Harrington, QC is a Welsh criminal law barrister and Queen's Counsel. He has acted in more than 250 homicide trials. The BBC News described him as "one of Wales' most prominent lawyers", having been "leading counsel in some of the largest and most complex fraud cases in the UK".

References

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

No original research

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:

An encyclopaedia is a tertiary or secondary source, not a primary source. Any claims or assertions likely to be challenged, including quotes, and even claims conditionally made or made through WP:Synthesis, must be verifiable from a reliable secondary source. Simply put, a source can be used as primary, secondary or tertiary, but not any of the two at once.

Wikipedia is never meant to be a primary source, and while parts of Wikipedia such as the "In the news" section might be used as a primary source by some readers, they're really reading summaries of secondary sources collected into a central point for ease of access.

Y - it's also closely linked with WP:VERIFY. Also, while there are admins, there is no editorial oversight, which would be crucial if we allowed OR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 19 October 2022 (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:

WP:CALC is one example. If the article has a verified paragraph reporting that there were two astronauts in one space station and three in another during a collision, and that none of them are reported injured, it's acceptable to write "None of the five astronauts involved were reported injured."

Y - and of course, if you uploaded a photo you had taken yourself.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 19 October 2022 (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:

The Australian imam Shady Alsuleiman said in a public forum in 2014 that it is unacceptable for Muslim men and women to wear jeans and similar trousers. He said that Islam commands us to wear clothing that is "baggy" (that is, not tightly fitting), "non see-through", "non colourful attractive", and covering the awrah, and that jeans "100 percent does not fit in that".

References

Y - you can either attribute it to the individual, or something like, "According to a video on Sunni Salafi Islamic organisation Islam Net's YouTube channel..."Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Verifiability

Please read WP:V and answer the questions below

16. Three independent, reliable sources say that a subject has 2 sons, but in reality he has 3 sons. Could we change the content from "2" sons to "3 sons"? Why? Answer:

By "in reality", I assume what's meant is either:

• "it's widely thought" that there's a third son, based on reasonable inference or on synthesis of reliable sources: see WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH
• the third son has been widely reported in unreliable sources: see WP:RS and WP:BLPRS
• a relative with reliable firsthand knowledge of the third son's existence is reading the article and wants to update it: see WP:NOR
• the third son is well documented in a hospital record: see WP:BLPPRIMARY
• the third son and his family actually have documents to prove his parentage, which they want to scan and uploaded to Wikipedia to verify the change: sorry but no, see WP:NOR and WP:BLPPRIMARY. They would need to take those documents to an independent, reliable source, and wait for them to publish their new findings.

By this I'd conclude that we cannot change the content from 2 sons to 3, until new independent, reliable sources are available to correct the older ones. This is particularly important for WP:BLP.

It might be the truth, but... WP:TRUTH.

Y - spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Filtering - Criteria for speedy deletion

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

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	Patent nonsense, that is, incoherent text (not text in a foreign language or poor writing). Not applicable to user pages, where an editor might just want to add some "lorem ipsum"-ish space filler while making test edits. Also not applicable to coherent text that's saying something illogical or ridiculous: there's some overlap with G3 in that case.	"Ubbzubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub"	Y Onel5969 TT me 11:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
2	G2	Test pages: any kind of test creations outside of sandboxes, often made by new editors in good faith. These can be draftified if they might be developed into a valid article. Articles about places sometimes start out like this.	"I WANT TO CREATE WIKI PAGE ABOUT MY SCHOOL PLEASE HELP THANK YOU"	Y Onel5969 TT me 11:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
3	G3	Vandalism and hoaxes. Vandalism is intentional misuse, disinfo and misinfo, "hoaxes" doesn't include articles that are clearly about notable hoaxes, but is rather for attempts to propagate a hoax on WP.	"I invented monkeypox it's true l0lz"	Y Onel5969 TT me 11:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
4	G4	Recreation of a page that was deleted by AFD, and not substantially identical to the deleted article. "Substantially identical" can be a difficult one to call: sometimes five years later, an article on a non-notable film actor or business exec will be re-created, with more poor quality references detailing their latest non-notable achievements in the years since. These often have to go to a new AFD discussion.	Well, Miss Intercontinental springs to mind: see WP:Articles for deletion/Miss Intercontinental 2015.	Y Onel5969 TT me 11:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
5	G5	Banned or blocked users. Articles created by banned/blocked accounts prior to their ban aren't included in G5, but sockpuppet accounts of that main account are. Topics outside of a user's ban are also excluded.	I just had a close encounter with User:Filmfanatic03, and their four sockpuppet accounts. It wasn't clear to me whether their creations required deletion under G5, but while I was wondering about that an admin moved their articles to draft as articles for creation, which seems to be a common response to confirmed paid editing at WP:COI and WP:COIN, though I don't see any hard & fast policy for that.	Y - Generally, this one is easy, as it's usually the socks of the puppetmaster who create articles after the puppetmaster has been blocked. One of the biggest ones I was involved with was with an editor, SportsOlympic, who was a sock of Sander.v.Ginkel. Created thousands of articles. Almost all were deleted: see here. The one caveat is that there can be no substantial contributions by other editors. Take this decision by an admin. What constitutes "substantial" is dependent on the admin. There are other admins who would not have found those contributions substantial. Onel5969 TT me 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
6	G6	Technical deletions, which is sort of an umbrella category for various housekeeping tasks, so this is used for empty outdated maintenance cats like Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations from May 2021 (takes a bow), fixing good faith copypaste moves, etc.	I saw this used once at Mersin Talim Yurdu, where a user pasted the contents of Mersin İdman Yurdu to a corrected title, then redirected. The redirect was reverted at the original; the pasted article was G6'd; the original was moved, job done.	Y - I've found that this is mostly used for redirects blocking article moves. Onel5969 TT me 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
7	G7	Author requests deletion: an article creator can request this if the only edits apart from their own is minor tweaks. An author blanking the article (and leaving it blanked for a while), or posting some sort of comment like "please delete this", can be seen as an implicit request for G7 deletion. This doesn't apply to userspace, talk page, or a category.	Can't point you at a real example, but they live (briefly) in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user.	Y Onel5969 TT me 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
8	G8	Pages dependent on non-existent page, this is mostly for redirects to deleted articles, or for wishful thinking redirects to articles that haven't been created yet, or for talk pages with no article (or for articles that were deleted).	EZRA (TV series) was a redirect to Ezra (TV series), the latter of which was moved to draft (see G5 above).	Y - mostly for talk pages which were not deleted when the article was deleted.Onel5969 TT me 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
9	G9	Office actions: there's no template for this one, since it's done only by certain administrators to fix specific types of legal problems. I hope I'm never involved with it, ever, even tangentially, looking at the times when it's been used or even discussed.	Ohhhhh gggggod please leave me out of this.	Y - personally never seen this.Onel5969 TT me 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
10	G10	Attack pages: these are pages created to disparage or threaten a living person, or to make solely negative allegations about them without reliable sources. Attack sections can be removed and their revisions deleted via WP:OVER, in which case the entire page shouldn't be deleted, but merely fixed and monitored carefully. There are some articles, such as Marc Dutroux, for which there's little to be said apart from coverage of the terrible things they've done. If they're notable by WP:CRIMINAL, and the coverage is well sourced and not sensationalised, then that's not an attack page. So there's a need to proceed with caution on BLPs about criminals, crooked politicians, niche-market porn actors, etc.	This was a ham-fisted attempt to dress a blatant attack page up as a legitimate BLP. WP:OVER took care of it.	Y Onel5969 TT me 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
11	G11	Blatant advertising. If an article at creation can't be made into something that's not an advert without a complete rewrite, it should be deleted, and the article creator can have another go at a rewrite if it was an honest mistake. If it's just a bit promotional, then it should be fixed rather than deleted, even if the creator's intention seems to be to promote something. This applies not just to goods and services sold for money, it also applies to charities, nuns, adorable kittens, etc.	"SpivCorp are the premier global provider of sterilised lark's tears, based in East Fatbucket, Idaho. We are completely focused on your complete satisfaction and are the only provider to offer a 100% money back guarantee..." (continues for another dozen paragraphs)	Y - this is one of the most common speedies you'll encounter, and will be as more and more UPE editors crawl out of the woodwork.Onel5969 TT me 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
12	G12	Blatant copyright violation. Certain writing styles give the game away, but it's important to remember that many new editors don't have any idea why pasting their university's copyrighted website to create an article should be a problem. G11 and G12 often go hand in glove, because an awful lot of websites exist solely to promote things. It's also important to check that the content is actually copyrighted. It might be licensed under a Creative Commons (or compatible) license, or it might be public domain like some government works or expired copyright, etc.	If I saw the sentence "With well over 22,000 used cars for sale in London and the surrounding areas" in a new article, I'd Google for that, in quotes. First hit on Google shows a website with that text. I put the URL into Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which shows that the article is 92% copyright of that page. G11 and G12.	Y - the first thing I do when reviewing an article is a copyvio check (I know that's not what the flowchart says, but I found it works best, for if it's a copyright issue, nothing else matters). Not only Earwig, but when you're using the curate tool, when you click on the page info ("i") button, sometimes an issue will come up which says something like "potential copyvio issue". If you click on that link, you'll see other potential copyvio's not picked up by Earwig. This is particularly useful when uncovering stuff copied from other WP pages. Took me a while to figure this one out.Onel5969 TT me 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
13	G13	If a draft article is more than six months old, it's considered abandoned, and nominate it G13. If the user was in jail for a year (for a crime they didn't commit) and are shocked to find their draft deleted, they can simply ask for a WP:REFUND. I think that the pink deletion summary left behind actually links to WP:REFUND.	Hm, not sure how to cite an example for this one.	Y - when a draft hits 5 months, a warning is sent automatically to the user, so it's not a complete shock, unless the jail situation you mention is in play.Onel5969 TT me 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
14	G14	To prevent clutter and unnecessary clicks, there are a few rules about how best to disambiguate. Sometimes a simple hatnote at David Beckham pointing to David Beckham (botanist) is all that's needed, rather than a disambiguation page. I won't restate the rules at WP:G14, but in a nutshell those rules clarify how if we can disambiguate something better, with a better experience for the reader, without a disambiguation page then the disambiguation page should be deleted G14.	"David Beckham is an English former professional footballer. David Beckham may also refer to: David Beckham (actor), English actor David Beckham (botanist), English botanist"	YOnel5969 TT me 16:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Article and redirect criteria

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	No context: it's not empty, but it's so short, vague and unsourced that the subject can't be identified. If it sounds as if it might be notable, but hasn't been edited for hours, moving to draft can be an alternative to deletion. Often a quick Google will turn up reliable sources on something notable, and it can be turned into a stub article.	Article title: "X3000", article text: "Will be released next month, budget 150 million dollars". Hmmm, could be a film, a phone, a music video, a jet pack, or who knows what. Might be worth moving to draft, but it shouldn't stay in main space for long in that state.	Y Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
2	A2	If an article has been simply pasted here from Wikipedia in another language, then it needs to be either moved to draft for translation, or deleted A2. This doesn't apply to new articles written from scratch in another language: those get nominated instead for translation. If it's a new article written from scratch on a subject for which there's already an article in English, then it would probably be deleted A10. If we only have a stub on a subject in English, and someone's written what appears to be a good, well sourced article in another language, then it could be moved to draft for translation and merge.	If someone pasted fr:Éditions Lucien Souny here and left it for to someone else to translate and fix the errors arising, since it's clearly notable I'd notify the article creator and move it to draft (and maybe get to work translating it). Technically though, it could be nominated for deletion A2. But if someone posted a new article in Zulu with a reliable source about a newly elected member of the Parliament of South Africa, I'd tag it for translation.	Y - spot on. Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
3	A3	Empty, or near-as-dammit empty, by the rules at WP:A3. These could in theory be moved to draft, but if it's empty, then there's little point. An article with an infobox isn't empty, but these can be draftified.	Article title: Samsung Galaxy S24. Article content: Category:Samsung mobile phones.	Y Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
5	A5	If an article has been copied to another, more appropriate wiki such as Wiktionary or Wikisource, or if the outcome of an AFD discussion is to transwiki, then we delete the original from Wikipedia.	I'm having some difficulty finding an example, as the logs and categories for this all seem to be archives from old procedures. Examples must exist somewhere.	Y - rare, so yes, examples are hard to find.Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
7	A7	A new article can have "no credible claim of significance", either if there's no claim to significance, or if the claim is not credible.	Example 1: "Joe Bloggs is an actor." Example 2: "Joe Bloggs is an actor, winner of hundreds of Academy Awards, and currently the highest paid actor in Hollywood."	Y - a good example came up today with Ossie Astley (Rick Astley's father). Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
9	A9	This is similar to A7, but is just for musical recordings, where there's no article for the composer or performer, and no credible indication of why the record might be notable.	" "Nobody really gets how special I am" is the debut single of The Underappreciated, an indie rock band from Angst, Iowa, formed in October 2022."	Y - if there is an article for the artist, then redirect to that as an ATD.Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
10	A10	Recently created duplicate: we don't have multiple articles on the same topic. We can redirect new articles to the original, optionally merging any new, useful, well sourced content, or we can nominate for deletion A10, if it's not a plausible redirect.	If a new article titled Robert Zimmerman (musician) was created, substantially duplicating Bob Dylan, we would have the choice of redirecting (or merging) the new one to the old, or deleting A10. There's a minor risk that the redirect might be hijacked to be about some other, non-notable musician with this name, but there are ways of dealing with that. Since Dylan is already included on Robert Zimmerman, I'd probably lean toward deletion in this case, but it's not that big a deal.	Y - although in that very particular instance I'd simply create a redirect to the Dylan article. Where this happens is in film articles or bios where a dab (or a nickname) makes the 2nd article able to be produced. For example, The Return of Peter Grimm (film) could be created for The Return of Peter Grimm (1935 film). Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
11	A11	Obviously WP:MADEUP stuff. Not hoaxes, but good faith creations that stand no chance whatsoever of ever being about a notable subject.	Punch The Face is a game of endurance for two players, invented on October 24, 2022 by high school students Noah Hoper and Nada Chance. The rules of the game are as follows: the two players ride unicycles in a circle in an open space. Every five minutes, one player takes a turn at making a single punch to the face of their opponent. The players alternate until one player is rendered unconscious or withdraws from the game. Hoper and Chance plan to create a global league for the game in 2023. References	Y - love the example.Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
12	R2	Wikipedia allows links from articles in main space to Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal:, but not to other namespaces, especially Draft:. If there's no useful way to replace the cross-namespace link, for example a plausible link to another main space article, then it should be deleted R2. A repaired link to a draftified article would also fall under this category.	#REDIRECT Draft:Cartoon Network Russia is a draft and should not be linked to from a main space article. A new redirect from Cartoon Network (Russia) to that draft would need to be either deleted R2, or redirected to Cartoon Network (Russian & Southeastern European TV channel)	Y - spot on.Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
13	R3	Implausible (or joke) redirects are not allowed on Wikipedia. If a more suitable target can't be found, then the new redirect should be deleted R3.	Worst president ever redirects to Historical rankings of heads of government, and not to Warren G. Harding (or your own preferred worst US president). Warrunnn Gee Harrding would be better off deleted, as it's an implausible typo.	Y Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenarios

For scenarios 1-3, 9, 11-13, and 15-19 all names are made-up and should not be looked up outside of the training environment; the rest may be searched. These can be broken up into multiple practice sets so as to not overwhelm the trainee.

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.

Answer: Speedy G10, attack page. Username is also disruptive.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 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.

Answer: Speedy A7 and G11, blatant spam for non-notable company.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 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.

Answer: Speedy A7, no credible indication of notability as an actor or musician.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 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.

Answer: Draftify: there seems to be a well known roadie by that name, according to these (admittedly poor quality) references [23], [24], and some mentions in Google Books. Might just make a worthwhile article.

Y - personally, I would have A7'd it, but your instincts are sound.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 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.

Answer: That's a bit hard to parse out of context, but not impossible, so it's not eligible for A1. It appears to be a copy from an old law journal [25], and it might require deletion for copyright infringement, G12.

Y your approach is fine. On the earwig tool you'd get a major hit, but US government, and US caselaw cases are free to use, so G12 wouldn't apply. Personally, it would depend on the sourcing for me. If it only had a single source (which is most likely when you see microstubs like these), I would draftify. It could be notable, but there's no indication of its notability in the stub.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.

Answer: If online translation tools couldn't work out what language it's in, I would still tag it for translation rather than delete. But if the "foreign language" was an obvious hoax ("eep org argle bargle calloo callay") it should be nominated for deletion G1, G3, or both.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.

Answer: Speedy G7.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 8

A user creates an article which is an identical copy of another article on Wikipedia.

Answer: Speedy A10, Wikipedia doesn't do identical copies.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 9

A user with the name "WikiRockers" creates the following article

Phabricators are Fabulous is the debut single of an exciting new group called the WikiRockers. 

Answer: Speedy A9, no article for the exciting new group, no references, and no clue as to how any of this is notable. Probably G11 as well, but it's only a sentence.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 10

A user creates an article and 5 minutes after it was created the article only has a single category with no other text.

Answer: I would wait longer than 5 minutes: it takes a lot longer than that to create a new article, especially for new editors. If it stayed that way for a lot longer, then it could be nominated for deletion A3.

Y - the "rules" say you should wait 15 minutes. I rarely do a delete tag (except for copyvios and attack pages) in under 3 hours. But then again, I do most of my reviewing from the back of the queue.

Scenario 11

A user creates an article Larry Footy with the following wikisource (in other words it properly displays in the article):

{{Infobox football biography
 |name = Larry Footy
 |birth_place = [[Leeds, England]]
 |currentclub = [[Oxford City]]}}

Answer: I would first do a quick search to see if Mr. Footy is notable, and try to make it into a quick stub. If not, then I'd either draftily or speedy A7.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 12

A user with the name Gamerfan123 creates the following article:

GamerCon is an annual event held in the garage of Shelly Sony. Last year 10 people attended - a record. This year's event will be held October 19-21.

Answer: Sounds unlikely that a Google search would turn up evidence that this was notable, so I'd probably nominate for deletion A11, A7, or both.

Y - I'd hit it with both.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 13

A user creates the article HomeTown Pizza with the following content:

HomeTown Pizza is a local pizza maker. It has been open since 2004. Its most popular topping, according to the local paper, is pepperoni.[1]

References
1.^ localalnewspaper.com/hometownpizza/profile.html

Answer: Quick online search, in case someone was writing about the next Pizzeria Bianco in Phoenix. If it's just a run-of-the-mill pizza maker, then it should probably be nominated A7.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 14

A user Someguy54321 makes the following article and 3 days later gets community banned for repeatedly operating a bot without approval.

Mary Beth Walz is a state senator in the New Hampshire House of representatives.

Answer: No action: the user created the article before their ban.

N - while G5 wouldn't apply, at best you should draftify the article, as it's wholly unsourced.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I was focused here on the CSD criteria above, and missed that it wasn't sourced. It's hard to simulate a new page in this format.

Yes it's an unsourced one-line BLP, so I'd first do a quick search for sources, and as it's unlikely that someone's a US state senator with no mention online, I'd draftify, or optionally give it a BLP prod, and maybe even tag it as a possible hoax.

Scenario 15

User:PhilHDoct creates the following article at Solar Panel 2.0:

Phil Doct has created a new solar panel which will increase energy output from existing solar panels by 30%. He was granted a patent on this invention on May 15.

Answer: Quick online search, in case article PhilHDoct was writing about something quite amazing which is getting a lot of press coverage. It skates a little bit toward promotion though, and there appears to be a direct conflict of interest. User:PhilHDoct should be asked about potential COI, and if it's really significant then the article should be draftified, and User:PhilHDoct should not edit it directly, but propose edits at the talk page.

Y - I'd definitely draftify with a UPE/COI concern.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 16

A user converts a redirect Tayo into an article with the following wikisource. In your answer, also evaluate if anything would be different if a user made this as a new article, rather than from a redirect.

[[Tayo the Little Bus|<span style="color: #0088ff;">You: Kill Tayo!!!!!!!!!!! </span><span style="color: #33ff0a;">Rogi: Nooooo You!!!!!!! </span><span style="color: #00a2ff;">Tayo:Help!!!!! Blood, this is my sad</span><span style="color: #ff2600;"> Gani: Call Emergency!!!!!
<span style="color: #0088ff;">You: Kill Gani!!!!!!</span><span style="color: #eeff00;"> Lani:321! Bomb you!!!</span>]]

Answer: Revert vandalism back to redirect, and warn the user.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 17

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Assume that there is secondary sourcing present for all statements.

Acme Inc is a Mumbai based widget company with 1200 employees and 10 million (US) in revenues. They were founded in 2015 by Wiley C Oyote. Their first product was a one inch widget. Acme have won several awards for quality.

Answer: There appears to be a direct conflict of interest. User:John from Acme Inc should be asked about potential COI, and if it's really significant then the article should be draftified, and John from Acme Inc should not edit it directly, but propose edits at the talk page.

Y - In my opinion, this should be draftified 100% of the time, and the reason spelled out the message to the creator. I have created several standard responses to customize the message, they can be found out User:Onel5969/Draftify templates. UPE is probably the one I use most.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 18

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Assume that there is sourcing to the company's website present for all statements.

Acme Inc is the premier award-winning Indian widget company. Located in beautiful Mumbai, the company has 1200 hard-working dedicated employees who have powered the company to over 10 million (US) in revenues. In a flash of inspiration brilliant inventor Wiley C Oyote started the company in 2015. Their first product revolutionized widgets and amazingly each new product has been even more impressive. Acme has shown themselves to be the best in the business and only has the greatest things ahead of them. "If you want widgets, you want Acme," Chief Marketing officer John Roadrunner said.

Answer: Speedy G11, needs a complete re-write.

Y - although be aware that some admins will deny almost any G11. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 19

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article.

Acme Inc is an award-winning[1][2] Indian widget company. The company has 1200 hard-working dedicated employees[3] who have powered the company to over 10 million (US) in revenues.[2] We were founded in 2015 by Wiley C Oyote.[3] Our first product was a one inch widget.[4] Acme has become an important widget manufacturer.[3] "If you want widgets, you want Acme," Chief Marketing officer John Roadrunner said.[4]

==References==
1.^ Indian company customer reviews. http://www.indiancustomers.com/Acme
2.^ Reporter, A. "Acme Wins Award". Mumbai Newspaper. October 20, 2018.
3.^ "Why Acme" acmewidgets.com
4.^ "Acme brings Widget to Market" www.pressreleases.com

Answer: This one is borderline spam, but if that's the whole article, then it might be fixed. The sources are all primary (apart from the Mumbai newspaper, though that would need checking for independence). There appears to be a direct conflict of interest. User:John from Acme Inc should be asked about potential COI, and if it's a significant company then the article should be draftified, and John from Acme Inc should not edit it directly, but propose edits at the talk page.

Y - I'd draftify as UPE.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 20

An editor creates a redirect titled "Sittin Chapel" pointing at Sistine Chapel

Answer: R3, implausible typo.

YOnel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 21

An editor creates a redirect titled "Bornio" pointing at Borneo

Hmm, this might go to a deletion discussion, but I'd say that's a plausible redirect. Alternatively, it could be turned into a disambiguation page for Bornio da Sala, Antonio Bornio, Carlo Bornio, Bornio in Villanova del Ghebbo, Bornio in Veneto, etc. with See also: Borneo at the end.

Y - I'd go with plausible redirect - especially for non-English speakers.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 22

An editor creates a redirect titled "St Augustine," pointing at St. Augustine

Answer: No action, plausible alternative spelling.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 23

An editor creates a redirect titled "New Joyzee" pointing at New Jersey

Answer: Haha, R3 for implausible typo, though there used to be a funny SNL sketch about this.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenario 24

An editor creates a redirect titled "Caltary" tagged with {{R from misspelling}} pointing at Calvary

Answer: I'd go for R3 for implausible typo, though it might be argued by some that "t" is fairly close to "v" on a QWERTY keyboard.

Y - I agree, it might be plausible, but probably not.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

---

2. Please read WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11 and provide 5 successful CSD 11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Please provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.

Answer i: Fifth Season (company)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer ii: Draft:MarCom Pvt Ltd

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer iii: Draft:Asimblogspot

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer iv: Draft:Md. Ekramul Kabir

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer v: Draft:Blue Horizon Maldives

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Please read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and answer the questions below.

3. When do we nominate a page for WP:G12 and when do we WP:REVDEL the COPYVIO text?

Answer:

A page should be nominated for speedy deletion only if there is no copyright-free content that can be salvaged, including in its revision history. It's better to roll back to a previous version if possible, and use WP:REVDEL to remove the copyrighted revisions.

If only part of an article is copyrighted, then that part can be deleted and the rest of the article left intact. In fact, we could rewrite a completely copyrighted article as a short stub, and WP:REVDEL the previous version. But I think in practice copyrighted articles tend to get blown up and rewritten.

Y - my personal rule of thumb is more than 75% of the article is copyvio, than G12, else remove copyvio and revdel.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

4. What constitutes copyright infringement/violation.

Answer:

On Wikipedia, this can be verbatim copies of copyrighted text, copies of copyrighted images. Very close paraphrase can also be considered as infringement. The definition of what constitutes copyrighted content can be complex, and varies with the laws of various countries and jurisdictions. When we find that something is copied from another source online, and it's not obviously a Wikipedia mirror or content published under a Commons-compatible (or GFDL) license, we should assume that the content is copyrighted, even if it doesn't say (c) or "copyright" on the page. Owners of content can donate it to Wikipedia, as described in WP:DCM

Y, but remember there are certain sources (like .gov) which can be copied verbatim.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

5. What are some examples of cases where it is ok to have exact copies of text from sources in an article? Please provide three examples.

Answer i:

Reasonably short, attributed quotes of copyrighted text, as noted at WP:COPYQUOTE. For example, we could include a short, referenced quote from a politician's speech, to illustrate a notable point about their career in their bio, or we could include a short, referenced quote of a notable film review in an article about a film.

Y - again, remember there are sources which are in the public domain, not just .gov. While I've never done it, you could copy text from a newspaper article published in 1906 and that would be okay.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer ii:

Copies of freely licensed content (Commons/GFDL), so for example we can quote and copy freely from MIT OpenCourseWare.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer iii:

Donated content: if I wrote something on a copyrighted blog that stunned the world with its brilliance, then I the license holder could donate it to WP, either by putting a Copyleft notice on that blog page, or by emailing WP. I could also add a {{Text release}} notice at the WP article talk page to clarify.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

6. Why do copyright violations need to be removed from Wikipedia and who determines when a violation is lawfully taking place?

Answer:

Wikipedia is legally bound to remove copyrighted content. If we didn't make best efforts do this, WP could be sued, and potentially collapse under the weight of legal and financial penalties. There are also moral considerations of not plagiarising other authors' work.

The first line of determination of a copyright violation is any editor who reads an article. If something looks copyrighted, then all editors are responsible for checking to make sure that it isn't. This is determined by the copyrighted policy guidelines, and if we're unsure about whether something is copyrighted, then we can ask other editors at the appropriate WP:CV#Noticeboards.

Y - the actual determining of copyright violations is done by an Admin.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

---

7. Please read WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and provide 5 successful CSD 12 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Pls provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log. You can use Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool to check if an article is in violation of COPYVIO. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.

Answer i: Draft:Das Ganu Maharaj-Shirdi

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer ii: Draft:Dr Pushpa Dixit

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer iii: Draft:Muyideen Alade Aromire

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer iv: Draft:Amazon App CS11 Error?

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer v: Draft:Prince khudaniya

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

---

8. Pls provide 5 successful CSD in any criteria except WP:G11, WP:G12 and WP:G13 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Please provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.

Answer i: Sourav Saha, A7

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer ii: Mustafavi Students Movement, G7

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer iii: Mustafavi Students Movement, Pakistan, G8

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

---

9. Please read WP:R2 and WP:NPPDRAFT. Please explain when to a new page (NPP article) can be nominated for CSD R2 and what should be considered when doing such move?

Answer:

If a new article is not yet in a fit state for main space, then an alternative to deletion is moving it to Draft space, where it can be improved without risk of deletion. For example, a new article on newly elected official to a notable position, and an article was thrown up hurriedly without any references for a BLP. If the references can be found easily in English language sources with an online search, then the article can simply be improved in situ. But maybe the official is in a country without rapidly updated online news media, or where there's heavy government censorship. Decent references in that situation could take time, so rather than BLP prod it, it could be moved to draft, and editors with the required language skills could improve it, or maybe online translation can be used to find the required sources. Sometimes "draftify" is an outcome of an Articles for deletion discussion.

Moving an article to draft leaves the problem of the link from main space. Wikipedia allows links from articles in main space to Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal:, but not to other namespaces, especially Draft:. If there's no useful way to replace the cross-namespace link, for example a plausible link to another main space article, then it should be deleted R2. A repaired link to a draftified article would also fall under this category. If there are useful inbound links to the main space article, then a redirect tagged "with possibilities" will show that the draft exists for interested editors.

Y - I do a lot of reviewing, so naturally I have a lot of articles I've sent to draft. If an article is say about a member of the Pakistani parliament, and it only consists of 2 lines and the one reference to the primary source, that's going to pass WP:NPOL, so I would mark it reviewed and tag with a single source and primary source tag. But draftification would definitely not be out of line in that instance. Yes, you'd have to R2 the redirect the move created, unless you have the PAGEMOVER ability, which lets you move pages without leaving redirects behind, and automatically moves stuff to draft without leaving a redirect.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

---

10. Please read and A1-A11 and R2 at WP:CSD and and provide 5 successful "Article CSD" articles (with at least two of them are CSD A7) you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Please provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.

Answer i CSD A7:

Anupam Gaur

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer ii CSD A7:

Dogga

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer iii CSD R2:

Žijeme len raz (please see my draftify log, as I used User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js rather than Twinkle)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer iv CSD R2:

Barton's Candy Corporation, again, moved and tagged by script.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer v any criteria:

Luigi Forino CSD G11 and G12

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Conflicts of interest and paid editors

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

11. How do we spot a COI/PAID editor?

Answer:

The signs can vary pretty widely, but some giveaways include highly polished articles from accounts with low edit counts; frequent reference to press releases, paid pieces and churnalism; posed photos of individuals or professional-looking photos of buildings and products; one or more accounts' highly focused interest in an organisation and/or people connected with it; over-enthusiastic descriptions of product features; a general indication that the account is there to promote something or someone. Sometimes this is a joint effort with other, similar accounts, in coordinated edits, either in the same article or in related ones. One thing I've noticed lately is single-use-plastic accounts uploading an obvious promotional photo to Commons, and then a second account adding it to a new article.

Y - excellent, I've noticed that last thing as well. The single biggest giveaway is when the article creator has uploaded the photo in the article as their own work.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

12. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a COI editor?

Answer:

So far I've generally first asked the user politely about it at their talk page. More often than not, they had no idea they were doing anything wrong, and are happy to abide by COI guidelines once they've found their way to the right guidelines, and understand them. WP:BITE is important here: a new editor will often start out by writing about the subject they know best. If they don't seem able to understand why COI is a problem, and why their edits really are promotional, then I should warn them to avoid the topic. There's a good template for that, but a free text explanation is sometimes better.

If I get no response, then I can either go to the COI noticeboard for advice and discussion, or if they continually revert an article to a promotional version then there are separate remedies for that.

I'm currently helping out two friendly COI editors who want to stick to the rules over at Talk:Neiman Marcus, and it's going very well: they're simply trying to update the page, and correct some errors. Sometimes I'll need to explain to a new editor that that's the right way to do it; other times the article needs to get moved to draft for obvious undisclosed paid editing. Most of the time it's been another user (often an admin) who does the move to draft. On at least two occasions that I recall, the article turned out fine in the end, after cleanup by uninvolved editors and a backing-off by the COI/PAID editor.

Blatant, obvious spam gets speedy deleted, mmmbuh-bye.

Y - there's nothing wrong with your answer. 100% of the time, I send the article to draft, with a message specific for UPE/COI editors (unless it's a G11). This is because UPE/COI are, per WP policy, submit their articles through AfC.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

13. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a paid editor?

Answer:

If it's freely disclosed in what looks like best efforts, then I would proceed as in (12) above: move the new article to draft, and explain (with a template if necessary, but free text is often best) that once it's published that they'll need to follow guidelines on updates by requesting edits at the talk page, etc.

If it's undisclosed, after a few nudges at their talk page, and it appears they're deliberately keeping UPE quiet, then I should report them at WP:ANI or WP:COIN, being careful not to out anyone if their username is linked to their real identity (and mailing paid-en-wp or Checker if necessary rather than posting to outable info to a noticeboard). The admin can then block the account if needed, and the article can be moved to draft or deleted.

Y - if you suspect UPE, always send it to draft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Filtering - Deletion policy & other alternatives

In assignment 4, we looked at articles which meetWP:Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) and which can be deleted promptly after nomination. In Assignment 5, we discuss the what actions should be taken for those articles do not fit under the CSD criteria but do not meet relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia.

Please read WP:PROD, WP:BLPPROD, WP:MERGE, WP:DRAFTIFY, WP:NPPDRAFT and WP:REDIR, WP:AFD and answer the following questions. (Provide links and hisdiff as needed.)

1. Under what circumstances do we propose deletion (PROD) a page and why do we do that?

Answer:

Prod is for uncontroversial deletions of articles that don't meet WP's criteria for inclusion, but which don't meet the CSD criteria. Potentially contentious deletion proposals need to go to AFD.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer:

Before PRODding, a reasonably thorough check should be made to ensure it meets the deletion criteria. An article with a mildly promotional tone doesn't qualify, nor does something that just sort of seems not that notable. We aren't all experts in every field, and some of aren't experts in any, so a careful check of the relevant guidelines is essential, rather than say "She's not that notable because I've never heard of the political office she was elected to." The article must also genuinely fail to meet the guidelines for inclusion, which typically involves questions of notability.

We also have to think hard about whether the nomination would really remain unchallenged by most editors. For me, this would probably crop up with pop music and teen culture: inclusion criteria are pretty broad for some of that stuff. (shrugs) If there's a reasonable doubt of whether the deletion rational might be challenged, then it should go to AFD.

During a nomination, we have to give a coherent rationale for deletion in the PROD tag, and notify the article creator at their user talk page. Marking a PROD as a minor edit is not nice. Adding an old-prod tag to the article talk page is helpful.

Y - while your answer isn't wrong, there are several key things which must be done before prodding. First, WP:BEFORE must be done. On my prods, for example, you'll commonly see comments like, "Can't find any in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources". In addition to BEFORE, you also have to make sure it hasn't been prodded before, or had an AfD before, or been undeleted.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

3. What is the criteria when nominating a BLPPROD? If we choose not to BLPPROD a page what are the alternatives? (give three examples with explanations)

Answer:

If an article is a biography of a living person, but contains no sources whatsoever that support anything that's written about the person, then it should be BLPPRODded. The BLPPROD can't be removed unless a RS is added that verifies something in the article. If it's an older article, not from NPP, then we should check the history to make sure it wasn't sourced well enough earlier. If so, we can roll back, or gather the sources from a previous version.

Y - be aware that "a reference" just doesn't refer to something marked as a reference. For example, if an article is unsourced, but has a link to the website that the person is president of, that counts, if that source would be considered reliable. Similarly, if there is an external link. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Alternatives to BLPPROD include:

• Add a reliable source, rather than just BLPPROD a page when 5 seconds on Google would have turned up an adequate source.
• Move it to draft, and watch it to make sure the creator doesn't move it right back unsourced.
• Redirect to a related article, which helps future expansion if reliable sources can be found for the BLP. An example of this might be an unsourced biography of a businessperson: this could be redirected to a company article, if there's reasonable grounds to conclude that they do work for that company, but perhaps only press releases are currently available.

Y - spot on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

4. In what circumstances can we nominate an AFD and what step should be done prior such action.

Answer:

AFD is for deletions of articles that don't meet WP's criteria for inclusion, but which don't meet the CSD criteria. Potentially contentious deletion proposals can't be simply prodded, and must go to a fuller discussion to gain as broad a consensus as possible on whether the article fails WP guidelines for inclusion.

As with PRODding, a thorough WP:BEFORE check must be made to ensure it meets the deletion criteria. The edit history must also be checked, to ensure that a good article hasn't been wrecked by poor editing or vandalism, and for reliable sources which can be rescued via an archive like the Wayback Machine, which wouldn't otherwise have been found in a WP:BEFORE search. Inbound links should be checked for clues on notability, for previous PRODs, AFDs and CSDs, and for interlanguage links that might turn up better articles in other languages, which can be mined with translation tools for good sources.

Y - although the minimum requirement is the BEFORE search. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

5 How long do PROD, BLPPROD and AFD last before it is deleted or decline?

Answer:

PRODded and BLPPRODded articles can be deleted seven days after nomination. Any editor can decline a PROD, and though a reason should be given by the declining editor, it's not mandatory.

AFD discussions last at least seven days, though a page can be resisted multiple times if required, to gain a fuller consensus.

CSD'd articles can be deleted immediately, if the deleting administrator agrees with the nomination.

Y - note that AfD's should rarely be relisted more than twice.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

6. Suppose a page has been previously BLPROD and a source was provided. If you still think that article should be deleted, what can you do?

Answer:

If the article was correctly BLPPRODded and only unreliable sources are provided (such as blogs or deprecated sources), then the BLPPROD nomination should be restored, with an explanation at the decliner's talk page if required. If a reliable source is provided, but the article still seems to fail on other guidelines, then the article can be PRODded once. If PROD is also declined, then it can be taken to AFD if necessary.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

7. What are the reason to WP:Merge a page to another page?

Answer:

Merging can be done to avoid duplicate articles If a new page substantially duplicates another, but there's useful info in the new page that would be lost if the new page were simply deleted.

Pages can also be merged if two or more topics are closely related enough that a single article makes more sense than multiple articles: an example might be two very similar variants of a mobile phone. If a new article covers one very limited aspect of a subject, with little hope for expansion anytime soon, then it can make sense to merge the new smaller topic to the main article. For example, a new article on a member of a band, and only notable for their work in that band, can be merged to the band article.

Short articles that lack context outside of the main article can also be merged to the main one. For example, a short new article on a new feature of Microsoft Windows, with little reason for it being enlarged to a standalone article, could be merged to the Windows article. MS Windows is a vast subject though, so the target would need to be chosen with care: it might be best to include it in the article about the latest version, Windows 11.

Y - excellent, covered the most relevant reasons for merging. I just had an example where an editor was creating articles of lists of mayors for small towns in South America (towns with less than 10k pop). The town articles themselves were barely more than stubs. So I merged all of them.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Answer:

• Alternative names or spellings, such as Imran Riaz Khan redirecting to Imran Khan (journalist). (This is under discussion now at Talk:Imran Khan (journalist).)
• Plurals can redirect to a singular title, or vice versa. Many readers will search for articles on horses, which redirects to horse to keep the title WP:SINGULAR.
• Related words can be redirected. For example, [[:Obstetrician] redirects to Obstetrics
• Alternative capitalisations can be redirected. For example, Natural Language Processing redirects to Natural language processing, as explained in WP:NCCAPS.
• Plausible misspellings, such as Jo Biden, can be redirected.
• Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms are redirected, when they are the WP:COMMONNAME of the full spelling, such as IBM or NATO. The reverse is also true.
• More specific forms of names can be redirected to their WP:COMMONNAME, such as United States of America redirecting to United States.
• Minor punctuation errors can be redirected to the corrected title: David Lloyd-George redirects to David Lloyd George.
• ASCII accent errors can be redirected to the corrected title: Zurich redirects to Zürich.
• Disambiguation pages ending in "(disambiguation)", but which don't yet have a primary topic redirect to a disambiguation page without one. For example, Lithium battery (disambiguation) redirects to Lithium battery.

Y - those are all valid reasons, but they will rarely be seen in NPP (except for redirect patrol). What is more prevalent is if a person or company (or film or song/album) has not established notability. In the first instance, the person might be the CIO of a company, where they are mentioned, so you could redirect to the company, or you could redirect an actor to the film/tv show which is their most notable role; in the second instance, the company might be a subsidiary of another company which does have an article. If they are mentioned in the parent company's article, that would be a valid ATD. Films that fail notability can be redirected to their director's page (or filmography); songs can be redirected to the album they are from (first choice) or to the musician's page (2nd option), while albums can be redirected to the musician. Here are some examples: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a political candidate that doesn't meet WP:NPOL, can be redirected to the election she is currently in; Craigshill Thistle C.F.C., which did not show enough notability, so I redirected to the league they are a part of; The Complete 1969 Recordings did not pass WP:NALBUM; Michael Creek did not pass GNG, so redirect to club he plays on; YES Prep Fifth Ward, did not pass GNG, so redirect to school district. Anyway, you get the idea. Most of the time, it's simple to figure out a redirect target. But sometimes it's not. If you can't figure out where to redirect, one way to figure out if you can redirect, rather than prod/afd/csd is do a search on the term. That way you'll see if an appropriate target comes up where the article's subject is mentioned. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

9. Please list the ways that you should search for sources in preparation for a PROD or AfD nomination, including steps which may only be relevant for certain subjects. How does this list change for subjects which are likely to have coverage in languages that you cannot read?

Answer:

A WP:BEFORE search normally starts with an online search (probably Google, Google News, Google News Archives, and Google Books). For academic subjects there's Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, and I've also got access to Scopus. For topics which are likely to have RS in another language, it's often possible to translate search terms (such as a person's name) into another language and script using online translation, and then Google for that to see if RS can be found. This can be tricky: if it's a common name in that language, then the whole article needs to be translate to make sure that the reference is actually about the topic. In some languages (like Chinese) online translation doesn't work that well. Sometimes posting to a WikiProject for a certain country will turn up volunteers to either point out some good sources, or even to add them to the article: a friendly editor at WikiProject India helped me with this a few months back.

Y - excellent, you covered all the bases. Personally, I rarely use a simple google search, as that brings up tons of irrelevant hits.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

10. When can an article be moved to draft space?

Answer:

Articles that would meet WP guidelines, but aren't yet in a fit state for publication with no sign of active improvement, can be moved from main space to draft space as an alternative to deletion (WP:ATD-I). Often a quick Google search shows that it's about a notable subject with plenty of RS, and all that's needed is a bit of TLC to turn it into a good article. Any copyrighted text needs to be removed: if that's nearly the whole article, then editors can either immediately replace and revel the copyrighted content, or speedy delete it G12.

It's a judgement call what "active improvement" means: an hour with no edits? three hours? a day? I've dropped the waiting time down before with articles that are in a truly unreadable state with no sources, but are about something obviously notable. An example of this would be a BLP about an obviously notable politician, created by someone with low fluency in English. On the other hand, if their English is that poor, they'll sometimes just keep recreating the article, out of a lack of understanding of what the problem is.

"Draftify" is also a possible outcome of AFD.

Y - The new script by MPGuy2824 is a very good tool. I still use the old one by Evad, as I have my own personalized messages to send to folks depending on why I'm draftifying. The main reason I draftify is UPE/COI. Then I have: UPE/COI with additional sourcing concerns; GNG issues; additional citations needed (this is for when I would have to literally gut the article - remove at least 50% of it - to get rid of all the unsourced content); one for NFOOTY concerns (but these I usually redirect to the team, but if they are for an older player who is no longer playing, I draftify).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional questions about Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they relate to deletion discussions

1. In your own words, describe the difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. Also explain briefly how references to each of these may be used in deletion discussions Answer: To be as concise as possible: policies lay down rules (for example, copyrighted text without a compatible license gets removed, contentious allegations in a BLP get removed; attack pages get instantly deleted); guidelines give advice on best practice arrived at by consensus, where the boundaries are too hazy and full of exceptions to create a policy; essays discuss one or more editors' ideas for how to make decisions where policies and guidelines don't exist or have been retracted. Y - or you can think of it as a hierarchy, with policies being given the most weight, followed by guidelines, and finally essays.Onel5969 TT me 22:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2. Some WikiProjects have published essays on notability for topics related to their project, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. As a new page reviewer, how should you use such essays? Answer: The advice of more experienced editors is always worth a read. WP:Software notability is an interesting example, as it was an attempt to create a guideline on a complex topic, as seen at its talk page. Ultimately the consensus was that software is just so full of exceptions on notability that making it a maintainable guideline was an impossible task, so it remains as an interesting (and in my opinion useful) essay. I've had a look at it a few times when trying to decide whether software is notable enough for a separate article. Y Onel5969 TT me 22:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 3. When evaluating notability, are you primarily evaluating the article, or the article's subject? Answer: For notability, we evaluate the subject. It's possible to write a terrible, unsourced, spammy article about something quite notable. If notability is the only reason that it's been nominated for deletion, then WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies. I made this very mistake once at WP:Articles for deletion/National Scholarship Portal. Y - on the notability aspect, although I disagree 100% with NOTCLEANUP. I think that's an excuse of the lazy to not have to deal with crap. I espouse Wikipedia:Using deletion as cleanup, for sometimes you've turned a crappy, poorly cited article into a redirect for the 5th time this year, and some lazy editor comes along and just because they feel there should be an article, but won't take the time to source it, they simply revert you again. Sometimes the only way to get an article to be improved is to nominate it at AfD. But that's me. And that's why I have a mediocre % at AfD on articles I nominate.Onel5969 TT me 22:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 4. What is your interpretation of the role of WP:BURO and WP:IAR in new page patrol and deletion discussions? Answer: Both point to the underlying principle that the whole point of Wikipedia is to create an excellent encyclopaedia. WP:BURO is meant to be our helper, so we need to avoid Wikilawyering and slavish adherence to rules, if that's preventing the building of the encyclopaedia. Y - personally I think IAR is misused often, and instead of what it was intended to do, which is similar to BURO, in don't get caught up in minutia. Instead, I find oftentimes that editors will simply spout it because they have no good argument. Which is not my understanding of what that rule is for.Onel5969 TT me 22:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

11. Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanations for your nominations. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.

Answer 1:

WP:Articles for deletion/The Mystic Deckchairs: the article was an unsourced orphan that failed WP:BAND, with its only claim to notability being a former member who went on to be notable. The discussion was closed after four days, with just one editor advocating a limited merge.

Y - You'll get some AfD's which are sparsely commented on. In fact, most that I see have less than 8 comments.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer 2:

WP:Articles for deletion/Ali Naajih: this BLP was created in mainspace unsourced, after it was declined at draft. Article says he's on the national team, but news coverage seemed oddly sparse for a national player. Tried to find SIGCOV in his national language Divehi, but Googling for his translated name in an unfamiliar script is pretty tough going. Thought it over: either they don't write about individual players much in the Maldives, or maybe their press is mainly in print, or maybe he just wasn't that notable there. Once I'd nominated it at AFD, the article creator came back first with a pile of mentions of his name on rosters or match reviews (spelled various ways, apparently, and in different name order), but then found a few fairly solid articles about him specifically. So I'm pleased to report that the AFD will probably result in a "keep".

Thinking on it now, I should have tagged it for notability first, and tried to discuss it with the article creator at the talk page. Next time I'm in this position, I'll try that as part of WP:BEFORE.

Y - technically, there is no issue with sending it to AfD. But you are correct, I would have tagged it with notability (or redirected it to the national team page -- he's not listed at the United Victory page). As a rule, I would never send an article to AfD on the same day it was created. My methodology, is that I either tag or redirect something within the first two days of creation. Then I patrol from the rear of the queue. If something has been tagged for over a week, I'll take the appropriated deletion route, or draftify.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer 3:

WP:Articles for deletion/Vicky Barnecutt: did a WP:BEFORE search on Google Scholar and Scopus, but couldn't find evidence for meeting NPROF or BIO. AFD is only 2 days old, but consensus seems to be for deletion/draft.

Y - spot on. Draftifying does not seem appropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer 4:

WP:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Kemal Ataküfr: this might have gone to A11, thinking about it. But there's no rush. It's a pejorative used in some corners of social media about the founder of secular modern Turkey, a bit like Mango Mussolini or Darth Putin as one commenter pointed out. Fails WP:NEO, as I could only find the keyword "Ataküfr" used in a single blog, and in a single student paper on academia.edu. Looks like it's headed for the bin: two days old, five "delete"s.

Y - spot on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer 5:

WP:Articles for deletion/Michael Sugrue: I've actually been thinking this one over since September, and tried to get a discussion going about it at the talk page to prove myself wrong. Seems like such a lovely person, and has achieved vastly more than I ever will. But at this point I'm convinced that he doesn't meet NPROF, and personal preferences shouldn't come into the decision on whether to nominate. Two days old, and the AFD has two weak "keep"s so far, one being from the article creator.

Y - I agree. I put my rationale in the AfD.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

12. Participate in 5 WP:AFD that have no votes other than the nominator's statement. Please provide your reason either to delete, keep, redirect or merge.

Answer 1:

WP:Articles for deletion/Health Labrador Corporation, took a little while to find a good target for a redirect. Turns out you redirected the best target, Labrador-Grenfell Health two years ago, which is kinda funny. So since that's clearly notable, I turned that redirect into a stub, and commented at the AFD to redirect there. Storchy (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer 2:

WP:Articles for deletion/¿¡Revolución!?, tried to improve the article a bit, but there's no way this meets WP:NFILM. So I've suggested deletion, but also suggested a bio on the filmmaker might be a good idea. Storchy (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer 3:

WP:Articles for deletion/Child's Dream Foundation, I could only find passing mentions of the group online, in articles and books, so suggested deletion.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer 4:

WP:Articles for deletion/Global Alliance for Banking on Values, didn't take me long to find SIGCOV in the financial press from RS, so I suggested a "keep and improve".

Y - if this had been a more recent article, would have been a perfect candidate for draftification. Nice job on the article as well.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer 5:

13. Nominate 2 articles for WP:PROD and state your reasons. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.

Answer 1:

Answer 2:

14. Nominate 2 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.

Answer 1:

Answer 2:

15.Nominate 2 article for WP:NPPDRAFT and state your reasons. Take as much time as you need in order to complete this assignment successfully.

Answer 1:

Draft:Voll normaaal: this film has some coverage in what appear to be reliable German sources, so might meet WP:NFILM, but is mostly a very long plot summary, and poorly sourced. The article creator seems to be fond of very highly detailed plot descriptions, but that's easily fixed.

Y - omg. No-brainer. Zero reliable sources in the article, but most likely notable. Poster child for draftification.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Answer 2:

Draft:Sybil Venegas (second draft), student project with rather lax supervision from their instructor, by the look of it. Subject seems as they might meet WP:BIO, but the article is a poorly sourced mess. Article creator seems to have started this from scratch a second time, rather than improve and submit Draft:Sybil Venegas, which was moved to draft from main space 21 hours before this one, so a third attempt might be back in main space tomorrow.

Y - yup, just moved a 3rd version to draft which was even more poorly sourced than the draft you moved. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

---