User:Onel5969/sandbox8

Welcome Novem Linguae to your New Page Patrol School page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist (I have done so already). Your NPP School page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). I know that you said in the email on my talkpage that you feel you have a grasp of many the core policies, such as RS and NPOV. That's a very good start, and will help us move quickly through some areas. And that you would like to work on your knowledge of notability and deletion. While in doing NPP you do have to understand the different forms of deletion and where and when to use them, so this will definitely help you in that area, and of course, one of the foundational concepts we use in reviewing is notability, so you will be well served in that area as well.

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

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page. I will normally try and put assignments in bold though follow-up question will just use normal Wikipedia conversation methods. Let me know at any point if you have questions.

Getting Started

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.

Thanks for doing this. I'm excited to start. I took my time and I read WP:NPP thoroughly. I also read a lot of WP:CSD. I'll tackle WP:N soon. My 2-3 strongest areas are:

• Article cleanup - Tagging, categories, stubbing, rating. I don't have much experience with that yet, but it looks easy, and I installed some scripts to help. I'm also a strong copy editor, and I know MOS, including MOS:ORDER and what an article is supposed to look like. I don't have any concerns about taking a low quality article and turning it into a proper stub, with correct sections and appearance.
• Copyvio - Not much experience, but looks easy. Looks like you just run articles through Earwig's tool (which I've used before), keep an eye out for "too good to be true" prose, and keep an eye out for watermarked images.
• Civility/WP:BITE - I feel pretty good about interacting with editors in general. I don't anticipate having any WP:BITE problems.

My 2-3 weaker areas:

• Notability - I'll need some time and help to feel comfortable with this. GNG looks simple, but my experience from AFD is that GNG has a lot of nuances (contributors, PR pieces, probably other curveballs that can disqualify a source). There's also many SNG's to get familiar with. And I may need help with SIGCOV. I think you said in one of my AFD debates that my 3REFS weren't SIGCOV, so I've got some wrong understanding/assumption about SIGCOV that needs calibration. The 3rd one (video interview) is no good, but the other 2 were entire newspaper articles, so I thought they were significant coverage.
• CSD - I'm brand new to this, and it looks complicated. I read it over and did 2 tests yesterday. My G11 was good, but my A3 was userfied instead. My rationale for that A3 was that the user was just complaining about Wikipedia in article space in a "talk page like fashion", which is mentioned in A3. I also thought about G10ing it. If you want, feel free to provide your analysis of that.

The two things I linked are definitely mistakes, not my proudest moments. I'd like to own up to them early and fix those weak areas. Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent beginning. Couple of thoughts before we get into the syllabus, following your above responses.

• Article cleanup - to me, one of the most overlooked areas of NPP, but not nearly as important as getting Notability and Copyvio correct. We'll go over this more in detail later in the school.
• Copyvio does look easy, but it's not as easy as it looks. The two areas which make it difficult to me are WP:MIRROR, and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, which we'll go over in more detail during that section of the syllabus.
• Civility is a huge issue with me.
• Notability. The cornerstone. And it will be the first, and most extensive section we go over during this school. There is GNG, and of course those pesky little SNG's. Again, we'll go over this in detail. Regarding your comment on that AfD, since it was deleted, I don't have access to that information. Remember, while we try to be as objective as possible, there is some subjectivity to this process. Two editors can look at the same sources and reach different conclusions. During this course, if you disagree with my assessment, I want you to feel free and comfortable with pushing back and asking me to explain in more detail. I will point out that 3 of the 4 delete !votes on that article were from NP Patrollers. But we'll go over this in more detail during the exercises.
• CSD - There was nothing wrong with your A3. Another editor, in this case an admin, differed in their approach and userfied it as an ATD, which is perfectly fine as well. But in my experience, those are pretty rare circumstances, where userfy is the best option, although sometimes it is quite obvious. This one could have been handled either way. Again, we'll go over Prod and CSD in more detail in that section, as well as AfD.
• Remember this is not a sprint. It's more important to take our time together and get you to the point where you feel comfortable patrolling.

Now we begin.

Notability

Questions

Hey Onel. Just a quick note to let you know that I may take a couple of days to answer. The pages linked are long reads, and we seem to be emphasizing "slow and steady". Let me know if you'd prefer a faster pace, I think I could answer these correctly without reading if faster pace is preferred. Thanks my friend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Novem_Linguae - whatever you're comfortable with. To me the pace is irrelevant. This isn't the SAT's, the suggested reads are simply that, suggestions. But you should read them to make yourself familiar. I check in a few times a day. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A. Notability

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

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

The purpose of the notability policy is to ensure that enough reliable sources exist to be able to write an article on the topic that complies with our RS and OR policies. This has the added bonus of also getting the WP:WEIGHT right, because fringe topics and non-notable topics will not be covered or will barely be covered in reliable sources. The specifics of notability are defined by the GNG and SNG policies. It is OK to decline articles if RS's can't be found. It is not Wikipedia's job to be on the cutting edge of publishing speed. We prefer accuracy. But on the other hand, we don't want to WP:BITE, and most content writing is done by inexperienced editors, so we need to make a good faith effort to investigate whether their articles are notable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Y - pretty spot on. Also remember that it is not simply that there are references, but that those references include enough information to satisfy WP:VERIFY. For example, if a reference simply just lists a book and an author, with no other information, it is pretty difficult to use that ref to verify anything. WP:CIT and WP:CITE are good links to show editors how to use, place, and format footnotes, as well as what information is needed in those footnotes.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

2. Are step by step instructions on how to "Change a car tire" considered a notable topic in Wikipedia?

No, per WP:NOTGUIDE. If something is WP:NOT but high quality, we can look into transwiki-ing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Y - spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

3. What are the differences between A WP:GNG and a specific notability guidelines (SNG)? how do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article?

Either one can be used to establish notability, so it's important to be familiar with both policies. The only exception is NCORP, for which you have to use NCORP and not GNG. This is to help combat advertorials and churnalism. The essence of GNG is that you need at least two different reliable sources to have significant coverage of the topic. As a quick summary, reliable sources are secondary, independent, and have a reputation for fact checking. WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG, and WP:RSN are good resources for figuring out the quality of sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Y - Another prominent SNG is WP:NACADEMIC, which in many cases, is the only SNG which actually trumps GNG. And it's tricky, for one of the criteria is how often that scholar is cited. There is no hard and fast rule about # of citations, it varies depending on whatever discipline the scholar is in. For example, two scholars might have identical citation counts of 100 for 3 solo articles each, but depending on the discipline that might be okay for one and not another. I've found a good rule of thumb is that if a scholar has multiple solo articles with over 200 citations, they will almost certainly pass an AfD discussion. Another note, historically it has been enough to say that a subject passes the SNG (for example, saying a football player passes WP:NFOOTY) to cast a keep !vote at an AfD. In recent months there has been a concerted effort to get away from that, and so, particularly in sports biographies, just passing the SNG is not enough, they must pass GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

B. Subject-specific notability guidelines

Note: I don't feel as confident about these answers as above. I'm looking forward to learning from your responses. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• Everything else

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

• Organizations and companies
• (Above you seemed to suggest that Academics and Sports fall in this category, but reading the guidelines, they didn't seem to be restrictive.)

Even mix of the previous two categories

• Film ("hasn't started principal photography" is a hard disqualifier)

Y - nicely done. The second category is "define or restrict" - You are correct, neither is retrictive, but both could be considered definitive. In other words, when patrolling, the mere fact that these SNG's are met can usually mean that they will pass an AfD discussion, and therefore meet notability requirements. Although the sports criteria are now beginning to be looked at more carefully, and GNG is gaining more weight. Last year, if there was an article on an association football player who played a single game in 1956, and was solely sourced by Soccerway, that article would have survived an AfD, based solely on the "Meets NFOOTY" criteria. Now, many of these articles are being re-looked at, and many of them are being deleted. However, WP:NACADEMIC still is the sole SNG which can by itself trump GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like NEVENT restricts GNG, right? I noticed this today when looking up whether I could make an article on Reddit's r/WallStreetBets manipulating GameStop and AMC stock and bankrupting hedge funds.[1][2][3] Basically, any 1E type events or "routine news" are disqualified, even if they pass GNG. And my article wouldn't be notable. Also, NBIO seems to do the same thing... restrict persons only involved in one event from having their own article. Am I correct in my interpretation of all this? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like my article was notable, after all. GameStop short squeeze. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In the course of a single day you've seen how WP:NEVENT can change, depending on perspective. There are some events, even though they get a lot of coverage initially, don't get sustained coverage, and therefore, don't meet the bar of WP:EVENT. But then there are events that even though they are recent, you can just tell that they will have long-ranging effects. The most blatant example would be an assassination attempt on a world leader. NBIO, is not the exactly the same, the key guideline is WP:BIO1E. Which exists to prevent folks who get their 15 minutes from having the same stature as truly notable individivuals. The other guideline to look at along these lines is WP:NOTNEWS. So, yes, overall, your understanding of this is correct.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

2. Without considering GNG at all, simply based on SNG's, please decide which of the scenarios below would pass an SNG, and specify which SNG would apply.

Scenario 1.

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

There doesn't appear to be an entry for "lacrosse" or "general pro player" in WP:NSPORT. So I'm going to say that no SNG applies, and GNG would need to be used. SNG soft fail, can use GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"Y - sorry, but I threw you a curveball here, nice catch. There is no SNG in particular for lacrosse, so you rightly went to NSPORT. Also, the exercise was simply to evaluate on the SNG's, and not worry about GNG. "Can use GNG" ALWAYS APPLIES. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 2.

An unsourced article about the 2028 Summer Olympics.

WP:NSPORT has some olympics criteria at the bottom, but these look like they cover current and past Olympic articles, not the future. WP:NEVENT has a section at the bottom about future events, but it doesn't really give any SNG criteria, just some general reminders to only include future events if they are already notable under another criteria AND they are almost certain to take place. I would fall back to GNG for this one as well. SNG soft fail, can use GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 3.

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

I don't see anything in WP:NCORP that would suggest that this company would be notable just for getting a cash influx of $200k. In my opinion, this company would not be notable just for this, and would need to pass the NCORP primary criteria. Without secondary sources with SIGCOV being mentioned or provided, SNG hard fail, cannot use GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Y - another thing to look at when evaluating corporations (or organizations) is WP:CORPDEPTH, which has to be met and simply means that the coverage has to go beyond local sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 4.

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

Per WP:NFF, this can receive an article if they have started principal photography. The use of the future tense here makes it sound like they have not started principal photography yet, so I'm going to say SNG fail. The wording of this section makes it sound like they can't use GNG either. SNG hard fail, cannot use GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Y - See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Notability films, a recent discussion on this topic. While principal photography is what has historically defined the demarkation line for NFILM, it's no longer the hard and fast rule it once was. As you review more and more articles, you'll get a feel for this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 5.

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

Per WP:POLITICIAN, unelected candidates for political office need to use GNG. SNG soft fail, can use GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Y - spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 6.

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

Barring more info, appears to fail all 12 crtieria of WP:SINGER. SNG soft fail, can use GNG. Unlikely to pass GNG though, since it sounds like he is self-published. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Y - spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Background for trainees

I'm going to break this into several subsections, so as to not overwhelm you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, claims made in articles should be supported by independent (secondary), reliable sources for verification. Please read WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:RSP, WP:V, WP:PROVEIT, WP:Primary, WP:Secondary, and WP:Tertiary and answer the below questions in your own words.

You can contact WP:RX if you could not find the sources yourself either on the web due to paywalls or offline-only sources.

---

Exercises

1.

Topic	Definition	5 Examples	Comment by Trainer
Reliable source	reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy a reliable independent - has no vested interest in a given topic published - made available to the public in some form reputation for fact-checking	(example)The Guardian newspaper anything green on WP:RSP review articles in reputable academic journals university-level textbooks books published by respected publishing houses	Y - but 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.
User generated sources	self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings	Reddit Facebook Amazon.com reviews IMDB fan wikis (Wikia)	Y yes, any social media would be included (e.g. YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, etc.). Newsblogs are problematic, as not all are reliable, although most are. You have to be careful with them. I would also point out that crowdsourced websites would also fall in this category.
Non independent source	has a vested interest (personal relationship, financial, etc.) in a given topic	press release syndicated stories - one story being sold and distributed to multiple news outlets company blog (for an article on that company) a company that paid Forbes to write an article on it (WP:FORBESCON) An autobiography book (for an article on that person)	Y - spot on. 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.

2.

Type	Definition	Examples (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary)	Comment by Trainer
Primary	Original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.	(example) scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results driver in a traffic accident recounting the details an autobiography a newspaper article sourced solely based on an interview a newspaper article sourced solely on an unnamed "senior administration official" a newspaper article sourced solely on an unnamed "source familiar with the President's thinking" company press release company blog company website a diary court transcripts Tweets from the subject (microblogs) comments from the White House Press Secretary during a press briefing Facebook post from the subject Instagram post from the subject	Y - excellent. Another good one to remember is video or audio recordings. Onel5969 TT me 23:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Secondary	Provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.	(example) newspaper meta-analysis in a scholarly journal systematic review in a scholarly journal magazine article not written by the subject book not written by the subject	Y - although you must make sure that the book is not self-published. Onel5969 TT me 23:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Tertiary	Publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources.	(example) encyclopedias entry level university level textbooks Wikipedia Encyclopedia Britannica Campbell Biology 11th Edition textbook	Y - 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". Travel Guides and Almanacs are other good examples of tertiary sources (although Travel Guides with good editorial oversight could be classed as a secondary source). Onel5969 TT me 23:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

3.

Subject	Primary	Secondary	Tertiary	Comment by Trainer
Example: Art	Example:Sculpture	Example:Article critiquing the sculpture	Example:Encyclopedic article on the sculptor	Y Although you didn't give me a primary regarding sculpture (e.g. a photo of the sculpture) Onel5969 TT me 00:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
History	Diary	History book mentioning and interpreting the diary	History textbook	Y Onel5969 TT me 00:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Science	Scholarly article on an experiment	Review article mentioning the experiment	Science encyclopedia article	Y Onel5969 TT me 00:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Athletes	Announcer's transcript of a soccer game	ESPN article summarizing the game	The game or team's Wikipedia article At WP:TERTIARY, it says Wikipedia is a tertiary source. But yes, definitely not a reliable source. New answer: Sports almanac	Y - all but the WP article, can you give me a different example? Onel5969 TT me 00:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Y on the follow up Sports Almanac response. Onel5969 TT me 02:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

---

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

WP:V is how we decide what knowledge is high quality and fit for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and what knowledge is low quality and not fit for inclusion in the encyclopedia, in an objective way. Without it, Wikipedia would just be a bunch of WP:OR, with many edit wars and talk page debates. Anybody could push to include anything, and we'd have no objective way to resolve content disputes. Everything would be subjective. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - Pretty spot on. Although, it is not necessarily "high quality". You can have several different rationales in an article, although from reliable secondary sources. The sources allow folks looking at the article to decide for themselves. WP:VERIFY is, imho, one of the most problematic areas of WP. There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles, if not millions, that have information which has no sourcing to meet the verify guideline. Verify is subject to secondary and tertiary sourcing. Primary sourcing can also be used in a limited basis for verifiability. For instance, you could use a company website to provide verification of the founding date, etc. But you couldn't use an interview with a rapper/singer to verify a claim that they were a Grammy winner. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

5. Could we use Wikipedia as the source? and why?

No. While our best articles such as a featured article that just finished WP:FAC certainly match the quality of published and reliable tertiary sources, our crowd sourcing model allows anybody to edit most articles at any time. This is technically WP:SELFPUBLISH, and occasionally allows unverified material to creep into the encyclopedia, making us technically an unreliable source.

However, it is fine to copy prose (and their accompanying citations) from other Wikipedia articles, as long as the URL of the original revision is given in the edit summary. This is a good trick that I occasionally use to avoid re-inventing the wheel when expanding certain articles. {{excerpt}} is another good trick.

Per WP:SELFSOURCE, Wikipedia can be cited as a primary source when referencing something that happened on a Wikipedia page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - Bravo. You hit all 3 nails on the head. But understand that your second rationale is simply passing off verifiability to the source in the existing article. If that source is not good, than that would not be acceptable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

The four properties of a source (as seen in source assessment tables) are significant coverage, independence, reliability (reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight), and primary/secondary/tertiary. A source can have any combination of these properties.

An example of reliable but not independent source would be: the New York Times writing a newspaper article about a business based off of a press release or an interview with a company officer, rather than based off the staff writer's own thoughts and research.

Explanation: The New York Times is reliable (reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight), but in this case is not engaging in independent thought. The material is being fed to them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Y, again excellent. We certainly run into this in many Indian newspaper sources. Also, about university subjects, where the supporting sourcing is from the school newspaper. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

7. Give an example and explain why a source is independent source but not reliable?

Example: A blog writer with no connection to the subject writing a blog post about the subject.

Explanation: The blog writer is independent (has no financial or personal connection to the person they are writing about), but they are not reliable (self published, no reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight). –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - again, spot on. There are many examples of this, but this is probably the best one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Petraeus

Pls indicate "y" for yes or "n" for no after "ind", "rel" and "sig" (see first example) and give a brief explanation of why you place "y" or "n".

8.

David Petraeus

David Howell Petraeus AO (/pɪˈtreɪ.əs/; born November 7, 1952) is a retired United States Army general and public official. He served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from September 6, 2011, 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?
USA Today	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
CNN video	It's just a video with no analysis. It's a primary source.	CNN is reliable.	Technically, I guess, the entire video is about Petraeus.	✘ No
HuffPost	No reason to suspect COI.	HuffPost political articles are no consensus at WP:RSP. But this article is actually an Associated Press article, which is reliable. Another potential problem is the use of unnamed, anonymous sources. I'll go ahead and say it's reliable though for GNG.	The entire article is about Petraeus.	✔ Yes
geni.com	Per WP:NPPSG, it's an open wiki. Somebody with COI could edit it.	Per WP:NPPSG, it's an open wiki. Text is not approved by an editor.	The page isn't even about Petraeus. It's about his father.	✘ No
Vanity Fair	Seems like the author interviewed Petraeus.	Normally reliable per WP:RSP. But the article is written by a contributor. So maybe not?	Entire article is about Petraeus.	✘ No
PBS	Interview. Primary source.	Spot checking some non-interviews on the Frontline website, seems to be reliable. Written by professional journalists.	Entire article is about Petraeus.	✘ No
The Independent (UK)	I see no indication of COI.	Per WP:RSP	Entire article is about Petraeus.	✔ 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 - Mostly spot on, couple of minor details. The geni.com, while not reliable, is independent. I'd also question the VF source for the same reason, but other experienced, reasonable editors might not. Also on the VF article, while the subject was interviewed, that interview is contained within an article, so it is not simply an interview. These are some of the trickiest ones. Because most of the piece is summary by the author, I would say it is both independent, and would count towards GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

9. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Might qualify under WP:ANYBIO because he is an Honorary Officer of the Order of Australia, or for receiving the Meritorious Service Cross. WP:SOLDIER (an essay) suggests that generals are notable. As director of the CIA, you could make a weak argument that he is a politician that held national office, per WP:POLITICIAN. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - neither the Australia award or Meritorious Service Cross would count towards anybio. Typically awards of this nature are limited to the highest award (although not always - OBE and CBE are good examples of not following the trend). Someone who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom would qualify under this. While WP:NSOLDIER is "just an essay", it's one you can pretty much rely on for notability criteria. I've never seen a general officer be deleted through an AfD. I would agree with your assessment of POLITICIAN, although some other editors might disagree.

Jordan Lennon

10.

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?
IMDB	Independence of author and content.	Crowd sourced. Self published.	Entire page is about him.	✘ No
BAFTA	Independence of author and content.	Looks like an organization's website. I don't see any sign of journalism. Just pages with brochures, audio, videos, interviews, photo galleries, press releases. Looks like a primary source.	Jordan David not mentioned on page.	✘ No
LinkedIn	Self published by subject.	No editor to double check content.	Entire page is about him.	✘ No
BehindTheVoiceActors.com	Independence of author and content.	About us page mentions a team that crafts each profile with care. Doesn't sound crowd sourced. Wish I had a 4th column for Secondary Yes/No, because I'd give this a reliable=y, secondary=no. There's not enough analysis. It's just data. It's a primary source.	Entire page is about him.	✘ 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 - exactly how I'd rate them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

11. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Subject does not appear to meet any SNG's. For his producer and screenwriter career, I looked at WP:CREATIVE. The theme of the CREATIVE criteria seems to be "important". The subject appears to not meet this bar, as his article says he is a producer, but does not mention anything that he has produced, so it is likely he hasn't completed any films yet. For his acting career, I looked at WP:ENTERTAINER, but again, the theme among ENTERTAINER's criteria is "done something important". The subject is young and hasn't accomplished much yet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - yup. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently doesn't meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Martina Hingis

12.

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?
Instagram	Self published. She is author.	No editorial oversight.	Entire page is about her.	✘ No
LA Times	Independence of author and content. Mostly. Could argue there's lots of quotes from Hingis.	Green on WP:RSP.	Short article, and also mentions some other tennis matches. But Hingis is in the title, and most of the article is about her.	✔ Yes
Tennis Confidential (book)	Independence of author and content.	The publisher, Brassey's Inc, doesn't have a Wikipedia article. But it's a printed book, and Brassey's has other published books, judging from looking at the list of books on the book jacket. I assume they're reliable.	Appears to just be a passing mention. Hard to tell for sure though. Need to DL whole book to check properly.	✘ No
ESPN	Independence of author and content.	Green on WP:NPPSG. Staff writer.	Whole article is about her.	✔ Yes
The Guardian	Independence of author and content.	Green on WP:RSP.	Whole article is about her.	✔ 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 - your comment regarding Tennis Confidential is insightful. The particular reference in the citation is just a passing mention. But if you do search the book, she is mentioned throughout. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

13. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Passes WP:NTENNIS#3, for her Grand Slam tournament participation. May pass other parts of NTENNIS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Y. She also meets #1 (it's in the lead), #2 (8-time Fed Cup participant), #5 (although I expected her to have more than a couple of appearances), and #6 with several records. She is not eligible for #4, since that series is for men only. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Frank Lloyd Wright

14.

Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania (1937)

Frank Lloyd Wright (June 8, 1867 – April 9, 1959) was an American architect, interior designer, writer, and educator. Wright believed in designing structures that were in harmony with humanity and its environment, a philosophy he called organic architecture. His creative period spanned more than 70 years. He works includes The Guggenheim, swirling, snail-shaped museum in the middle of Manhattan. 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?
New York Post	The source is major newspaper	Red on WP:RSP	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
FrankLloydWright.org	As his charitable foundation, they have a connection to the subject.	No sign of journalism. Just self published content, including a blog.	Website is about Wright.	✘ No
Business Week	Independence of author and content.	While technically a "Bloomberg profile", which is yellow at WP:RSP, it is not a company or executive profile, so instead I shall use "Bloomberg"'s green rating.	Entire article is about Wright.	✔ Yes
Book	Independence of author and content. Not an autobiography.	Published by John Wiley & Sons.	464 pages is impressive SIGCOV.	✔ 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 the Post has only been categorized by WP as unreliable for political type stories. If this was the only source, I wouldn't count it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

15. Please answer if the subject meets the "subject specific notability" guidelines, Which subject specific notability based on the given content above, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

Appears to pass WP:CREATIVE#1. The Guggenheim is very famous. That praise for Fallingwater ("the best all-time work of American architecture") also paints a picture that he was an influential architect. I would do some additional digging if WP:CREATIVE was my only claim in an AFD, to make sure that quote is accurate and not POV. But, this architect is so famous that he easily passes GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Source assessment

16. One last thing before we move on to the next section. This is just to get you used to identifying sources at a glance, and not having to look them up anywhere. So without going to any of the resources such as WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG or WP:RSN, assess whether the following sources are reliable. If you are totally unfamiliar, go to their WP page, to see if they exist. In responding, please be as possible as to why you derived your conclusion. Feel free to offer topic-scoped assessments such as "likely reliable for claims related to pop culture" or "reliable for non-political subject matter".

A. USA Today

Sorry, I've got this one memorized. Green, generally reliable. As a respected national newspaper in the United States, there are no concerns with reliability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

B. The Hindu

Front page looks respectable. This has the appearance of a polished, professional newspaper. Remembering what you said about Indian newspapers having churnalism problems, I went and spot checked a business article. Right away, I found an article that sounded like a company press release. [4]. Yellow, reliable for non-business articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

C. Anadolu Agency

Sorry, I've got this one memorized. Yellow, reliable for topics that the government of Turkey doesn't have a POV on. I suspect most state news agencies follow this pattern, including China's Xinhua. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

N - because of it's lack of independence in a country with historic issues regarding freedom of the press, its use should be very limited. Governments can be presumed to have POV on virtually everything. You're right about Xinhua. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

D. Popular Mechanics

I spot checked a couple of articles. This article about the best products in X class of items makes me nervous for product placement. And for one of the items, they said they didn't test it themselves and relied on Amazon reviews.This article on Russian body armor seems fine. This article on theoretical space engine technology is written by a guy with a background in archaeology, history, and writing, not science. And it seems to follow a pattern that is not allowed in the WP:MEDRS world, which is a layperson summarizing scientific primary sources. Perhaps I am being too paranoid, but I am going to give this one a Yellow, use but use with caution for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - this is considered a reliable source. Good evaluation on the articles, though.

E. South China Morning Post

Sorry, I've got this one memorized. Green, generally reliable. As the newspaper of record of Hong Kong, this well-respected newspaper is regarded as very reliable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Y. Yup. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

F. Seventeen

This Luluelemon article seems like it might be product placement. This article on anxiety is a layperson writing about MEDRS, and then quoting a bunch of non-medical people (primary sources). It reminds me of a tabloid. The Daily Mail, for example, has similar articles. This article is an interview (primary source). This profile of teens advocating for change isn't bad. Overall, I give this one a Yellow, use but use with caution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - spot on. It can be used in some situations, but you have to be careful with it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

G. Egypt Today

This article on the release of a new logo on their coins could be from a press release. This article on anti female genital mutilation looks good. This article on Red Crescent teaming up with Switzerland to have mobile clinics sounds like a press release. Yellow, use but use with caution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Y, although I would probably lean more to reliable than not. You'll find issues like this with many Indian newspapers as well, where they seemingly print press releases as news. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

H. Xconomy

This about page is a huge red flag. It's full of WP:PUFF and marketing speak. Seeing this, I wanted to make sure it was actually a media organization and not just a company blog, so I went to their Wikipedia article. It does appear to be a media organization; no red flags there. This article is written by a contributor, and it sounds like the content is from Scrip World Pharmaceutical News. This article isn't bad. Despite covering content that sounds press release-ish, it doesn't sound like a press release. It mentions competitors and talks about industry trends. This article sounds press release-ish. Yellow, use with caution. Bordering on red. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - PR press mill. You have to be very careful with trade publications. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Looks solid. I can't find any red flags. Foreign language sources are allowed on en-wiki. During our vetting process, just use Google Translate to check the content. Google Translate is pretty good these days. Green, generally reliable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

J. Blesk

First impressions are that this looks like a tabloid. The headlines are a little too juicy, and it makes heavy use of photos. It's got some typical MEDRS violating articles, such as Women especially have a long course of COVID, doctors warn. The content is a bit trite, with headlines like Olga remembers the last family photo shoot with Menzel: You're making a clown out of yourself, fans are furious!, Hnilicka spoke for the first time! What does he say to oversteppers? What about Babi's "juice"?. Red, unreliable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - can be used, but ini a very limited capacity, your analysis is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

K. La Jornada

Looks really solid. I don't see anything egregious. After scrolling quite far down their "economy" page, I think I found a churnalism article [5]. But overall, I am going to say green, reliable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - yup. Good job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

L. The Forward

An article on beef grown in a lab has a misleading image and article name. This article on translating Joe Biden's name to Hebrew is not written in a factual tone, and the author is "Twitter", suggesting the content was crowd sourced. These two political articles [6][7] seem much better than these first two articles I found, and don't have any red flags. Being a Jewish publication, I went ahead and did a search for "Palestinians" and sampled an article, looking for POV. [8] They actually did a very good job. It was written in a factual tone and I could find no fault with it. Yellow, use with caution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - while your analysis on the one article regarding Palestinians is good, they can be biased, so the use with caution is absolutely appropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

M. The Daily Californian

This article looks like churnalism, with WP:PUFF such as "Deemed one of the Most Disruptive MBA Startups of 2020". This article on delicious oatmeal recipes originates from a blog. Ignoring the media's obsession with the remdesivir-to-treat-COVID-conspiracy, which I find unappetizing, this article on remdesivir-adjacent drugs isn't bad. This news article about school closures isn't bad. Yellow, use with caution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

N - student publications, even when they read "independent" are rarely considered independent. They can be used for certain instances, but never for notability, or for claims which are subject to intepritation (e.g. "best hostel", "first fraternity...", etc.). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

On the whole - Very nice job. More than likely better than I would have done a thousand reviews ago... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 10 February 2021 (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:

I think Hannibal Barca and Hannibal are equally strong titles for this article. Hannibal is the WP:COMMONNAME used in the 3 sources given, is WP:CONCISE, and is supported by the topic-specific naming convention WP:SINGLENAME. But the longer, more precise Hannibal Barca might be necessary so that a disambiguation page can be set up at Hannibal, or so that Hannibal can redirect to a more common usage of the word Hannibal (such as Hannibal Lecter). –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - your first impulse was the correct one. That's the over-riding emphasis in title names, think of Cher, Madonna, Pele, and Caligula. Sometimes the most common name is a phrase, like Alexander the Great. And then there are folks who are known by their nickname or stagename, like Haystak. If there is an issue with disambiguation, like Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer), you still use the single name, and handle it with a dab.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

---

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

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

References

Answer:

I'd keep this one as Magic Johnson. This one seems like a pretty straightforward case of WP:COMMONNAME. You could argue that WP:NCBIO states that Most biographical articles have titles in the form <First name> <Last name>, but I think the argument for using the COMMONNAME is stronger here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - yup. COMMONNAME is the overriding factor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 10 February 2021 (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:

For BLP's, I would not feel comfortable using "no consensus" sources (TMZ) or "unreliable" sources (RT) for controversial claims, or maybe even at all. I would refactor the bar fight paragraph to omit those sources and their associated claims. The relevant policy is WP:BLPRS. Other than the poor sources mixed in, the incident is well covered in reliable sources, so it should stay in, and it'd be easy enough to refactor to only draw content from the RS's. If the article is only three paragraphs, I'd be a little concerned with the bar fight paragraph being the correct weight, since his prestigious career gets equal WP:WEIGHT to this trite bar fight, but there's not much that can be done about that until the article is expanded.

That third paragraph has lack of sourcing issues and WP:BLPNAME issues. In addition, it has major NPOV issues ("bedded", tone of moral outrage). I'd probably trim the entire thing and call it a day. If you were feeling diligent, you could google for RS's that mention his family, then judge if his family members are notable enough to be mentioned in his article. For example, maybe his wife has her own Wikipedia article or something like that. If the family members are not notable, it'd probably be OK to say something like "he is married and has X kids". The affair can be included if it is well sourced, similar to Kobe Bryant's affair, which has its own section in his article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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 6 April 2019, McGregor was involved in a bar fight in Dublin, Ireland, and a video of the fight circulated online. In August, McGregor made a statement saying he was "in the wrong". In October, McGregor went to court for assault and paid a 1,000 Euro fine.

McGregor has a finacee and two children, with a third on the way. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Y - bravo. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

---

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

Diana Nyad (née Sneed; born August 22, 1949) is an American author, journalist, motivational speaker, and long-distance swimmer who lives in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. and could be contacted at +0-202-456-6213. 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 one looks much easier than the McGregor question above. None of these claims look controversial, negative, or libelous. Just edit out that WP:BLPPRIVACY violation (address and phone number) with a discreet edit summary such as "blp", email oversight, template the violator, and call it a day. I don't see a very good template for this... closest I see is Template:uw-blp. How does oversight handle stuff like this? Do they block the transgressor? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - good question on the template. I don't use them much (except for the automatic ones which are sent out either with Twinkle or the Page Curation tool). The only ones I'm very familiar with are the vandalism templates, of which this would not be appropriate. I might reach out to an admin and see if they feel like revdel'ing the edits, so that it is hidden even in history, but that's not a requirement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:35, 12 February 2021 (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:

Probably. US federal government photos are usually public domain. I don't see any copyright info on this particular page, so it's hard to check. If this were on a new page and I were reviewing it, and it were uploaded and had a "US government public domain" copyright tag on it, I'd let it through. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline:

Wikipedia:Public domain#US government works –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer- Explanation:

Yes. It is tagged as CC0 on free-images.com and on Flickr. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline:

WP:IUPC, "freely licensed" bullet –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer- Explanation:

Yes. It is tagged as CC0, and it is also tagged as having its copyright verified by a Wikipedian. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline:

WP:IUPC, "freely licensed" bullet –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer- Explanation:

No. This is a non-US federal government commercial website. In the absence of a clearly stated license, and in the presence of "© Displate. All Rights Reserved" at the bottom, this image would only be eligible for fair use.

The criteria for fair use is strict, and it would have to be in an article specifically about this painting, and it'd have to be low resolution, and it'd have to have a fair use rationale typed out by the uploader. I wouldn't feel comfortable using this to illustrate the Aztec sun stone article. I would prefer a historical image for that article, although you could possibly make an argument for including this image there. I do think its inclusion would be allowed if this were a famous painting though, in the article for the famous painting.

But, with all that said, you can't upload fair use images to commons at all, only to en-wiki, so the answer to this question is still no. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - this could never be uploaded to the main page. But you're right, 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} 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer - link/guideline:

WP:IUPC, "fair use/non-free" bullet –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 13 February 2021 (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?

COI, eh? Maybe high quality headshots marked "own work" and released under CC0-4? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 13 February 2021 (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:

She is a boxer. She became a professional boxer at the age of 19 after winning one amateur fight on December 14, 2013, where she knocked out her opponent 20 seconds into the match. Her current promoter is XXX. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer:

He is a Bulgarian actor. He was born in Veliko Tarnovo, and started working in the film industry at the age of 14. He has featured in 44 films. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - You definitely have a good grasp of this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Answer:

WP:DUE states that we should cover ideas proportionately to their coverage in reliable sources. This idea of giving proportional weight to ideas is helpful to the reader. It helps convey what the mainstream ideas are, and helps to not waste the reader's time with a lot of content on smaller or fringe ideas. It is also essential to help keep WP:FRINGE from being covered in major articles. If we were to give weight to fringe ideas, Wikipedia would stray away from its mission of accurately summarizing and presenting knowledge, and would instead help to promulgate conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and other misinformation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - spot on. Also remember this can also apply to what is and is not included in an article's lead. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 14 February 2021 (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:

The no original research policy is closely related to the verifiability policy. The idea behind both of these policies is that Wikipedia should summarize existing knowledge, rather than create new knowledge. This allows us to crowdsource encyclopedia writing while still maintaining quality. By checking citations and making sure things match, we can ensure that we are summarizing, and we can ensure that we are summarizing accurately. Otherwise, any editor could come along, make something up, and it would be a he said/she said, I like it/I don't like it, visceral, political, subjective battle to include or exclude material, with no objective standard. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Regarding inserting original research: WP:OR defines three activities that seem like original research as not being original research: uploading images you created, translating languages, and performing basic mathematical calculations. Because WP:OR defined these as not being original research, they are not original research. Therefore you should never include original research, because it would violate Wikipedia policy.

Y, another important factor in NPP are films. We get a ton of film articles. As per MOS:PLOT, summarized plots do not need to be referenced. Although we also get a lot of copyvio issues there, as folks simply cut and paste plots. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding inserting opinions: Opinions are something that a person holds true due to emotions and experiences, rather than facts. Officially, an editor's opinion has no place in an article, although it will probably creep in in a subtle way depending on what the editor decides to write about, what sources they choose to focus on, etc. This will hopefully get fixed by other editors, who will help the article arrive at an equilibrium that has the correct WP:WEIGHT. Or, if we mean including somebody else's opinion, then this is acceptable if it originates from a reliable source AND is attributed (X said, X thinks, etc.) –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - opinions are never acceptable. But you are correct, if an editor inserts cited opinions by others, that is okay. What I think you are talking about is more about WP:POV. You'll also see stuff about this in WP:PEACOCK. It's one think when an editor puts in terms like "groundbreaking", "pioneering", or some such phrases. It's another thing if an editor uses these terms, and they are supported by the underlying references. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

15. See this video and write an article paragraph that properly presents claims supported by the source. Answer:

I hesitate to use YouTube as a source. But I would write the following:

According to a video on Sunni Salafi Islamic organisation Islam Net's YouTube channel, Muslim men and women should not wear jeans, and clothing worn by Muslims should not be see-through, tight, or an attractive color. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - the problem with attributing it to the organization's channel, is that it infers that it is the position of that organization. This may be true, but that's not supported by the source. It would be better to say, "According to Shady Alsuleiman..." But your version would be ok as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

References

---

Verifiability

Please read WP:V and answer the questions below

16. In your own words, why does content in Wikipedia need to be verified?

Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize knowledge, and verifiability (in particular, the reliable sources part of the policy) is essential to doing it accurately. Knowledge is useless if it is not accurate. As discussed in the WP:OR section above, there are also practical benefits to using inline citations. They allow for an objective standard to be used to evaluate statements in articles. A cited sentence can be compared to the source text, and the source itself can be evaluated for its reliability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

17. If the subject has two sons and it is supported by three independent, reliable sources but in reality he has 3 sons. Could we change the content from "2" sons to "3 sons"? and why?

No, WP:BLP and WP:OR. Even if you think you're right, and you think you know better than the reliable sources, you should be hesitant. I've thought I was right about something before, but I couldn't find it in reliable sources, and I added it to Wikipedia anyway. I found that each time, I ended up being wrong. I had miscommunicated with an expert in real life, or one of my assumptions was incorrect. If it's not in reliable sources, then it is probably wrong. Granted, sometimes we let this slide in non-BLP's. We might use a {{Citation needed}} tag or an {{Original research}} tag instead of removing the questionable sentence. But for BLP's, we draw a hard line. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - very nice response, and nice showing an understanding between blp and non-blp articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

18. Looking at Saint-Germain River, the article cites two references. Please explain if you feel that the information in the article is acceptable as per WP:VERIFY.

This one is tricky. Source #1 is an interactive map, and I was not able to type in the name of the river and get it to hone in on the river. So I was unable to use source #1 to do the verification. I don't know if WP:V explicitly says it, but I think it is implied that verifiability should not be unreasonably difficult. For example, putting page numbers and timestamps in citations is good practice. Source #2 seemed fine. I was able to translate the page and verify the info that was being cited. Another big problem with this article is that it is under-sourced, and that it only uses primary sources (data websites). For boring geography with nothing interesting written about it, you could probably make an argument that doing all your sourcing from data websites is OK. But in a normal article, a lack of secondary sources (which should be our bread and butter) is a big problem. In conclusion, I feel this article is under-sourced, and that source #1 should be split up and replaced with more specific URL's. For example, maybe a URL that puts the map on exactly what GPS coordinates are needed to evaluate each statement. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - to be clear, source #1 does not meet WP:VERIFY. You need to be able to click on the source and go directly to the information cited. So for instance, there might be a link to a pdf file which is 400 pages long, if there is no page # in the citation, it does not pass verify. In this case, the link is to the database, but does not bring up the information in the article. I used this example on purpose, because this was a big discussion amongst several NPP editors, so it's perfect for Verify. I also agree with your assessment regarding geo articles being okay with only 1 or 2 sources. Unless, of course, there is a lot of unsourced information. In that latter case, the unsourced information should be removed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:20, 18 February 2021 (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.

Let me know here that you have accomplished all three, by replying "done":

 Done. For #1, configuring Twinkle to log CSD's (and prods) might be an important step to mention in future NPP schools. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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	Completely incoherent pages. Interpreted very strictly. Foreign languages, POV, poor English, etc. do not qualify.	"isjagoiasyfoiay"	Y, except for the foreign languages, G1 does not cover languages only in foreign languages. Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
2	G2	Pages whose only content is an obvious test. Cannot be used on the Wikipedia Sandbox or in the user namespace. Can be used on Wikipedia Sandbox subpages.	"Testing 123"	Y Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
3	G3	Uncontroversial vandalism (text with no encyclopedic value and written in bad faith). Hoaxes and misinformation. Redirects created by page move vandalism.	"Drinking a glass of wine a day cures cancer." "Wikipedia sucks." "LULLZ SUPER ULTRA POGGERZZ DAT AZZ SO PHAT~~~"	Y Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
4	G4	Recreation of pages that were deleted in a deletion discussion, such as AFD, MFD, RFD, CFD, etc. The page has to be nearly identical. Prods and CSD's are specifically exempted.	Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory was deleted today after a dramatic MFD discussion. If somebody recreated it, and it didn't get approved for recreation in Deletion Review, it should be G4'd. Should probably check the deletion log for special conditions before tagging. I've seen a non-notable article deleted before, with the caveat that it can be re-created via AFC.	Y - the issue with this category is that unless you're an admin, you can't look at the page was deleted. I'd say about 1/2 my G4 nominations are removed because the new article is significantly different. But that's okay, that's the way the system works. Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
5	G5	Pages created by a user who is, at the time of creation of the article, banned, blocked, or topic banned. There must also be no substantial additions by other users.	CBAN'd user's IP or sock gets discovered, perhaps through behavioral analysis. Anything created after the date of the CBAN can get G5'd.	Y - one of the most common ways this happens is user:x gets blocked on 2/1/2021 because they also use accounts user:y and user:z. On 2/2 account user:a is created. For a month or two they edit on WP before it's discovered that they are yet another sock of user:x. When that SPI is finished, any articles they created are subject to G5 (as long as no other substantial editing has taken place, which you correctly pointed out), as well as any edits at all. Also, "substantial" edits is subjective. I've had admins decline a g5 on an 8000 byte article on which only about 300 other bytes of editing have been done. And I've had g5's go through with almost 2000 bytes of other edits on an 8000 byte article. My rule of thumb is to keep other edits below 10%. Also, it's the type of edits, if all the other edits are simply adding cats, then I don't consider that signficant... and I've never had one g5 like that not go through.
6	G6	Deleting the following types of pages: orphans of TFD deleted templates, incorrect namespace articles, erroneously created articles, redirects blocking moves, and maintenance categories with a date in the past. In general, I don't think the community likes CSD's to be interpreted loosely/broadly, so probably nothing else.	A user moves a page to a page containing a redirect with 1 revision. The redirect is automatically deleted, with G6 mentioned in the edit summary.	Y - I've found that this is mostly used for redirects blocking article moves. Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
7	G7	A page's only major contributor requests deletion. Page blanking by such author is assumed to be a request for deletion.	Author blanks the page Author tags the page G7 Author replaces the page with "delete this"	Y Onel5969 TT me
8	G8	Dependencies of already deleted pages, including talk pages, subpages, file pages without a corresponding file, redirects to deleted or non-existent pages, unused edit notices, or categories full of deleted pages. There's also a long list of exceptions.	Page gets deleted, but talk page is forgotten. We can tag the talk page G8.	Y Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
9	G9	Deletions by employees of the Wikimedia foundation, acting in their official capacity. Usually indicated by using the WMF Office user account or an account ending in (WMF).	Whatever the WMF Office account wants to delete. If WMF Office is getting involved, maybe BLP, harassment, or legal issues are involved.	Y - I've actually never run across a single one of these. Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
10	G10	Pages about people that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced.	"XYZ politician is one of ABC politician's favorite cronies, and a favorite loyal servant and gatekeeper of the oligarchy. A known pedophile, XYZ is a tool of the National Security State, a racist, a corporatist, and an imperialist."	Y Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
11	G11	Articles that are obvious advertising/promotion/COI, and would require a complete re-write to fix. The CSD says that if the subject is notable, the article should instead be re-written. I guess WP:TNT could be an alternative to deletion in that case.	"Acme Inc is a famous, notable, award-winning, acclaimed, influential widget manufacturer. It was identified by XYZ non-notable blog as the #3 up-in-coming company of 2020, and was identified by ABC non-notable blog as #4 on the "companies to get excited about" list. After receiving venture capital investment in excess of $200,000, you'd better hang on to the edge of your seat. THIS is a company to get excited about. Click here to change your life today."	Y Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
12	G12	Obvious, cut-and-paste copyright infringement, with no significant non-copyrighted material mixed in. If there's non-copyrighted material mixed in, or there's a questionable claim of permission, blank with the copyvio template and use WP:CP instead.	Copy pasting large amounts of text from almost any non-federal government website.	Y - although many times if there is a portion of an article which is a copyvio, I remove that and ask for a revdel. For example, quite a few film articles are fine, except for the plot, which has been copied from imdb or some other source. I'll remove the plot, but let the rest of the article stand. Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
13	G13	Drafts, AFC tagged articles, or article wizard boilerplate text that have had no edits in 6 months. I believe there is a bot that handles this, giving notifications at 5 months, and tagging for deletion at 6 months. G13 may not be used on redirects.	Anything in draftspace that has had no edits in 6 months.	Y - you're right a bot handles the 5 month notification, but the actual G13 tag is not automatically added. There are several editors who stay on top of the list (I used to be one of them). But if you come across one, be aware that just because there hasn't been any activity, does not mean that the draft should be deleted. I've actually taken several articles I've found on the pending G13 list, worked them into shape, and moved them into the mainspace. Some editors will simply remove a g13 tag stating, "looks notable", at which point the 6 month clock starts ticking again. Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
14	G14	Problems with disambiguation pages. Specifically, disambiguation pages that only have 0 or 1 wikilinks. And some other nuances.	The page "Widget (disambiguation)", and its sole content is a link to the article "Widget".	Y Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 20 February 2021 (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	Articles that are so vague that you can't tell what the article is about. Foreign languages do not count. Wait 10 minutes before tagging. (But can't you tell from the title? This one confuses me a bit.)	An article with the title "Abcdef" and text "He was a mayor and an intellectual."	Y - if your question regarding "tell it from the title" is referring to the 10 minute wait, you can only tell that from the edit history of the page, which has the date/time stamp. Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
2	A2	Articles in a foreign language that were copy pasted from another Wikimedia project. If not copy pasted but in a foreign language, there's a different process for that (tag, warn, translate, proceed with NPP flowchart).	Article title "agregar" with text "Añadir unas cosas o personas a otras del mismo tipo o juntar varias cosas similares." (copied from )	Y Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
3	A3	No prose, short prose re-phrasing the title, or talk-page-like dialogue. Exception: A page with only an infobox. Wait 10 minutes before tagging.	Article name is "Bob Jones" and article text is "Bob Jones" Article name is "Bob Jones" and article text is "[[Category:United States politicians]]"	Y Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
5	A5	Articles that have been transwiki'd to Wiktionary or Wikisource only. Or articles that have been transwiki'd after getting a verdict of transwiki at AFD.	Article is transwiki'd to en-wiktionary. A5 it when done.	Y Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
7	A7	No "credible claim of significance" (CCS); AND is a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event; and is NOT an educational institution. CCS is a lower standard than notability, and just needs to claim something that makes them sound notable. Does not need to be sourced. Also, it sounds like if any sources are provided at all, it de facto disqualifies the use of A7/A9. WP:CCS: But if the sources in the same article discuss the subject, chances are, more coverage may exist; and in this case too, the A7, A9 and A11 tags should generally not be applied	"Bob Jones is my cousin. He is really good at math."	Y - the key here is learning what a credible claim of significance is. Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
9	A9	Similar to A7, but for musical recordings with no CCS -AND- whose artist does not have an article.	Text is "Let's Be Friends is Bob Jones' first single." and Bob Jones has no Wikipedia article.	Y Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
10	A10	Duplicate articles whose title is unsuited to being a redirect. Duplicate in this case sounds like it means duplicate content/topic, but not necessarily a copy/paste? Also, the duplicate topic has to be less complete / less developed than the article being compared to.	Title is "NASA's latest Mars rover named Perserverance and also its helicopter Ingenuity", and content is "NASA landed a rover on Mars yesterday."	N - This is when there are two articles which cover the same topic, but have different titles. For example, there was just one in the NPP a couple of days ago, I can't remember the exact name of the singer, but the two articles were "Bob Jones" and "Bob Jones (singer)". Both were about the same person. Another good example was one I did a long time ago, Aristotle with a Bust of Homer which was created back in 2008, in 2019, someone created Rembrandt's Aristotle with a Bust of Homer, which was about the same topic. Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
11	A11	No CCS, and clearly invented by the user or someone the user knows. This is a weird one. I guess the user's name, edit summary, or prose has to make the COI clear? Is this usually for things or ideas?	User's name is AcmeWidgets, title is "Acme Widgets", and text is "These are something I invented, they are very popular."	Y - this is hard to explain, but when you see one, you'll know it. Your example is as good as any. Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
12	R2	Redirects from mainspace to any space except category, template, wikipedia, help, and portal. In particular, redirects from mainspace to draftspace or userspace.	A redirect left behind in mainspace from draftifying to draftspace.	Y - although if you do a lot of NPP work, you'll probably apply for the pagemover status, which allows you to move articles to draft without leaving a redirect behind. Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
13	R3	Recently created redirects that are implausible typos.	Title is "Inauauauauaguration of Joe Biden"	Y - but see my additional question below. Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae questions

I thought of several questions while answering this section. Hope you don't mind.

• What if the person objects to transwiki-ing and edit wars you? Does it have to go to AFD at that point? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Hmmm. Not sure what you mean here. I don't think I've ever transwiki-ed an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• If the person edit wars your draftification, what do you do? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  As per WP:DRAFTIFY, if the person objects, it must be moved back to mainspace, at which point the only other action you can take is to send it to AfD. This doesn't mean that they move it back themselves, all they have to do is leave a message on your talk page objecting to the move. My interpretation of that is it must be an actual objection, not simply griping about the draftification. If someone leaves a note on my talk page and is just upset about me moving it to draft, I'll usually respond to them there, and let them know if they object, I'll move it back.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• When do we draftify to draftspace vs userspace? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  I never draftify to userspace. I only move things to userspace which are obvious userspace pages. For instance, if someone moves their sandbox page to mainspace, I'll move it back to their userspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Can we/should we apply CSD tags to articles of notable people? Are we required to do WP:BEFORE research before applying A3 and other CSD tags? How hard should we try to "save" an article? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Good questions. First question, I'll ask you one in response. If a person is notable, what CSD tag would you apply?

Second question, yes. The third paragraph in CSD contains the answer: "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Alternatives to deletion)."

That's up to the individual editor. I do a ton of reviewing, and don't work nearly as hard at saving articles as some other editors. But even then, when I see a potential article which I could potentially put a speedy tag on, I'll move to draft instead, and leave a note saying I'll help them if they want to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If a person is notable, what CSD tag would you apply? Assuming that you're allowed to tag notable pages instead of WP:TNTing them, you could make an argument that the following CSD tags that occur before notability checks in the NPP flowchart could be applied: A2, G10, G11, G7, A3, G12. I guess my question is, if the choice is to WP:TNT, or to apply these CSD tags, which do you normally do? Do you bother to do notability/GNG research if these CSD's apply? For example, if you ran across an article with obvious COI tone, would you do any GNG checks, or just tag it as G11? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Follow up question to R3 above: Say you come across an implausible typo on a redirect, but it was created back in 2008? This doesn't happen often in NPP (usually its an editor actually looking for bad redirects), but occasionally it will come up at the back of the queue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

CSD R3 says "recently created", so I assume that a year 2008 implausible typo has to go to RFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• For CSD A1, which is for articles that are so vague you can't tell what the article is about... does this ever come up? Can't you tell from the article's title what it's about? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  It doesn't come up often, but I've seen half a dozen of these in the past twelve months. Usually the title will be something like "Dvorky", and the very short stub will say something like, "Found just north of the county line, known for its pickles." You can't really adjudicate its existence, let alone its significance or notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• What if someone edit wars you converting their page to a redirect? How much should you revert them? Does that need to go to AFD? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  I never go to 3 reverts in a row. But the question isn't simple. There are lots of different circumstances. For instance, if the redirect was the result of an AfD decision, then I would revert ad infinitum. The other editor is being disruptive, and my returning it to a redirect is not edit warring, but simply reverting vandalism, take a look at WP:Vandalism Templates to see all the different types of disruptive editing there are. But barring exigent circumstances, if I change an article into a redirect, and it's reverted, I might revert again, if no improvement, or explanation is made. If it's reverted again, I'll most likely take it to AfD.

• My modus operandi, btw, is that if I prod or redirect something, and it gets reverted, if I don't feel strongly one way or another about the notability of the subject, I leave it in the queue until another NPP reviewer takes a look at it. If I feel strongly about it's lack of notability, I won't wait for another reviewer, but will take it to AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Scenarios

Scenario 1

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

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

I'd tag this one as both G10 and A7. Also, as an attack page, we're supposed to blank it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - you could add the A7, but the G10 is the main one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 2

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text

'''Good Times LLC''' is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.

G11. Not sure if we're supposed to do WP:BEFORE on something like this. Certainly seems non-notable at first glance. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - no need for a BEFORE.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:55, 22 February 2021 (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.

PROD. If removed, AFD. I could be wrong here... this is a great question for testing the boundaries of A7 and Credible Claim of Significance. Looking forward to your feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

N - no, you'd simply A7 it. If it is reverted, then you take it to AfD. High school plays and self published works are not claims of significance. But prodding would be okay, if you're unsure. This is one that you'll get better at as time goes on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:55, 22 February 2021 (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.

Similar to above. PROD and AFD again? I checked WP:NMUSIC and WP:NBIO, didn't see anything about roadies or hall of fame. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

N - although honestly I would have A7'd it. But your instinct because of the "hall of fame" is good. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Scenario 5

A user creates an article Marks v. Shoup with the following content:

Under the law of Oregon which was in force in Alaska when the seizure and levy of the plaintiff's goods were made by the defendant as marshal of Alaska under a writ of attachment, that officer could not, by virtue of his writ, lawfully take the property from the possession of a third person, in whose possession he found it.

This one sets off my copyvio spidey sense, so I'd be sure to pay close attention to the results of Earwig's tool, if I got that far in the flowchart. I'd also make sure to check for duplicates on this one. This might be a good one to do some WP:BEFORE on to see if this court case is notable. If notable, WP:TNT this barely intelligible SYNTH and replace with a paragraph I write myself that has enough references to pass GNG. If borderline notable, draftify, maybe. The flowchart says draftify for "useful prose", I think that's debatable here. If not notable, PROD and AFD? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - although recognize that there are several different ways you could approach this, yours 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.

Scenario 6

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

If copy/pasted from another WikiProject, A2. Else follow the flowchart (not english tag, google translate, continue). –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - spot on. This does not happen as frequently as you'd think. You also have to consider the sourcing. Again, if undersourced, it would be okay to draftify. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Live CSD practice

Please read WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11 and provide 5 successful CSD 11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol section). Please provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log. Don't rush this, but when you have 5, I'll check.

How aggressive should I be about G11-ing drafts? Because it's a draft, are we supposed to just reject instead and avoid WP:BITE? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have never G11'd a draft. My understanding of G11 is that it only applies to articles. Draftspace is where a promotional article can be made mainspace-worthy. In fact, the only 2 speedy tags I've ever used on drafts are G13 and G12. I'm sure there are other instances which would be valid (e.g. G7 and G10), but I've never run across them. I would reject them, and leave a note explaining about WP not being an advertising platform. I also use the term "promotional brochure" in evaluating drafts. Many times that's what they read like, since the editor is attempting to show the notability of the subject. Also, look at WP:PEACOCK. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

---

1. Draft:Embrace Hotels: CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified Embrace Hotels (talk · contribs) 10:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC) - Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Draft:Dr. Khushwant's Dental Clinic: CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified Rituraj1121 (talk · contribs) 14:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC) - Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Draft:Suchetabhattacharjee: CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified Mdsumon11 (talk · contribs) 16:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC) - Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Pegasuss: CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified PegasussLIVE (talk · contribs) 09:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC) - Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
5. Cmach: CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified Rizvistudent1 (talk · contribs) 09:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC) - Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The first 3 I did were drafts. Then when I read your comment about not G11ing drafts, I switched to articles. Looks like we can G11 drafts no problem (admins delete them), but I agree that we might as well just AFC decline them. #5 isn't deleted yet, but I suspect it will be by the time you read this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an example of different editors having different interpretations. Some admins will delete them, others won't (usually citing BITEY concerns). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violations

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?

We use G12 when most or all of the page is a copyright violation, and there are no clean versions to revert to. We use REVDEL when the copyright violation is small enough that it can just be edited out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - mostly. There are times when a page is so obviously notable, that you would stubify it, removing virtually all the material, and then request a revdel. This primarily happens (and rarely) in articles about politicians, academics, and military personnel. E.g. an article about a Nobel Prize winner, which is copy pasted; an article about a state Senator from Idaho; or an article about an American general. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

4. What constitutes copyright infringement/violation.

• Copy/pasting text and images from most websites into Wikipedia or Commons.
  • Exceptions: many US federal government websites because they are often in the public domain, or a website that specifically says it releases its text and photos under Creative Commons/GNU/similar free license.
• Images photographed by a Wikipedian and released under a free license when uploading are usually fine, although there could be derivative work issues depending on what is in the background.
• Images (such as diagrams) that are modified based on another file are usually not fine, unless that file is also freely licensed.
• Screenshots are usually not fine.
• A copyrighted image can be used under fair use in very specific articles under very specific conditions.
• Small and relevant quotations can be used. Big quotations should be avoided.
• Probably some other cases. Copyright is a little complicated.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - thanks for the detailed analysis. The short answer is anytime we use copyrighted material without the permission of the author. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Follow up question - give me an example where you could use a copyrighted image under the fair use doctrine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

In an article about the image, in a situation where a free image is impossible to obtain (example: person is deceased), with a thorough fair use rationale added to the image. Some image uses also require "critical commentary" (text speaking about that specific image in detail). Overall, kind of complicated. More details at WP:NFCCP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - a common area is on older films and books. They aren't so old that they are beyond the copyright limit, but there is very limited pix available on the internet which have to do with them. So you end up downloading a movie poster, and the doing the fair use doctrine on WP. I've uploaded literally hundreds of these from films of the 1930s-1950s. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 28 February 2021 (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.

• US federal government source, such as a Congressional Research Service report.
• Small, relevant quotation.
• Text copied from another Wikipedia article (but make sure to link back to it in the edit summary).

–Novem Linguae (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Copyright violations need to be removed mainly for legal reasons. It prevents cease and desist letters, lawsuits, etc. Also the Foundation seems to have decided that it wants Wikipedia text and images to be reusable by the public for any purpose as long as there's attribution, which limits the kinds of content we can accept. For example, because of that, we decline submissions from folks that might want to donate text or images under a license that is "educational use only".

De facto, Wikipedians are the ones who determine when a violation is lawfully taking place. We spot the copyright violations and remove them, with the help of administrators who do deleting and revdeleting. We may consult with others such as WP:CQ to help make our determinations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - excellent answers. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:25, 27 February 2021 (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.

1. Draft:Knut Spildrejorde: CSD G12 ({{db-copyvio}}); additional information: {G12 url: https://win.gg/news/2641/bodybuilder-knut-banned-from-twitch-for-transphobic-stream}; notified Jawman2000 (talk · contribs) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC) - Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Ferdinand Gjana: CSD G12 ({{db-copyvio}}); additional information: {G12 url: https://www.beder.edu.al/sh/content/default/rektori-3-16/4/138}; notified Shpendigjana (talk · contribs) 10:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC) - Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Draft:Uneven urbanization: CSD G12 ({{db-copyvio}}); additional information: {G12 url: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-01/tuoh-fgs010621.php}; notified 2404:C800:92A9:AB:EEF4:BBFF:FEE0:89D8 (talk · contribs) 15:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC) - Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Draft:Johnny Malepa: WP:G12 ({{db-copyvio}}); notified JohnnyMasiloMalepa (talk · contribs) 20:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC) - Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
5. Draft:Klickcom: WP:G12 ({{db-copyvio}}); notified Chathura prabhashwara 0 (talk · contribs) 00:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC) - Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Nice job, do you feel comfortable using the earwig tool? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, very comfortable with Earwig. Easy to use tool. I created a user script that adds a link to Earwig to my AFC helper script header. [9] –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

---

A1-A11, R2

9. Pls read WP:R2 and WP:NPPDRAFT. Please explain when a new page can be nominated CSD R2 and what should be considered when doing such a move.

CSD R2 is used to clean up certain (not all) cross-namespace redirects. The most common use for new page patrollers is to delete a redirect from draftifying an article, if you don't have the page mover perm.

Y - spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

When should we draftify?

• The guidance at WP:NPPDRAFT looks a little complicated. There are many different ideas and criteria suggested for draftifying, and they are presented in idea format, rather than linearly.
• There is also this discussion at the NPPR page, where people are giving their practical advice about when they prefer to draftify. Sounds like you prefer to add maintenance tags, watchlist, and draftify weeks later. Celestina prefers to draftify under a variety of circumstances: when an article isn't sourced, is very biased, has a large number of grammar errors, or has obvious COI.
• There is also the NPP flowchart. The NPP flowchart looks the simplest and clearest since it is linear. It states, draftify when an article does not have enough sources to satisfy GNG, such sources are not easily found during a quick Google search, the topic does not appear to meet any SNG's, the notability is borderline, and the article contains useful prose.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - You're right, different editors interpret it differently. I don't do a lot of reviewing from "the front of the queue", which other editors do, but I'd be hesitant to draftify an article less than a week old. And I definitely prefer to have had the article tagged as needing improvement for several weeks, without any effort made at improving it. That way, another NPP reviewer has already checked for other refs. There are times when I do draftify rather soon after creation, but those have to do with UPE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 3 March 2021 (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 CSD A7, and two of them CSD R2) you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol section). Please provide the article names and I will check them at your CSD log.

A7

1. Lihue Christian Church: CSD A7 ({{db-corp}}); notified TheBY (talk · contribs) 20:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC) - Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
2. Belle Lingerie: CSD A7 ({{db-corp}}); notified Cannespicasso2013 (talk · contribs) 00:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) - Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

R2

1. Fasil Parakkal moved to Draft:Fasil Parakkal at 22:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I draftified this one because he said he was an actor. I probably could have G11'd it too. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - since it was deleted for advertising, you're right, you probably could have G11'd it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

1. The Night of Interruptions moved to Draft:The Night of Interruptions at 11:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I draftified this one because it said it had won an award at a film festival. Alternatively, I could have prodded it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - I more than likely would have prodded it, but draftification is perfectly fine. Those are very minor festivals, so I don't feel that they are enough to meet WP:NFIL, so that's why I would have prodded. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Other

1. 2003 Abia gubernatorial election: CSD A3 ({{db-nocontent}}) 21:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

---

COI

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

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

Giveaways include WP:PUFF/marketing speak, a nice headshot photograph, and brand new users that write articles with really good formatting. There is also a list of giveaways at WP:NPPCOI. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - especially if the headshot is stated by "own work". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Depending on how acceptable or unacceptable the rest of the article is, one option is to draftify. If you notice their name is a role account, you could also report them to WP:UAA. Templating them is also mentioned as an option. You might leave a message on the user's talk page regarding their conflict of interest, including (non-exclusively): {subst:welcome-COI} and {subst:uw-coi}. Tagging the article, and the COI noticeboard, are also mentioned as options. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - I review from the back of the queue, so when I look at articles, they've been around for a few weeks at least, and may or may not be tagged for COI already. If it is tagged for COI, and the COI concern hasn't been addressed, I'll draftify it and tailor the draftify message to explain exactly why I moved it to draft. On those rare instances when I do review the beginning of the queue, I'll usually a COI tag. And yes, the condition of the article does matter. Oh, and yes, this only applies to articles that don't qualify for A7 or G11. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Similar to the above, except template them with paid editing templates instead of COI templates. The level 1 paid editing template has strong wording that says they must stop editing until they answer whether they are a paid editor or not. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - I almost always draftify if I suspect UPE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Additional COI/UPE practice

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

1 An editor makes 10 edits to a variety of articles, then creates an article about an obscure businessperson in a single edit, and does not make any additional edits for 3 months. The article appears to meet notability guidelines.

Possible COI - Action taken would depend on the quality of the article. If there were no content red flags, I wouldn't have a reason to dig into their editing patterns. If there were NPOV problems, PUFF problems, primary source problems, etc. then I would follow the protocol you gave above, which is: If front of queue, tag as COI or UPE. If back of queue, draftify. By the way, do you template their user talk page in both cases?

Action - Need more info. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - although the answer you gave in long form is good - always tag this article with possible COI. This is one of the most common ways UPE's attempt to "beat the system". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

2 An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics makes a new article in a small amount of edits about a new TV show. The article is not neutrally written. Since having finished the article, the editor has continued to make a handful of contributions to other articles.

Not COI - COI implies a financial relationship, or another strong kind of relationship such as a family relationship. POV is different. POV is one's beliefs or emotions on a topic interfering with writing articles. For example, one's political beliefs. While the two are a little bit related (failing to use the logical part of your brain to write articles), for the purposes of new page reviewing/tagging/draftifying, they are different.

Action - NPOV tag. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Y, yup, tag it with NPOV. Not COI. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

3 An editor makes 10 edits to articles about locations in Georgia, then creates a meticulously sourced article about a species of tree native to Georgia in a single 50,000 byte edit. They have not made any additional edits since then.

Not COI - The topic of the article matters. COI is usually going to be people or companies, not niche academic topics such as plants.

Action - Mark as reviewed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

4 An editor with the username "ApuOcalanPKKForever" creates a biography about a Turkish dissident. The article is not neutrally written.

Unlikely COI - That username could indicate POV/advocacy, but is not a smoking gun. I'm not sure we can read too much into the username. Seems like a case of NPOV here, rather than COI.

Action - NPOV tag. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

5 A new editor with the username "BillieFan214" writes a non-neutral article about an upcoming Billie Eilish album. They have not made any edits to other articles since completing it

Unlikely COI - An album could be UPE/COI, so I won't rule it out. But seems unlikely. Another case of NPOV.

Action - NPOV tag. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - spot on. UPE's rarely use something so blatant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

6 A new editor with the username "BEOfficial" writes an article about an upcoming Billie Eilish album. They have not made any edits to other articles since completing it.

Very likely COI - The username is a great clue here. I'll have to remember to always check the username.

Action - Follow our protocol. Tag or draftify. Could argue I should do a disallowed username template here too, although I'm not sure how aggressive to be with this yet. By the way, if the article is perfect in every other way, is tagging or draftifying necessary? –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - very definite COI, most likely UPE. And yes, even if an article has no copyright or other issues, you still tag it. That alerts readers and other editors that the article was written by someone with a vested interest. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

7 Over the course of 5 years, an editor writes several articles about a small group of academics and their business ventures. The articles are well-sourced and neutrally written. You've come across their most recent creation, which appears to be notable. Every single article that they've edited in the past five years appears to be somehow related to this group of academics.

Unlikely COI - Assume good faith. An editor with high quality content and many edits.

Action - Mark as reviewed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

N - No, this is the other type of COI editor. More than likely it is someone who has a close connection to the group, and is creating these articles. While not UPE, this is most likely a colleague of those they are writing about, perhaps even one of them. Either tag or draftify. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

8 An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics named "Ismail Oyo" makes a new article about a notable businessperson from Nigeria, and claims the photo in the infobox as their own work.

Possible COI - Could also just be uploading a photo with the wrong license. Photo licensing and copyrights are complicated.

Action - Might post on their user talk page about it to get more information. Additional actions depend on how good/bad the article is, I suppose. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - tag as COI. While you could be correct about the wrong licensing, this is one of the key ways to spot COI. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

9 An editor with 50 edits to a variety of topics is named "StacyRichardson". Included among these edits are the creation of two new articles about businesspeople from Russia. You are reviewing the most recent article, and it does not appear to be notable, although it is neutrally written.

Unlikely COI - I'm guessing COI editors don't usually bother to camouflage their accounts with productive editing, but I could be wrong. In your experience, do COI editors sometimes make 50 minor and useful edits to throw people off?

Action - Tag as A7 or PROD, depending on how non-notable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - while the A7/PROD is not incorrect, the issue here is UPE. This is another common tactic of UPE editors, selecting what looks like a "normal" name, especially in the high-COI editing area like businesspeople. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

10 An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with less than 50 edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked for sockpuppeting. The subject appears notable

Possible COI - However, the occam's razor here is that they are a sockpuppet rather than a COI contributor.

Action - If the subject appears notable, not much we can do. Sounds like we're not allowed to edit war over draftification, and we can't CSD/PROD/AFD if they're notable. I'd leave tags and/or do a heavy copyedit to address any remaining issues. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - although I would research for possible sockpuppetry, and open an SPI investigation if warranted. Once the SPI is over, if a proven sock, G5 it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

11 An article is moved from draftspace by an AfC reviewer with several thousand edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked as NOTHERE. The subject does not appear to meet GNG.

Unlikely COI - The likelihood of a high edit user with perms being a UPE is about zero. I guess it could be regular COI. Maybe the article is about the reviewer's family member or something.

Action - A7/PROD, and a ping or user talk message to the reviewer to help them calibrate and maybe sniff out some more information. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - You'll get to know AfC reviewers over time. Some I have zero issue with (they can be my wing man anytime ), others, you'll find that they may have some of their articles AfD'd after they move it to mainspace. And others, who don't last too long at AfC, have a lot of issues. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

12 An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with a few hundred edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by an account that has been blocked for violating CIVIL. The subject is a borderline case for notability.

Unlikely COI - More likely explanation is the user just thinks the article is notable.

Action - Normal NPP process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Filtering - Deletion policy & other alternatives

In assignment 5, we look at articles which fit WP:Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) whereby the the articles are deleted within a few hours to 24 hours from the time of the nomination. In Assignment 6, we discuss the what actions should be taken for those articles that do not fit under the CSD criteria but do not meet relevant Wikipedia content criteria.

Please read WP:PROD, WP:BLPPROD, WP:MERGE, WP:DRAFTIFY, WP:NPPDRAFT, WP:REDIR, and WP:AFD, and answer the following questions. (Provide links and diffs where they apply.)

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

We propose deleting an article when its notability is very low (the NPP patroller judges the article unable to pass GNG/SNG) it does not qualify under other CSD criteria such as A7. There is a "how notable?" continuum and the corresponding actions we're supposed to take, and it goes something like (least notable) < CSD A7/A9 < PROD < Draftify < Clearly passes GNG or SNG < (most notable). The NPP flowchart is good for determining the best course of action to take.

Y - good. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

As for the PROD vs AFD question, I plan on starting with PROD most of the time, to not clog up AFD with nominations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - good course of action, but be aware, "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." So if there is a contentious edit history (e.g. changing to a redirect, changing it back, etc.), or if it has already been prodded, then it should (in the matter of the former) or must (in the matter of the latter) be taken to AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:BEFORE checks. There's a long list of little things to do, but the most important are google searches for GNG/SNG passing sources. One is supposed to perform Google searches via web, news, news archive, books, and scholar. Right now I check the first page results of each, focusing on if the article's title is in any of the search result titles. You're also supposed to mine the same Wiki articles in other languages for references, and search for both the English name and non-Latin alphabet name of a person (if they are foreign). I created the NPPLinks user script to help with these BEFORE checks, and the links are also found in Twinkle's PROD window. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - nice script, I'll have to check that out. Also remember WP:ATD - for example, if an album does not meet GNG or WP:NALBUM, it's better to change it to a redirect, either to the artist, or to their discography page, if they have one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 8 March 2021 (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)

BLPPRODs are for BLP's with no references or external links. The main alternative is adding citations or external links yourself. Arguably, two other alternatives are draftifying or adding the "no references" maintenance tag. But those contradict the NPP flowchart, so they may not be good options. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - I agree tagging it with no references is not a good option, but it is viable. Draftification is definitely viable, and sometimes preferable than BLP Prod. For instance, someone writes a 2 line bio for a Polish general. You do a quick before and can't find anything on the general. This might be due to foreign language issues, but if they were truly a general, than they pass WP:NSOLDIER, so draftify it, and hopefully the article creator will add sourcing. Another option, of course is CSD'ng those articles which are unsourced but obviously not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

We nominate for AFD when our PRODs are removed, or when we suspect a PROD would be removed if placed. WP:BEFORE checks should be done before AFD nominations. See answers #1 and #2 for additional details. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Typically seven days, with some exceptions for things like SNOW, backlogs in closing, people removing the PROD, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

6. A page was previously BLPPROD and a source was provided. However, if you still think that article should be deleted, what can you do?

Follow the NPP flowchart. You could end up at draftify, PROD, AFD, CSD A10, redirect, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - the BLPPROD is only for the very specific instance of wholly uncited BLP's. But it does not address any other potential issues with the article, so if it is removed after a source is provided, the article should be reviewed just like any other article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

When - When we perform page curation.

How - Follow the flowchart.

What's the difference - PROD is for articles that are not notable but don't qualify for A7/A9. AFD is for articles that are de-prodded. BLPPROD is for BLP's with no sources or external links. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - AfD's are not just for article's that are deprodded. As mentioned above, if there is a contentious edit history (redirecting, removing redirect, etc.) Then a PROD would be inappropriate. You find this a lot when dealing with fans. They'll simply continue to remove a redirect or a prod, so AfD'ing is the correct course of action. Also, as you get more experience, you'll learn that there are certain types of articles that will always be deprodded, so those should go directly to AfD. I won't tell you what I feel those types are, as you should develop that sense on your own, and I don't want to prejudice you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Merges are appropriate if an article already exists at another location, and the article you're reviewing contains useful information not found at the other article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - also remember that only info that passes WP:VERIFY should be considered in the merge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

9. List 10 situations where you could replace the page with a WP:REDIRECT instead of using a deletion process.

After looking at your contribs for ideas...

• an article about a non-notable album can be redirected to the artist
• if an article is created about an artist's discography. However, the discography also appears on the artist's page, and there really is no need as per WP:SPLIT to create a separate page.
• sub-organization of an organization, page has zero independent sources
• duplicate article with different prose
• duplicate article that is a cut-and-paste move
• user replaced an existing redirect, new article is not notable
• unnecessary split from main article
• a low-notability film that fails NFILM (e.g. a small film released only online), redirect to director/producer
• a non-notable police department, redirect to the city
• enforce an AFD that closed as "redirect", after a user tries to recreate the article

–Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - that's what I'm talking about. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

10. When can an article be moved to draftspace?

When its notability is somewhere between PROD and clearly passes GNG/SNG. According to the NPP flowchart, draftify when an article does not have enough sources to satisfy GNG, such sources are not easily found during a quick Google search, the topic does not appear to meet any SNG's, the notability is borderline, and the article contains useful prose. Also, it can't be moved to draftspace if it's been draftified before, it needs to go to PROD/AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

11. 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?

Good question on the languages you cannot read part. I didn't know this until I looked it up just now. You're supposed to mine the same Wiki articles in other languages for references, and you're supposed to search for both the English name and non-Latin alphabet name of a person (if they are foreign). This is in addition to normal WP:BEFORE checks: Google searches via web, news, news archive, books, and scholar. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - very good. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Live practice

12. Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanation of your nomination.

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution - De-prodded. All 12 sources appear to be primary sources. Many are database-like websites presenting school data. My WP:BEFORE searches did not turn up quality secondary source coverage such as newspaper articles or books. I'm experiencing some pushback from an experienced user that was not the article creator. Their arguments seem flawed in several ways. But I don't want to bludgeon the conversation, so I am keeping my thoughts to myself for now. If this closes as delete, this could turn into a series where many other high schools that this user has created are nominated. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - I'm not going to !vote at the AfD, because some might see that as WP:CANVASSING. But you're reasoning is spot on. The disagreements are not based in policy. Once I AfD something, I rarely comment again, preferring to let the discussion take it's natural course. The only times I do are when another editor pings me in a question, or an angry editor makes a personal attack. But if you feel strongly, do not be afraid to respond, but I would keep it pithy. Ping me here when you list your next 4 AfD's. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagarukhra High School - De-prodded high school in India. References in the article are dead links. WP:BEFORE not turning up SIGCOV in secondary sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - but be aware of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This is an area where a year ago, you'd get 15 people !voting keep based on that alone. Consensus now is that there must be some type of in-depth coverage. But you'll still see that being thrown out there, even though there is now a template on the link saying not to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Appel Nissen - De-prodded. All 11 references are regular websites (self-published) or written by the article's subject (not independent). WP:BEFORE not turning up WP:GNG passing sources. Also, she doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC. h-index of 8, her most cited paper has 23 cites. [10] I think this was translated from another Wikipedia, and I appreciate that the editor took the time to do this, but sadly I don't think this person meets our notability guidelines. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - yes, it appears to be a mirror image of the article on Danish WP. Other WP's have different notability/verifiability standards than English WP (almost always lower), so you'll see quite a few folks translate articles. We have one editor who is notorious for doing the translation and then only giving 1 or 2 references. That's not the issue here, but what your cogent analysis in the AfD is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Borg (2nd nomination) - Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. During WP:BEFORE search, I found no new sources via Google that passed GNG. Some sources were mentioned in a previous AFD. This NYT article is not significant coverage of Michael A Borg, but rather significant coverage of a controversy involving Hackensack University Medical Center and a newspaper. The book Communicating When Your Company is Under Siege -is- significant coverage of Borg (7 paragraphs about his struggle with alcohol). The Columbia Journalism Review I accessed through Gale in the Wikipedia Library is significant coverage of The Record newspaper in New Jersey, not of Malcolm Borg. The Mediaweek source I accessed through EBSCO in the Wikipedia Library is significant coverage of The Record newspaper, not of Borg. With only 1 GNG passing source, I do not think this individual is notable. A possible redirect target is North Jersey Media Group. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - good analysis. If I were !voting, I'd !vote to redirect to the media group. There are 3 interesting things about this AfD and the prior one. First, the original AfD was closed as no consensus, based on an editor throwing out a bunch of refs, which no one bothered to check. This happens a lot. And there are several editors who do this quite frequently at AfD (you'll get to know who they are over time). Second, the second keep !vote was by a notorious sock. And third, Borg's son's article, nominated at the same time, was deleted. After it was deleted a redirect was created to the media group by an editor who I never argue about things New Jersey. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul A. Broad - Per my source analysis on the talk page, I believe only this source passes WP:GNG. In my opinion, not enough quality sources to demonstrate notability. Feel free to spot check my source analysis. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - this is going to be an interesting one. The recently added sources are mostly bad links. He gets quoted a lot, and this is borderline in my opinion, but I agree with your analysis. Some editors might consider the other SMH article enough weight to pass GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

13. Participate in 5 WP:AFD where you are the first voter of the discussion. Please provide you reason either to delete, keep, redirect or merge.

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villa Kamogawa - I started off as delete, and did a detailed source analysis. Later I changed to redirect, after I did more searching and found a good redirect target. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - yup, good follow up on changing to redirect - Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sohel Islam - Started off as delete. Appeared to be a non-notable bowler. Later changed to keep, after someone pointed out that spin bowling is actually cricket, and he qualified under WP:NCRIC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - good reversal. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta 8 (brand) - Delete. I rejected this one at AFC. It's a tricky one to verify and do WP:BEFORE on because Delta-8 is both a chemical (of which there is sigcov) and a brand (of which there does not appear to be sigcov). This particular article is just about the brand. The three sources in the article I evaluate as follows: #1 is an interview so not independent. #2 I didn't evaluate yet, but am willing to evaluate if somebody quotes the line where Delta 8 the brand is mentioned. #3 does not appear to mention delta 8, therefore not significant coverage. The two sources in the comment above I evaluate as follows: #1 The NYT article doesn't mention the brand at all, only the chemical, so no significant coverage of the brand. #2 The New York Post is not a reliable source, per WP:RSPSOURCES. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - nice analysis. Look forward to your last two.

4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philanthropy (magazine) - Merge. Move salvageable material to a new section in Philanthropy Roundtable, and then redirect. Not seeing any sigcov in secondary sources in my WP:BEFORE searches. [11][12] –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - spot on. Not much to merge, but merging is warranted since the newsletter is not even mentioned in the target. One thing that sometimes happens is that the AfD is closed as redirect, but there's nothing in the target about the redirect. I can't remember the name of the redirect, but in the last 3 days, one was just sent to RfD for deletion for this reason. So merging, rather than redirecting is the correct move. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio AmchiKONKANI - Delete. Zero hits on Google News. Two hits on Google Books that didn't pan out. I can't find any GNG passing sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - spot on. As the discussion progressed you can see that it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but right now doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST. 16:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

14. Nominate 2 articles for WP:PROD and state your reasons.

1. PRO/II - After cleaning up references and double checking the two references remaining (I downloaded both books and there is no significant coverage on the cited page numbers), and doing a WP:BEFORE search, appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. It is old and abandoned, and I suspect it will be deleted without any issues. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - both sources are mere mentions. And BEFORE is extremely difficult due to the commonality of the name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

2. Mt. Union Cemetery - After WP:BEFORE search, not able to find any sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Not seeing any SNG's this would meet either (WP:NCORP, WP:GEO). This was de-prodded, and somebody added additional sources. There's also some sensitive black history month issues at play. I'm going to back off from this one, and an experienced NPP patroller can decide if this needs to go to AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - I probably would have sent it to AfD after the deprodding, but another reviewer has marked it reviewed, so I tend to let articles like this stand. There is some claim to significance, regarding first multi-racial cemetery in the region, although it doesn't specify what "region" means. The coverage in no way meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

15. Nominate 2 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons.

1. Angelina Kudryavtseva: BLP PROD; notified Clemkr (talk · contribs) 17:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

2. Farah Jefry: BLP PROD; notified Essam El Haisouni (talk · contribs) 19:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - I've removed the BLPPROD since it now has refs, but you were correct in the tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

16.Nominate 2 article for WP:NPPDRAFT and state your reasons.

1. Draft:Jessica Brown - "Likely WP:COI. Also WP:REFBOMBed. I checked all of these sources and I don't think any pass WP:GNG. Need multiple paragraphs discussing Jessica Brown in multiple high quality sources such as newspapers and books to pass WP:GNG." –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - yup. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

2. Draft:4 Mars - "Borderline, but I don't think it passes notability yet. Please add additional high quality citations. I added 2 promising sources that might pass WP:GNG. Also take a look at WP:NBAND, if they have a 2nd album they might pass under that." –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

   Y - nothing wrong with your draftify. This is one of those cases where since it was at or near the start of the queue, I probably would have tagged it for more refs. A brief search (even with the difficulty due to pulling in Bruno Mars sourcing), shows that it most likely is notable. But with the single ref, it didn't meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

PAG, IAR

17. 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

Policies and guidelines are rules that have wide acceptance in the community. They reflect community consensus and should almost always be followed. Technically, a policy is a bit stronger than a guideline, but in practice we should follow both. Essays have not gone through an RFC process, and can vary in accuracy and community support. On one end of the spectrum, an essay can be an accurate supplement to a guideline and have widespread community support. On the other end of the spectrum, an essay can be a userspace essay, one person's musings who is out of touch with the rest of the community. And of course anything in between.

In terms of deletion discussions, policies and guidelines should be treated as rules that we should all follow, and can be cited as such (e.g. "per X"). Essays can be linked, but don't expect people to treat them as rules that they are obligated to follow. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - that's a pretty good analysis. Be aware that in AfD discussions, there are some folk who will push back with stuff like, WP:NSOLDIER is just an essay. But you'll come to learn which essays are pretty much always adhered to like that one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

18. 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?

You mentioned in a previous section that that particular essay is very accurate. Other essays should be used with caution until their accuracy is determined. Some essays are quite accurate and just haven't gone through an RFC to make them official. Some are dated or fringey. Not surprisingly for a process with no quality control, quality of essays varies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

19. When evaluating notability, are you primarily evaluating the article, or the article's subject?

For notability, we are primarily evaluating the article's subject. WP:BEFORE ensures this. The article can be in very bad shape, but if a WP:BEFORE search turns up sufficient sources to demonstrate notability, the article is notable and should not be nominated for deletion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

20. What is your interpretation of the role of WP:BURO and WP:IAR in new page patrol and deletion discussions?

My interpretation is that they convey a spirit of flexibility for borderline cases. But that's about it. In my opinion, the NPP perm is a bit like being a clerk. You learn a procedure and you're supposed to follow it. Major deviations are not encouraged. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - pretty spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Tagging

In this assignment we look at tagging pages for problems. There any many tags available in Wikipedia and we will look at some of them here.

• Please enable Wikipedia:HotCat in your "Wikipedia references" - see How to enable/disable HotCat. The tool lists and proposes existing categories for auto-completion.
• Please install StubSorter user script. The script is for adding/removing stub tags.
• Please install Rater user script. The scripts provides a dialog interface to add, remove, or modify WikiProject banners, including class and importance assessment. Accessible from either the page itself or its talk page. after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
• Please enable User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper gadget for editing, adding, and importing short descriptions.

Tagging in the article

Please read WP:TAGGING and answer the questions below. Please provide explanations in your own words and provide hist diff when applicable.

1. Why do we place tags on the article?

Mainly, to plant a seed in potential editor's heads that something needs fixing. Also, to put articles into hidden maintenance categories, which can be helpful for people who want to focus on a specific tag, such as copy editing. Also, to alert readers to issues, such as COI or NPOV. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

2. What does "drive by tagging" mean?

Cheeky answer: Placing a tag that an article's regulars disagree with. Serious answer: Placing a vague tag and then not explaining your reasoning on the talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Y - although a talk page explanation is not always needed. For example, if an article is full of weasel and peacock terms, there's no need to say on the talk page that it's full of those things. There are certain tags which should never be added without a talk page explanation (COI and UPE) being the most prevalent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

3. List 8 tagging behaviors that should be avoided in an article.

1. Over-tagging (placing 3+ tags on an article)
2. Drive-by tagging (placing a vague tag and then not explaining it on the talk page)
3. Tagging a short article with "lead too short" and similar lead tags
4. Tagging something that is so minor that you could easily fix it yourself
5. Removing tags without addressing their underlying reasoning
6. Removing COI tags while having a COI
7. Removing {{cn}} tags without adding a citation
8. Applying the wrong tag

–Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

4. When is it appropriate to remove tags?

If there's no active talk page discussion, when you judge that they are fixed or you judge that they do not apply. I'd follow BRD for this. If there's an active talk page discussion, then once consensus to remove has been reached. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

5. Tag 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed where appropriate tags are needed. (please provide links)

1. 01:13, March 23, 2021 diff hist  +35‎  Parvavis ‎ Added {{Uncategorized}} tag current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

2. 01:07, March 23, 2021 diff hist  +73‎  Jake Najor ‎ Added {{COI}} and {{Orphan}} tags. ||| 01:05, March 23, 2021 diff hist  −33‎  Jake Najor ‎ remove BLP sources tag, sufficient sources. ||| This one was a copy paste move. The copy paste even had a maintenance tag. However I could not find the source. I put a COI tag on it. Was this the correct action?

   Y - I think you need to better explain why you believe this is a COI. Copy paste? From where? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

   I was not able to find the source. However a look at the page history shows it was definitely copy pasted. I know it wasn't written from scratch because the copy paste contained a maintenance tag. Anyway I have removed the COI tag. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

3. 01:02, March 23, 2021 diff hist  +103‎  Munarman ‎ Added {{Cleanup}} and {{Uncategorized}} tags

   Y - this highlights a problem with tags and when editors correct them. You tagged it appropriately, and another editor fixed the issue, but then didn't remove the tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

4. 23:58, March 22, 2021 diff hist  +115‎  The Adventures of Joe Coodryette ‎ Added {{Notability}}, {{Orphan}}, and {{Uncategorized}} tags

   Y - this is one of those rare instances where a fourth tag is necessary, the bare URL's tag. If you do tag an article with that, leave it ungrouped, which makes it easier for folks who work in that area to easily click on the "refill" button to correct the issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

5. 23:49, March 22, 2021 diff hist  +35‎  Invasion (upcoming TV series) ‎ Added {{Uncategorized}} tag current

   Y - I happened to review it earlier today, and it also had a slight copyright issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

6. 23:45, March 22, 2021 diff hist  +70‎  Basketball in Japan ‎ Added {{Self-published}} and {{Uncategorized}} tags

   Y - although I probably would have hit it with a primary source tag as well. I can only see the one blog as self-published. But most, if not all, of the others are primary sources. Sources like Rakuten are usually considered primary, rather than self-published. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

7. 23:28, March 22, 2021 diff hist  +40‎  Podhum massacre ‎ Added {{Improve categories}} tag current

   Y - again, the issue was corrected, but the tag was left on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

8. 23:07, March 22, 2021 diff hist  +62‎  Ceri King ‎ Added {{Orphan}} and {{Uncategorized}} tags

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

9. 23:01, March 22, 2021 diff hist  +82‎  Goran Čelar ‎ Added {{Orphan}} and {{No footnotes}} and {{Improve categories}} tags

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

10. 22:54, March 22, 2021 diff hist  +62‎  Anya Shevchenko ‎ Added {{Orphan}} and {{Uncategorized}} tags

    Y - Question, are you tagging these as orphans because that comes up in the page curation tool? If so, remember to purge the page, and then check the "what links here" tool. The page curation tool doesn't update once it tags an article as orphan. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks for pointing this out. I happened to read about this somewhere, and I was purging the cache, then checking "what links here", in order to decide when to add the orphans tag. So luckily I did not have any trouble with this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

6. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types and use StubSorter user script. Tag 10 stub class article correctly from Special:Newpagesfeed. (please provide links)

1. 16:21, March 20, 2021 diff hist  +36‎  m Hereford dispensary ‎ +{{Architecture-stub}}, +{{UK-stub}} using StubSorter current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

2. 16:12, March 20, 2021 diff hist  +58‎  m Rick Peterson (politician) ‎ +{{Canada-business-bio-stub}}, +{{Canada-politician-stub}} using StubSorter

   Y - although the stubs are still there, even though it's no longer a stub. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

3. 16:11, March 20, 2021 diff hist  +25‎  m Ingeborg Gude ‎ +{{Norway-artist-stub}} using StubSorter current

   N - the problem is, it's not a stub. If it was a stub, it would be categorized correctly. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

4. 16:10, March 20, 2021 diff hist  +36‎  m Monument to the heroes of Puente Sampayo ‎ +{{Sculpture-stub}}, +{{Spain-stub}} using StubSorter current

   N - again, not a stub. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

5. 16:08, March 20, 2021 diff hist  +32‎  m Pistis Ghana ‎ +{{Ghana-stub}}, +{{Brand-stub}} using StubSorter current

   N - not a stub. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

6. 16:07, March 20, 2021 diff hist  +22‎  m Thelma Awori ‎ +{{Uganda-bio-stub}} using StubSorter current

   N - not stub. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

7. 16:03, March 20, 2021 diff hist  +32‎  m Pastel (Brazilian food) ‎ +{{Food-stub}}, +{{Brazil-stub}} using StubSorter current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

8. 16:03, March 20, 2021 diff hist  +35‎  m Kue pastel ‎ +{{Food-stub}}, +{{Indonesia-stub}} using StubSorter current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

9. 16:02, March 20, 2021 diff hist  +21‎  m The Little Mermaid Pinball ‎ +{{Videogame-stub}} using StubSorter current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

10. 16:01, March 20, 2021 diff hist  +22‎  m List of Stuff You Should Know episodes (2019) ‎ +{{Podcasting-stub}} using StubSorter current

    N - not a stub. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, on the ones which aren't stubs, your category selection was spot on, but I'm curious to know what your thinking was on why some of them you thought were stubs? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No good reason. I just forgot. I have paid attention to your feedback and I'll be sure not to make this mistake in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, there are some admins who work on fixing stubs who will jump all over you for that, so be aware. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Categorization

7. Please read Wikipedia:Categorization and assign 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed to one or more useful categories. You can check similar articles for potentially relevant categories. (please provide links)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_Philip_Hawke_Brooksbank&action=history
   1. British princes
   2. House of Windsor
   3. Living people
   4. I thought about creating "2021 births", but as this whole article is likely to get reverted back to a redirect due to lack of notability, I don't think it's worth the hassle of creating "2021 births" then getting CFD'd.

      Y - and as you suspected, back to a redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qatar-3&oldid=1014232844
   1. Andromeda (constellation)
   2. Stars
   3. I opted against "Stars in the Andromeda Galaxy" or "Andromeda Galaxy", because who knows, maybe this star is in front or behind the Andromeda Galaxy.

      Y, although another editor has put more specificity than the broad stars category. But there's nothing wrong with what you did. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_Design_(magazine)&oldid=1014233670
   1. Professional and trade magazines
   2. Magazines established in 1952

      Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Tooley&oldid=1014237971
   1. 1551 deaths
   2. 16th century English businesspeople

      Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mulock_Cup&oldid=1014243935
   1. Awards established in 1894
   2. Sports trophies

      Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asrat_Tunjo&oldid=1014252689
   1. Ethiopian footballers
   2. Living people
   3. 1996 births

      Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lekan_Otufodunrin&oldid=1014254036
   1. Nigerian journalists
   2. University of Lagos alumni
   3. Living people
   4. Year of birth missing (living people)

      Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marisa_Moseley&oldid=1014254440
   1. Wisconsin Badgers women's basketball coaches
   2. Boston University Terriers women's basketball - there was no category for coaches
   3. Living people
   4. Year of birth missing (living people)

      Y - the year of birth missing a "hidden category", in case you didn't notice that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binomo&action=history
   1. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
   2. 2014 establishments
   3. Online brokerages
   4. Online financial services companies

      Y - It's been properly draftified since you added cats. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MHT_missile&oldid=1014287018
    1. Air-to-surface missiles
    2. Not a lot of categories in the other missile articles I checked.

       Y - yes there are some articles which will only fit in 1 or 2 cats, others can be in dozens. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Good call on checking similar articles for category ideas. That appears to be essential to categorizing well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This seemed to go quite easy for you. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Sorting

8. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:Content assessment and tag 10 articles from Special:Newpagesfeed with appropriate WikiProject and class types on the articles' talk pages. Similar to adding categories, sometimes clicking on a blue link in the lead can give you a hint as to what projects the subject might be related to. Please use the Rater user script. (please provide links)

1. 13:33, March 27, 2021 diff hist  +236‎  N Talk:Ulrich Alexander Boschwitz ‎ Assessment (Start/Low): +banner shell, +Biography, +Judaism, +Germany (Rater)

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

2. 13:29, March 27, 2021 diff hist  +135‎  N Talk:Adalet, Merkezefendi ‎ Assessment (Stub/Low): +banner shell, +Turkey, +Cities (Rater) current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

3. 13:27, March 27, 2021 diff hist  +196‎  N Talk:Head of Eutropius ‎ Assessment (Stub/Low): +banner shell, +Archaeology, +Sculpture, +Visual arts (Rater) current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

4. 13:17, March 27, 2021 diff hist  +105‎  N Talk:Jordan Baja ‎ Assessment (Stub/Low): +Motorsport, +Jordan (Rater) current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

5. 13:13, March 27, 2021 diff hist  +228‎  N Talk:Ninjago (season 2) ‎ Assessment (C/Low): +banner shell, +Animation, +Lego, +Television, +Toys (Rater)

   Y - although it was redirected after you rated it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

6. 13:10, March 27, 2021 diff hist  +271‎  N Talk:Richard Levy (paleoclimatologist) ‎ Assessment (C/Low): +banner shell, +Biography, +Environment, +Climate change, +Geology (Rater) current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

7. 15:04, March 27, 2021 diff hist  +135‎  N Talk:Hacıeyüplü, Merkezefendi ‎ Assessment (Stub/Low): +banner shell, +Cities, +Turkey (Rater) current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

8. 15:03, March 27, 2021 diff hist  +52‎  N Talk:2006 FA Trophy Final ‎ Assessment (Stub/Low): +Football (Rater) current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

9. 14:55, March 27, 2021 diff hist  +135‎  N Talk:Ravachol Parrot ‎ Assessment (Start/Low): +banner shell, +Birds, +Spain (Rater) current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

10. 14:53, March 27, 2021 diff hist  +231‎  N Talk:Juliette Nothomb ‎ Assessment (Stub/Low): +banner shell, +Belgium, +Women writers, +Biography (Rater) current

    Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Should we always add people to their country's WikiProject? Do the country WikiProjects want fairly ordinary citizens in their WikiProjects? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  No harm in it. If the project doesn't want them, they remove them. Personally, I rarely put biographies into country projects. Not saying that's right, that's simply my procedure. My philosophy is that as long as you get the main cat (like putting a soccer player in Football, or a sculpture in Visual Arts), that's the important thing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Are my C assessments OK? I've been giving out C's to articles with around 15 paragraphs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  The paleontologist article might be graded a B, but a C is okay, if someone disagrees, they make the change. The other article, I would have graded List. Difficult for me to look at it, since it's been redirected, and I can't see who it fleshed out. But episode articles are usually list articles.

• I see some WikiProject Biography articles have something like "WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers". Example: Talk:Thomas_Bezucha. Do we need to worry about these more specific categories ("Actors and Filmmakers") in Rater, and if so, how do we add them? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  You never have to worry about them. But as you review, you'll get to learn some of the more frequent ones. On bio articles, I almost always, if possible, add parameters. First, if they are living, then if I can easily figure it out. Which usually isn't that hard, since most fall into the sports (sp), academic (s&a), music (musician), film (filmbio), or artist (a&e). The living thing is important though, since blp's are handled differently. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

---

WikiProject Short description

9. Short descriptions help a reader to identify which search result is most likely to suit their needs. Most mainspace pages should have a description, preferably no longer than 40 characters. I've done thousands of these, and after a while, they get to be second nature. Please read Wikipedia:Short description and Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions and provide 10 short descriptions in 10 different articles from Special:Newpagesfeed. Please enable User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper prior making the edits. (please provide links)

1. 20:51, March 28, 2021 diff hist  +55‎  Mulock GO Station ‎ Adding short description: "Train station in Ontario, Canada" (Shortdesc helper) current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

2. 20:51, March 28, 2021 diff hist  +56‎  Kaleem Simon ‎ Adding short description: "Montserrat footballer (born 1996)" (Shortdesc helper) current

   Y, although it would have been fine without the (born 1996). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

3. 20:48, March 28, 2021 diff hist  +55‎  Seoul Robotics ‎ Adding short description: "South Korean 3D software company" (Shortdesc helper) current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

4. 20:48, March 28, 2021 diff hist  +48‎  .accountants ‎ Adding short description: "Top-level Internet domain" (Shortdesc helper) current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

5. 20:46, March 28, 2021 diff hist  +63‎  Children's Cardiomyopathy Foundation ‎ Adding short description: "American non-profit medical organization" (Shortdesc helper) current

   Y - if your getting close to the 40 character limit, you can always substitute US for American. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

6. 20:45, March 28, 2021 diff hist  +51‎  Mount Westmore ‎ Adding short description: "American hip hop music group" (Shortdesc helper) current

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

7. 20:41, March 28, 2021 diff hist  +10‎  Shouchang River ‎ Changing short description from "River in China" to "River in Zhejiang, China" (Shortdesc helper) current

   Y - some editors would not see the need for the extra specificity. In fact there is one editor who makes it a habit of minimalizing every SD they come across (e.g., they'd make this one, "River"). I disagree with that, I always try to be as descriptive as possible, while staying under 40 characters. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

8. 20:40, March 28, 2021 diff hist  +77‎  Rais Abin ‎ Adding short description: "Indonesian military officer and diplomat (1926–2021)" (Shortdesc helper) current

   N - over 40 characters. It's been changed to delete the dates, which makes it comply with the 40 character rule. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

9. 20:38, March 28, 2021 diff hist  +61‎  John Schlarman ‎ Adding short description: "American football offensive line coach" (Shortdesc helper)

   Y - another variant could be American college football coach. In this category, it can be tricky: does "American football" mean the sport we call football in the states, or is it an American who plays the sport of football? That's just me though Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

10. 20:37, March 28, 2021 diff hist  +27‎  2020 Alpine Skiing World Cup – Men's Downhill ‎ {{Short description|none}} - title describes this perfectly

    Y although this is a VERY recent change (last month). Same thing with for list articles, which used to get tagged "Wikipedia list article". I think it's a good change. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Communication with editors

We are in the homestretch now! Wikipedia is the product of collaborations between many editors, some experienced and some new. Wikipedia values all constructive editors' contributions alike. Communication in a civil, respectful manner is a vital part in Wikipedia, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged especially for new editors who are not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Most new editors find it is a steep learning curve during the first few months of editing articles or creating articles in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and welcome template and answer the following questions. Do provide links and hist diff where appropriate.

Communication and editor interactions

1. In your own words, why is it important to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE new editors?

Research has shown that IP's and very new users write most of Wikipedia's content. So it is important to give them a good experience. Also, policy and culture around here are complicated and take a long time to learn. It would be unfair to expect a newer editor to not make mistakes, and it would be unfair to pounce on them for it. Finally, it's a good habit in any environment to be polite and welcoming to people. Bad experiences will drive good people away. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

2. How do we deal with a bad faith registered user and how do we deal with a bad faith IP editor?

How do we know they are acting in bad faith? There's a lot of gray area. For IP's and newer users, the 4 levels of warning templates are a good option. The templates are educational, and gradually escalate in severity. They also document the misbehavior on the user talk page. For more experienced editors, to avoid WP:DTTR issues, custom messages on talk pages work well. Content disputes may start off on an article talk page and end with an RFC. User behavior issues may start with warning templates or talk page discussions, and end at AIAV or ANI. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Y, but remember that some editors, if they have been on WP awhile, take great umbrage at templates. Certain functions at NPP auto send templated messages, so be prepared to respond to those with a brief explanation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

3. What can we do to welcome and help the newcomers.? (List 10 different ways/scenarios)

1. Welcome template on user talk page.
2. Custom welcome message on user talk page.
3. Fix an edit instead of reverting it wholesale.
4. Have an attitude that being bold is OK.
5. Don't accuse people of being sockpuppets.
6. Don't accuse people of being meatpuppets.
7. Assume good faith.
8. Fix new user's talk page mistakes, such as forgetting to sign.
9. Careful advising that a person should wait to do something until they "gain more experience".
10. Be nice to newcomers that accidentally duplicate a topic on a talk page.

    Y - those are all good, but know that sometimes they do not apply. For example, there are times when an ip is obviously a sock. Also, while you shouldn't use terms like "gain more experience", it's perfectly acceptable to say to a new editor that they might be better served to work on existing articles, so that they can learn the ins and outs of WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

4. In you own words, provide 10 ways to avoid biting the newcomers.

1. When undoing/reverting, leave an edit summary.
2. When patrolling the front of the new pages queue, consider waiting 10-60 minutes before tagging for deletion, maintenance tagging, etc.
3. Consider using personal messages instead of templates.
4. The experienced editor should remain calm. Newcomer's errors may be good faith errors, and should not be taken personally.
5. Try to improve a bad edit rather than reverting it.
6. Don't be sarcastic.
7. Don't use words like terrible, dumb, stupid, and bad.
8. Type out policy names rather than using WP:SHORTCUTS.
9. Don't over-warn. If others have already warned for the same thing on a user's talk page, no need to warn twice.
10. Hanlon's Razor - never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance

    Y, your #2 is one of the reasons I review from the back of the queue. When I do review from "newest", I always page down until I start on the day prior. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

5. Place 5 different welcome templates on 5 different newcomers. (Please provide user talk page links)

• 23:52, April 1, 2021 diff hist  +588‎  N User talk:Aktauedit ‎ Welcome to Wikipedia! current
• 23:52, April 1, 2021 diff hist  +586‎  N User talk:Paavan19 ‎ Welcome to Wikipedia! current
• 23:52, April 1, 2021 diff hist  +596‎  N User talk:Dakalo munyai ‎ Welcome to Wikipedia! current
• 23:51, April 1, 2021 diff hist  +592‎  N User talk:Ayushyadav1 ‎ Welcome to Wikipedia! current
• 23:51, April 1, 2021 diff hist  +582‎  N User talk:GCNRaj ‎ Welcome to Wikipedia! current

  Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

6. List 5 uncivil behaviors and explain how you would deal with them.

• Personal attacks
• Rudeness
• Disrespectful comments
• Aggression
• Harassment

How I would deal with this is similar to the "bad faith" question above. For IP's and newer users, warning templates work well. For more experienced editors, customized responses work well. For persistent or egregious uncivil behaviors, AIAV and AIV are an option. Of course, de-escalation such as ignoring or withdrawing can be a good option too. I am not a fan of deleting NPA talk page comments, as that 1) deletes the record of the person's misbehavior, and 2) is a major escalation that usually upsets the person and increases drama, so I don't plan on using that tactic. For very serious uncivil behaviors such as harassment and outing, special processes exist, if needed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Y, although could you please elaborate on what specifically to do when you see outing or harassment? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

A token of appreciation

We reward Wikipedia editors for their hard work and due diligence by awarding them barnstars as a token of appreciation, encouragement and make its recipient feel good of their contributions. The choice of banstar given should be fair and appropriate, which will help prevent over-use. There are many different type of banstars, kindly read Wikipedia:Barnstars, Wikipedia:Personal user awards

7. Give 5 different banstars to 5 different editor and do provide relevant text as to why you are awarding them. (Please provide links)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garuda28&diff=997274953&oldid=996860890&diffmode=source
  • For being a pleasure to work with over at United States Space Force. You've worked with me and others to address multiple talk page concerns. You've been open to trimming large parts of the article. You've added paragraphs of high quality content. I was expecting battles for some of this stuff, but in each case you immediately saw our root concerns and were an absolute pleasure to work with. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

    Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pinoczet&diff=1010063848&oldid=1010063350&diffmode=source
  • For writing a very nice WP:AFC article, Integrative and conjugative element, that had no problems and was very easy to accept. This is very impressive for a newer editor. Keep up the good work, my friend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

    Y - interesting choice. There isn't a specific barnstar for creating an article, although there are barnstars for the work of AfC reviewers. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buidhe&type=revision&diff=1015570897&oldid=1015511735&diffmode=source
  • I see your name a lot for anything related to page moves. Whether it's closing page move discussions or answering technical requests. Thanks for helping out with the backlogs there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

    Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dgtlcraft&type=revision&diff=1015573968&oldid=1015573018&diffmode=source
  • Great job on your first article. The amount of time you spent researching was very impressive. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you ever have any questions. Keep up the good work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

    Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrimeHunter&type=revision&diff=1015574140&oldid=1014214596&diffmode=source
  • Thank you very much for your help at the WP:HELPDESK the other day. I appreciate it. [13] –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

    Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Final Exam

Sounds so official doesn't it? Wooooo... Based on your efficiency in going through each part, I think this is simply a formality, but it never hurts to review. There are 10 parts, so take it at your own pace. I'll check at least once, perhaps twice a day, so we'll be through in a week or two.

Part 1 - Questions

1. In your own words, how should you communicate with editors whose articles you are reviewing?

All communications on Wikipedia should be calm, respectful, and polite. Don't bite the newcomers. Any attempts to give feedback to a user on their editing should be based on policies and guidelines. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

2. What kind of sources are needed to demonstrate the notability of the subject? Why is this important?

GNG passing sources need to be reliable, independent, significant coverage, and secondary (or tertiary). SNG passing sources (such as an entry on a cricketer at espncricinfo) just need to be reliable and independent. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

3. What constitutes a WP:COPYVIO? When might something not be copyvio despite having text identical to a source?

A copyright violation is copy pasting text or closely paraphrasing text from a source that lacks a license compatible with Wikipedia. In the absence of a copyright notice, assume the text is copyrighted. Even if the text is freely licensed, we should still indicate that we copied it by providing a citation and an appropriate template such as pd-notice. Example of "not copyvio despite having text identical to a source": US federal government websites and sources are often public domain, and their text can therefore be used on Wikipedia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Y - spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

4. What should we do when we encounter WP:COPYVIO in an article?

Small amounts of copyvio can be trimmed and tagged for revision deletion. Large amounts of copyvio should be G12'd. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Y - there is some debate on how much of an article which is a copyright qualify for G12. Probably about 15% of my G12's an admin will wade through the weeds and trim, and leave a stub or micro stub. Here's an example of one which happened today. Justlettersandnumbers is one of the top five, imho, admins regarding copyvio. I could have hacked it down to a stub, but honestly, I'm not sure of it's notability, so G12'd since the vast majority was a copyvio. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

5. What should we do when we encounter WP:PAID?

Front of queue: tag as COI/UPE. Back of queue: draftify with edit summary indicating the COI/UPE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

G12 for large amounts of copyvio. REVDEL for small amounts of copyvio. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Y - very similar to question #4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

7. What makes an article a WP:PROMO page? What should we do when we encounter such an article?

Assuming that WP:PROMO is referring to #4 self-promotion, a conflict of interest is what makes the article WP:PROMO. A conflict of interest is when an article's writer/editor has a financial, personal, or other type of close connection to what they're writing about. This close connection causes a loss of objectivity. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

N - it's not just about #4, it's about all 5 of the points. Your answer does cover #4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

8. Why do we tag a page? What are common tags to place in an article?

Maintenance tagging plants a seed in editor's minds that something needs to be fixed, places the article in hidden maintenance categories that can help draw attention to it, and informs our readers that there may be a problem with the article that they should be aware of. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Y - Extra question: Do we ever tag a page, AND mark it reviewed? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

9. When do we WP:R2 a page?

When we want to delete a redirect from mainspace to certain other namespaces such as user or draft. A common scenario for this is deleting links left over from draftification. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Y - That's one reason. Another big one is that the redirect is not mentioned in the target article. In fact, that's the more common issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

10. When do we WP:PROD a page?

When the reviewer has determined that the page does not meet notability requirements, judges that the deletion is unlikely to be contested, the article has never been prodded before, and the article does not qualify for a CSD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

11. When do we WP:BLPPROD a page?

When an article has zero citations, external links, or authority controls, and the subject of the article is a biography of a living person. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Y - spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

12. When do we WP:AfD a page?

When the reviewer has determined that the page does not meet notability requirements, the article does not qualify for a CSD, and there is a problem that keeps us from using PROD, such as expecting the deletion to be contested, or the article has already been prodded once before. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Y, also if you believe that the Prod will not be controversial. For example, you've prodded a high school baseball player, the article creator has objected to the prod, so you've taken it to AfD. Then you come across a similar article from the same editor. You know he's going to contest the prod, so you should take it directly to AfD (this happened to me just last week - all 2 or 3 are at AfD now, and will all be deleted). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

13. Why it is important to WP:CSD a page when the article fit the CSD criteria?

It's important to CSD when we can because it keeps from clogging up AFD with unnecessary nominations. You could also argue that CSD is the community's consensus for obvious, uncontroversial deletions that will almost always improve the encyclopedia, therefore we should always CSD obvious cases. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Y - also, some CSD's need to be removed as quickly as possible (e.g. copyvios). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

14. When do we decide to WP:R2 / WP:PROD / WP:BLPPROD a page when the article has no source in it?

I assume R2 is a synonym for draftify. We draftify when an article has borderline notability and we want to give the author a chance to demonstrate notability and resubmit. We prod when the article is clearly not notable. We BLP prod to nudge an author into providing sources for a BLP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Y, yes, R2 means draftify, but in my future classes, I'll change that verbiage, since it can be confusing. You're close on this, but let me tweak it a bit. You draftify when an unsourced article has a clear claim to notability, e.g. Mr. X is a Grammy-Award winning record producer. If it's borderline notability, that's hard to ascertain in uncited articles, so if notability is in question, tag it BLPPROD. And your answer for Prod is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

15. In your own words, list 5 things you have learnt from observing and participating in AfD.

1. Votes don't have to be straight keep or delete. Delete and redirect, redirect, merge, and probably some others I'm forgetting are also acceptable.

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Some people do not realize how policy-based AFD is, and vote viscerally. These votes are probably weighed less or ignored by closers.

   Y, and one would hope that these !votes are not given weight, but unfortunately, many AfD closes are simply closed on a !vote count basis - it can be frustrating. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

3. New page patrollers are pretty active at AFD. Lots of submissions and votes.

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

4. Academics are tricky, both because WP:NACADEMIC is tricky, and because they may qualify under other criterion such as WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG.

   Y - boy, don't I know this one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

5. Whether SNG's are an auto pass, or just a rebuttable presumption of passing GNG, is a contentious issue. Currently there seems to be a slight majority in favor of auto pass. Although this is getting eroded for things like football and cricket players with only one game.

   Y. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Part 2 - G11

Please review WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11 and provide 5 successful CSD criteria G11 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Please provide the article names and hist diff/links

1. Appinventiv: CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified Sublinamani (talk · contribs) 20:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC) - Was 1 paragraph of promotional prose. Mostly got cleaned up. A possible sock removed the G11, although the removal was probably appropriate since it got cleaned up. Then a third person draftified it. I started an SPI on the sock.

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

2. GyftMasters LLC: multiple criteria (A7, G11); notified Kevserj (talk · contribs) 09:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Doros Quintet: multiple criteria (A7, G11); notified Richard James OHEU (talk · contribs) 09:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

4. Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance: CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}); notified Truwsetu3 (talk · contribs) 05:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC) - This one is debatable. It isn't necessarily spam (it's by a student editor, which I learned later), but in my opinion it is WP:ADVOCACY for the organization and its goals.

   Y - students can write promotional articles as well. I was never more of an advocate as when I was in college. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

5. Promate Powerstations: CSD G11 ({{db-spam}}) 05:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Part 3 - G12

Please review WP:COPYVIO, WP:REVDEL, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:DCM and WP:G12 and provide 5 successful CSD G12 articles you have nominated from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol or Article for Creation section). Please provide the article names and hist diff 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.

1. Draft:Phl india: WP:G12 ({{db-copyvio}}); notified Hardik kumar s (talk · contribs) 08:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Get to Gather maithili talk show: CSD G12 ({{db-copyvio}}); additional information: {G12 url: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14133124/plotsummary?item=po5711578}; notified Naveenkbhardwaj (talk · contribs) 19:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Draft:Get to Gather maithili talk show: CSD G12 ({{db-copyvio}}); additional information: {G12 url: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14133124/plotsummary?item=po5711578}; notified Naveenkbhardwaj (talk · contribs) 22:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC) - Admin draftified it without addressing the copyvio. After pinging them and not getting a response, I decided to tag for CSD again.

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

4. Draft:Jack Maguire (violinist): WP:G12 ({{db-copyvio}}); notified Maguiredamian (talk · contribs) 08:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

5. Draft:Stefano Zapperi: WP:G12 ({{db-copyvio}}); notified Filippoleveraro (talk · contribs) 08:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Part 4 - A1-A11

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 hist diff.

1. Ayon Osman: CSD A7 ({{db-person}}); notified Mdtanbirahmed (talk · contribs) 21:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Manjesh Chaurasiya: CSD A7 ({{db-person}}); notified Manjeshchaurasiya (talk · contribs) 08:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

3. GyftMasters LLC: multiple criteria (A7, G11); notified Kevserj (talk · contribs) 09:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

4. Doros Quintet: multiple criteria (A7, G11); notified Richard James OHEU (talk · contribs) 09:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC) - I was a bit quick to tag some of these (6 minutes). Someone pointed it out to me and I will wait 15 minutes in the future.

   Y - I saw that message on your talk page. It's one of the reasons whenever I review from the front of the queue, I almost always scroll down until the prior day. Unless I'm going to mark easy ones "reviewed", but I don't think I've ever tagged one for any of the deletion criteria less than a day old. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

5. The Boathouse Putney: CSD A7 ({{db-corp}}); notified Cisca85 (talk · contribs) 23:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC) - This one is debatable. You could argue it's a building not a company, and you could argue that "started by an Olympian" is a credible claim of significance. The article has some references, one of which is secondary. Figured I'd try it though for calibration. Just seems like a run of the mill local business to me.

   Y - I agree, not seeing the notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Part 5 - PROD and draftify

1. Nominate 2 articles for WP:PROD and state your reasons.

1. Turbo Play: PROD; notified MCWNT (talk · contribs) 06:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
   • Reason: Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. That is, around 3 quality sources such as books, newspapers, magazines, or review websites do not discuss the product in multiple paragraphs of detail. This is a common term, but once I adjusted my searches to include software and not include gambling, I got very few results.

   Y

2. Md Intaj Ali: PROD; notified Abuloveayrin (talk · contribs) 10:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
   • Reason: Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Can't find an h-index. Zero hits in Google News. Other WP:BEFORE also didn't turn up good sources. -- Looking back, this might have been A7-able.

   Y - clearly does not meet SCHOLAR. Seems to be a promotional, might be UPE, definitely COI, as the photo is "own work". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Nominate 1 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons.

1. Cascade Brown: BLP PROD; notified Noam25 (talk · contribs) 06:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC) - Admin removed BLPPROD and replaced it with PROD, due to there being an IMDB source in the page's history.

   Y - when you nominated it, it was the correct move. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Please read WP:R2 and WP:NPPDRAFT and provide 2 successful WP:R2 from Special:NewPagesFeed (New Page Patrol "ONLY"). Please provide the article names and hist diff.

1. 20:11, April 12, 2021 diff hist  +83‎  N Two-faced Person ‎ Novem Linguae moved page Two-faced Person to Draft:Two-faced Person: Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace - May be notable, but is currently sourced mainly to Chinese government websites. More WP:SECONDARY sources needed. May also be a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. WP:AFC process seems appropriate here. (via script) - An experienced editor came along and greatly improved the draft, then checked with me on my user talk page. I told him it didn't quite meet my threshold, but I was fine with him moving it back to mainspace. He went ahead and moved it back to mainspace.

   Y - your move was correct. Possibly is a very good editor. I don't always agree with them, but can never disagree with their work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

2. 20:34, April 12, 2021 diff hist  +80‎  N Mohammed Ajam ‎ Novem Linguae moved page Mohammed Ajam to Draft:Mohammed Ajam: Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace - I spot checked "The age of Sinan architectural culture in the Ottoman Empire" source, did not find Ajam mentioned in there. Inline citations need work to prove that this topic is notable. (via script) - The editor posted a message on my talk page saying he made the article in mainspace originally because he wanted help from Arab speakers. I kept in draftspace for now, but I posted a message at WikiProject Arab World for him.

   Y - you are going to be better at this than I am. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Part 6 - AFD voting

1. Participate in 5 WP:AFD's where you are the first voter of the discussion. Please provide you reason either to delete, keep, redirect or merge.

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Sherinian (2nd nomination) - Delete. Only one reference in the article is significant coverage, and it was likely written based off a press release. WP:BEFORE not turning up quality sources. Fails WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SixWeeks - Delete. This source was the only significant coverage I could find. Fails WP:GNG. I also find the WP:NEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS argument convincing. This seems like a click bait, pique your interest type story that isn't particularly encyclopedic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y - many "inclusionists" (although I hate that term) get on John Pack Lambert for his AfD votes, but his record is damn strong. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of live chats - Delete. I agree with the nom about WP:OR. I get a "somebody's notes" vibe from this rather than an "encyclopedia article" vibe. Also, the maintenance burden and verifiability burden of a page like this is concerning. The languages, pricing, and free trial durations probably change frequently. In contrast, a bulleted list of notable live chat systems would be acceptable (and already exists at Web chat). –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y - these type of comparison articles are sometimes difficult. WP:ISNOT leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wessex Society of Newfoundland and Labrador - Draftify. I checked all the sources with links. This source appears to pass WP:GNG and may pass WP:CORPDEPTH. There are also around a dozen other sources that didn't have links, and need a more thorough verification process such as by using WP:RX. This kind of research should be done in draftspace by an AFC reviewer, where there isn't the one week time limit of an AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y - I agree with your draftification !vote. Not sure I agree with it probably passing WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. But those are the perfect articles to draftify. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalpasa Ankita Shaw - Delete. I almost nominated this one myself, but I wanted to see how others handled it. For me, it seemed like a gray area between A7/draftify/AFD. It is sourced, and the sources are completely about her so it's on its way to significant coverage. However I am left uncomfortable with 1) possible lack of independence of the pieces (could be advertorials), 2) possibility that these aren't respected WP:NEWSORGS but are instead just blogs, especially odialive.com, and 3) the WP:NOTGOSSIP nature of the pieces. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

   Y - spot on. I think we went over the potential for advertisements/press releases passing for articles in the Indian press. This is a poster child for it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Part 7 - AFD nominating

1. Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanation of your nomination.

1. Appinventiv: nominated at AfD; notified Shovapa Trinada (talk · contribs) 06:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
   • Reason: Remade after draftification. While some of the sources provided may pass WP:GNG, I don't think all 3 of them pass GNG, particularly the Economic Times one which is clearly based off an interview or press release. WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up additional strong sources, although feel free to double check. I found some https://ksusentinel.com articles, and it calls itself a newspaper, but the appearance of the website looks a bit like a blog to me, and it has no "About Us" page to confirm that it has an editorial staff.

     Y - I actually came upon this AfD prior to seeing it here and already !voted on it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Neemat Daud Abdulrahim: nominated at AfD; notified Atibrarian (talk · contribs) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
   • Reason: De-prodded. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. First three sources in the article are self-published websites so not reliable, fourth source is a passing mention so not significant coverage, fifth source is the homepage of a website with no linked article, sixth source is a normal self-published website so not reliable. WP:BEFORE not turning up additional sources.

     Y - thought I had already marked this. Definitely spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC

3. Lekan Otufodunrin: nominated at AfD; notified Bolamanuel (talk · contribs) 05:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
   • Reason: Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. The two secondary sources in the article are mostly quotes from the subject, so not independent. My WP:BEFORE searches got lots of hits, but the articles were either written by the subject (not independent) or just passing mentions (not significant coverage). By the way, he appears to have worked for the The Nation (Nigeria), so careful using them as a source for this particular subject.

     Y - sound reasoning. Remember that since he worked for The Punch and The Nation, no references from those sources can be used in terms of notability, since they are not independent. However, if he does meet notability, those sources can be used to verify information (such as a bio of the editor). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

4. Alberta Association of Architects: nominated at AfD; notified Samoboh (talk · contribs) 06:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
   • Reason: Unsourced since 2006. WP:BEFORE reveals a decent number of search results, but they are almost all passing mentions. The best sources I could find from clicking on about 20 newspaper articles and books were this PR piece and this one paragraph in an encyclopedia.

     Y - your reasoning is sound, but we'll see if this one passes. Organizations like this have a good chance of surviving AfD. While most folks will state the essay AfD is not cleanup as though it is a policy, I'm more of a follower of [[Wikipedia:Using deletion as cleanup, and this could lead to this article getting the proper sourcing. Either way, it's a win for the project. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

5. Kalyana Pittenu: nominated at AfD; notified Amalsdamalsd (talk · contribs) 15:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
   • Reason: Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. 81 google results, 0 news, 0 books, so very little English language coverage of any kind. If article creator wants to add the Malayalam transliteration of the name to the article, or a link to a Malayalam wiki page, I'd be happy to search for additional sources in Malayalam. For now, does not appear to be notable.

     Y - obviously, since it's already been deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Part 8 - Questions

Please list 10 things that need to be considered when reviewing a page.

The NPP flowchart, basically.

1. Is the article written in English?
2. Is the article blank or nearly blank? (A3)
3. Does the article have sufficient context to identify the subject? (A1)
4. Does the article contain a copyright violation?
5. Does the article have 2 or more references to independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic with significant coverage? (GNG)
6. Does the topic already exist at another title?
7. Is the article at the correct title? If not, move to the correct title or list at WP:Requested moves.
8. If there are no categories: add categories or tag {{uncategorized}}
9. If the article is a stub: add stub tag (sort if possible)
10. If needed, add maintenance tags, starting with the most relevant.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Y - nicely done. On to the last 2! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Part 9 - NPP

Please follow the NPP flowchart and read all the reading material provide from Assignment and tools 1-8 and answer the questions below. Please pick 5 articles that meet the notability guidelines (not PROD/BLPPROD/R2/AfD/CSD) from the new pages from Special:NewPagesFeed and follow the NPP flowchart and provide the appropriate answers below (please place N/A if not applicable). Pick articles that have 3-4 sources for the exercises below. (Please provide links and history diffs.)

1.

1. Article = American Jobs Plan
2. Article titles = Y Title looks fine. No move needed.
3. Images copyright = Y This isn't in the flowchart. Are we supposed to check this? The infobox images are in the public domain.
4. NPOV = Y No tone issues. Everything sounds factual.
5. COI / PAID = Y No COI/UPE red flags.
6. COPYVIO = Y 2% on Earwig.
7. Article Class = Start
8. Short Descr = I added "U.S. proposed infrastructure legislation"
9. Categories = 2 were already present. These look fine. After checking my comparison article (American Jobs Act), I didn't see any other good categories to add.
10. Review = Y Mark as reviewed.
11. Reason (for 10) = The sources in the article (except for Vox) do not meet GNG, but a WP:BEFORE search turns up good sources, such as [14] and [15].
12. Sources

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The White House	Biden's white house writing about Biden's jobs plan is not independent.	Self published.	Pages and pages about the jobs plan.	✘ No
Vox	WP:NEWSORGs are usually independent.	Vox is reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES	Entire article is about the jobs plan.	✔ Yes
TaxFoundation.org	Content looks unique. Not just copied from somewhere.	No indication of an editorial process. Probably just a blog / website / WP:SELFPUBLISH.	Entire page about this topic.	✘ No
TaxPolicyCenter.org	Content looks unique. Not just copied from somewhere.	No indication of an editorial process. Probably just a blog / website / WP:SELFPUBLISH. Although could be debatable... think tanks are a gray area, and some think tanks are found to be reliable and secondary, such as Pew Research Center.	Entire page about this topic.	✘ 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}}.

Y - nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

2.

1. Article = Kentucky Route 3716
2. Article titles = Y Title looks good. Capitalization is the same as similar articles such as Kentucky Route 16.
3. Images copyright = Y The article's only images is "own work", public domain. Weird combination... I thought you had to use CC0 to release into public domain. But anyway, the "own work" is quite plausible, a simple SVG is easy to create. No red flags here.
4. NPOV = Y Tone is fine. Factual.
5. COI / PAID = Y Zero COI red flags.
6. COPYVIO = Y Earwig 4%.
7. Article Class = Someone already marked it as a Kentucky road stub. I agree.
8. Short Descr = I added "Highway in Kentucky, United States"
9. Categories = The 3 categories already present seem fine. They match my comparison article, Kentucky Route 16.
10. Review = Y Mark as reviewed.
11. Reason (for 10) = As a state highway, this article passes WP:GEOROAD. Which is lucky for this article, because I don't see any GNG passing coverage of this non-notable 4 mile road. Google Maps doesn't even have it numbered. By the way, should I tag primary or self-published for an article like this? I'm leaning no since it's a gazetteer style article.
12. Sources

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Kenton County Highway Map	Primary source. Published by the State of Kentucky.	No reason to doubt its factual accuracy. Not secondary though.	No prose. Just maps.	✘ No
Kenton County state primary road system	Primary source. Published by the State of Kentucky.	No reason to doubt its factual accuracy. Not secondary though.	Just passing mentions.	✘ 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}}.

Y Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

3.

1. Article = Berbati's Pan
2. Article titles = Y Title looks fine. Duplicate search turns up no good merge targets.
3. Images copyright = Y No images.
4. NPOV = Y No tone problems. Factual.
5. COI / PAID = Y Created by a very experienced editor.
6. COPYVIO = Y 0% Earwig.
7. Article Class = Stub. I agree with the current label of Oregon building stub.
8. Short Descr = I shortened it to "Defunct nightclub in Portland, Oregon, U.S."
9. Categories = This already had a lot of categories. I added Category:Defunct drinking establishments in Oregon; +Category:Restaurants disestablished in 2010 based on my comparison article, Carriage Room.
10. Review = Y Mark as reviewed.
11. Reason (for 10) = This one was close to not passing WP:NCORP due to no local coverage, but ref #3 Insider's Guide to Portland probably counts as non-local coverage. Let me know if I'm wrong. I wasn't able to get a hold of the book, but I will AGF.
12. Sources

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Oregon Live	No issues.	WP:NEWSORG	Entire article is about the article subject. First couple of paragraphs contained no useful info, but the rest of the article is good.	✔ Yes
Oregon, Compass American Guides	No obvious independence issues.	Published book.	Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see Berbati's Pan on this page.	✘ No
Insider's Guide to Portland, Oregon	No obvious issues.	Published book.	Unable to verify, but I will AGF since this is close to passing.	✔ Yes
Williamette Week	Mentions some negative things, so likely not press release based.	WP:NEWSORG	Entire article is about Berbati's Pan. Short article. Probably just passes the sigcov threshold, although it's debatable.	✔ Yes
Portland Mercury	Mostly quotes.	WP:NEWSORG	Because the quotes don't count, there's only two paragraphs of coverage here, and there's very little encyclopedic information presented in the two paragraphs. Not in depth enough.	✘ 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}}.

Y - although I disagree with your assessment, as I don't think this passes WP:NCORP, but it's close enough that different editors might see it differently.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

4.

1. Article = In Defense of Looting
2. Article titles = Y Title looks good. No duplicate articles. Infobox is italicizing it for us.
3. Images copyright = Y No images present.
4. NPOV = Y Tone is good. Factual.
5. COI / PAID = Y Created by experienced editor. No hints of COI.
6. COPYVIO = Y Passed Earwig. 25%. Some quotes were highlighted.
7. Article Class = At 4 paragraphs, I'd normally rate this a stub. (5 paragraphs is when I switch to start.) Someone already tagged it start though, so I'm fine with leaving it as start.
8. Short Descr = I added "Book by American author Vicky Osterweil"
9. Categories = Already had lots of cats. Cats look good.
10. Review = ? Not sure, but leaning pass.
11. Reason (for 10) = If I encountered this one, I would probably leave it in the queue or ask you first. The Atlantic article passes GNG and probably counts towards NBOOK (since it's arguably a book review). This Towards Freedom book review could possibly count as book review #2, resulting in an NBOOK pass. That assumes that Toward Freedom is found to be reliable. According to their website, their submission process is open to the public, but vetted, and favors journalists. There may also be other additional GNG or NBOOK passing sources. I think all these articles on the controversy the author's NPR interview generated might not technically pass GNG because they're slightly off topic, but in an AFD debate, the voters might not agree with such a strict interpretation. I am left thinking that these articles by experienced users (my first time working with these types of articles, as I filtered by "new users" for my other exercises) are quite difficult to evaluate, as many of them are borderline.
12. Sources

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Barnes & Noble	Financial COI. They are selling the book.	Reliable for facts about the book, such as the publisher, which is what it is cited for.	Just facts. No significant coverage or analysis.	✘ No
NPR	Mostly an interview.	NPR is normally reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES.	Entire article is about the book.	✘ No
HuffPost	Mostly an interview.	HuffPost is marginally reliable for politics, per WP:RSPSOURCES. I judge this article to be reliable. The writer is not a contributor as far as I can tell.	Entire article is about the book.	✘ No
The New Yorker	Mostly an interview.	The New Yorker is a reliable source, per WP:RSPSOURCES.	Debatable, but 2 meaty paragraphs may not meet the significant coverage threshold. My informal threshold lately based on your feedback has been 3 meaty paragraphs.	✘ No
The Atlantic	Independence of author and content.	The Atlantic is reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES.	Entire newspaper article is about the topic.	✔ 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}}.

Y - spot on in your analysis. I would not consider Toward Freedom a reliable source. One thing I do when reviewing, and the article's current state doesn't meet notability, is I tag it for notability, which makes the BEFORE easier. I've added that tag. Just a cursory look, it does appear to have enough coverage, due to notoriety, to pass WP:GNG, although I don't think it would pass WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

5.

1. Article = European Association for Biometrics
2. Article titles = Y Title looks fine. No duplicates found. Capitalization looks fine.
3. Images copyright = Y No images present.
4. NPOV = Y You could argue the article is promotional. But it does not meet my promotional language threshold. The tone is mostly factual, and opinions are not stated as facts.
5. COI / PAID = Y The editor has 500 edits, and makes it easy to check his other articles created by providing a link on his user page. He has created a variety of articles, not just NCORPs. COI unlikely, imo.
6. COPYVIO = Y Earwig 3%. No concerns.
7. Article Class = Start (8 paragraphs)
8. Short Descr = I added "Dutch non-profit organization"
9. Categories = There were already 4 categories. I added "Non-profit organisations based in the Netherlands"
10. Review = N Notability fail. I prodded it. I would not mark as reviewed, since we do not mark CSD and PROD as reviewed. We do mark AFD as reviewed.
11. Reason (for 10) = None of the 5 sources count toward GNG. WP:BEFORE found some passing mentions in books, and a lot of posts on https://biometricupdate.com/, which looks like a PR press mill. In the footer, it says "Submit a Press Release". I found no GNG passing sources.
12. Sources

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Cordis	Looks like a third party data website, recording information about a grant.	Reliable for data. It's an EU government website.	Data page. PRIMARY.	✘ No
Frontex	Independent of the non-profit. No obvious connection.	Another official EU government website. Reliable for data.	Just links to their homepage. Article subject not mentioned.	✘ No
EU Lisa	No obvious connection to the article's subject.	EU government website.	Link to a homepage. Article subject not mentioned.	✘ No
Biometric Update	PR press mill. Footer says "submit a press release". No independence of content.	Sounds like they accept any user-submitted press release. WP:SELFPUBLISH.	Non-profit is not mentioned.	✘ No
International Identity Day	No obvious connection to non profit.	Private website. WP:SELFPUBLISH.	Non profit not even mentioned.	✘ 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}}.

Y - well done! 13:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Part 10 - New article

1. Please create an article in via Wikipedia:Articles for creation whereby the subject is notable, the content adheres to all requirements, and contains appropriate tagging/labeling/linking as discussed from Assignment 1-8. Some notable subjects can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/API Women.

Draft:Lily Gao - I got the topic from the Women In Red link above. Not my best work (pretty much no GNG sources exist), but should pass WP:NACTOR. For some articles I've written recently that pass GNG, feel free to check out Fake Famous and No corporate PAC pledge. By the way, what's the threshold for NACTOR? Will any 2 named roles in films/shows with a Wikipedia article pass? Does it have to be a recurring role over multiple episodes? –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Y - obviously, since another NPP and AfC reviewer has already approved the draft, moved it into mainspace, and marked it reviewed. The question of the significance of roles is one of judgement. Simply having a "named role" is not enough, in most editors opinions. For example in your Gao article, her first role was named, "Mei", but I don't think any editor would call that significant, same with her third role. Similarly, her fourth role, "Jennifer", probably would not be considered significant either, at least I would not. However, her fifth role, "Karen", having appeared in 7 of the 16 episodes of the series, might be considered significant. She had a named role in Through Black Space, and without judging the notability of the film, even if the film is notable, her role is not significant. Her role in Expanse is also significant, so that's the bare minimum to pass WP:NACTOR. The fact that she has another significant role in a film which is in post-production (not just "upcoming"), certainly cements her case. One spot of contention is for actors who appear as the star of a single episode of counts as a significant role. Most editors would not agree with that assessment. But some do.

I had already seen your other two articles, actually it was I who marked them reviewed - although I did that without realizing they were created by you. Very nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Graduate

Part	Total questions	Mark	Total available	Question right	Your score	Your percentage
1	20	1	20%	18	18	18%
2	5	1	5%	5	5	23 %
3	5	2	10%	5	10	33%
4	5	2	10%	5	10	43%
5	5	2	10%	5	10	53%
6	5	2	10%	5	10	63%
7	5	2	10%	5	10	73 %
8	10	1	10%	10	10	83%
9	5	2	10%	5	10	93%
10	1	5	5%	1	5	98%
TOTAL	66		100%	59	88	98%

• Bravo! It's certainly been a process, but you've done excellent work, I couldn't be prouder of your performance. I'll let Barkeep49 know to add the NPP right to your usergroups. And you have the right to add the following on your userpages:

This user is NPP SCHOOL graduate

..

Remember, I'm always there if you have a question (as are most other NPP patrollers). Now stop wasting time reading your accolades and get to work!

Thank you very much Onel and also thank you Barkeep49 for the quick add. It'll feel weird not visiting this page every day. One chapter ends, another begins. See you both around! –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)