User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial

Purge

Hi Ebe, welcome to your NPP tutorial!

Instructions

Read through WP:CSD and WP:NPP. These are your new page patrol bible/ koran/ whatever religion you prefer.

This is not a test. Take as much time as you need, and feel free to look up guidelines.

We'll start with 8 pages to patrol. I've written a history at the bottom of each, in case that information is relevant.

Edit each page exactly as if you found it at NPP, except if you want to delete it, don't actually tag it for deletion because this will confuse the admins, just make a note of which deletion tag you would use.

Use the comments section, here to write about anything else you would do. If the page is already fine and you'd just mark it as patrolled, just write "patrolled" in the comments section here. If you're not sure what to do, it's best to leave the page unpatrolled - so write in the comments section of this page that you would leave it unpatrolled. If you have more comments or questions, you can write those too.

When you've finished, let me know and we'll discuss them.

Round 1

1. Angela Quinlan

Comments

Tag for Weasel words
CSD for nonsense
CSD for Unremarkable person
Tag for Uncategorized

Discussion

CSD for unremarkable person is the right tag

. I wouldn't use CSD for nonsense here, because WP:CSD says it's just for: "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history." The article isn't gibberish, it's a sentence that makes sense - it's just not remarkable enough for a wikipedia article

. Can you see the difference?

I can see the difference.

Cool. Speedy quiz: which csd would you use for articles that just say:

1. Janet Jackson is the most nicest girl at my school ever.(Unremarkable person) Yep

2. Janet Jafeihon grafigledfg jobidlee.(No meaningful content) Yep

3. Janet Jackson is (Insufficient content) Yep, A3 no content applies here

4. Janet Jackson stinks and everyone hates her. (Attack) Yep

2. Haplostachys haplostachya

Comments

Good article
Mark as patrolled
User that made it has a username that should be reported

Discussion

I agree it's a good article. Why do you think the username should be reported?

No, not really needed for the username to be reported

Yeah, the username looks alright to me.

3. Sunday morning football in Kings park

Comments

Tag for Unreferenced
Tag for Uncategorized

Discussion

Have a closer look at this one. Do you think the topic meets the notability guidelines?

I just cannot find the right part of the Criteria for speedy deletion for it.

What could you use if you think it should be deleted but it doesn't meet any CSD criteria?

Post an AfD discussion.

Yep that's right, AfD or PROD things that are non-notable but don't seem to fit CSD criteria.

4. AJ Angelique

Comments

Tag for autobiography
Tag for Uncategorized
Tag for Unreferenced BLP

Discussion

Well noticed about the autobiography. Make sure you put a note on the talk page to explain if you use that tag, as it says "Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."

This article is a tricky one because it's hard to tell whether she's notable or not. The article definitely hasn't demonstrated that she meets WP:AUTHOR, so I'd at least tag for notability. I'd also do a quick google to see if I could add references myself - in this case I didn't find anything useful. I just checked to see what actually happened to this article, and someone A7'ed it (unremarkable person). Personally I wouldn't have used A7 because WP:CSD says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance", and I'd take writing 3 books as a claim of significance. Maybe I'd being overcautious: A7 is the speedy tag that's hardest to judge.

As you noticed, it's an unreferenced BLP. As unreferenced BLPs are very bad things there is the WP:BLPPROD tag, also known as the sticky prod, for all BLPS created after March 2010 with no references. Have you used it before? That's what I would use here. What do you think?

I never used it before but I think that that page should have it.

Ok great. Have a read of WP:BLPPROD. Ask me if there's anything there that's confusing. Here's a quiz about biographies of living people:

A new BLP looks notable but has no references. What should you do? Add the unreferenced BLP, and or PROD.
Okay, but WP:BLPPROD would be better than WP:PROD here, because BLPPRODs are "sticky": they can only be removed once someone adds a reliable source.
A new BLP has a couple of references but could use more. What should you do? Add refimprove BLP
Yep I agree.
Can the article's creator ever remove the BLPPROD? No, it must be by an other user.
I don't agree. As far as I understand it, anyone can remove the BLPPROD, including the article's creator, as long as they add at least one reliable source. See Wikipedia:BLPPROD#Objecting.
You come across a BLP that was created in 2008, but still has no references. You look everywhere for some, but can't find any. It seems the person might not be notable. What should you do? Speedy deletion requested, and custom reason of speedy deletion.
Possibly, but most articles that have survived that long don't meet any of the CSD criteria. In that case, AfD is probably best.
A new BLP is about a minor politician. It says that he's a crook, had an affair with a 19 year old girl and got arrested for dealing drugs when he was younger. It has no references. What should you do? Attack page speedy deletion.
I agree.
Why is it important that BLPs should be referenced, anyway? So that the subject (remember that it is living) is okay with what is there, and better accuracy.
Roughly speaking, yes.

5. Ghjk

Comments

CSD for Nonsense
Tag for Uncategorized
Tag for Unreferenced

Discussion

Yep, total nonsense

. It's a bit of a waste of your time to tag for uncategorized and unreferenced here, as this one will definitely get deleted.

Yeah, but just to show if it shouldn't be deleted, what tags would I put.

Ah I see, that's fine then.

6. Camairco

Comments

Tag for wikify
Tag for Uncategorized
Tag for unreferenced
CSD for unremarkable company

Discussion

This one is a bit of a favourite of mine, I came across it NPPing myself it a few days ago. It does look awful, doesn't it? But it's not unremarkable at all, just poorly written. It's Cameroon's national airline, and a bit of googling turned up plenty of coverage in African newspapers. I wikified it and added the references, and then some other editors worked on it, and now it's a perfectly respectable airline stub.

Okay.

7. QPID - Jeff Marino

Comments

CSD for Unremarkable person
Tag for refimprove
Tag for Uncategorized

Discussion

I think this is one of these cases where it's better to be cautious. A7 is not for articles "that make any credible claim of significance or importance". The article claims he "had big success all over the world as the front figure of the Hip Hop duo, QWAN... signed a world-wide deal with Euteria Management Group." Maybe he's notable, maybe he's not, but it sounds like a claim of significance. The problem with CSDing is that the article will be gone before the creator has a chance to improve the references. After you've tried looking for reliable sources yourself, maybe this could be WP:PRODed with a message "This article needs references to reliable, independent sources to show that Marino meets WP:ARTIST"? That way if the creator comes back he has some helpful information about how to improve it.

Good.

Cool. In your opinion, what are the advantages of PROD? What are the disadvantages?

The advantage is that all is all has a chance to be verified. The disadvantage is it would be deleted if it isn't verified in 10 days.

8. Googleov.com

Comments

CSD for spam
CSD for unremarkable website
Tag for uncategorized
Tag for refimprove
Tag for No lead section

Discussion

Good choice, spammy and unremarkable article. Again, tagging for uncategorized etc is probably a waste of time on this one.

Okay.

General discussion If the problem is something you can fix yourself, like wikifying, or adding categories, or adding a couple of references, have you tried fixing rather than tagging? It takes a bit longer but it's much more helpful to the encyclopedia, and more satisfying too, to make the ugly but notable articles look like nice stubs.

Break, for kit kat eating and chatting

Nice work on round 1 Ebe. I think we're making progress, I'd like to carry on as I still think there's a lot of room for improvement. Are you happy to move onto round 2?

Has the tutorial helped you learn anything so far? Do you have any questions, or suggestions to me, or areas you want to focus on particularly?

I am ready for round 2. The tutorial is so well made!

Thanks Ebe

. Okay, I'll make round two at some point in the next few days. In the meantime, your challenge is this: find a small, ugly but notable article and improve it into a nice shiny wikified, referenced article. (Places where you can find small ugly articles include Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons, or at Special:NewPages.)

Round 2

Same instructions as the first round. Take your time (you don't need to finish the whole tutorial in one session unless you want to) and remember "leave unpatrolled" is fine as a choice, and is much better then patrolling it with the wrong choice. I often leave pages unpatrolled if I think the creator is still writing them or if I'm not sure about the topic. For the purposes of this tutorial, you can write "leave unpatrolled" and then still add a guess of what ought to be done.

Alderman Mary O'Connor

BLPPROD

Tag for Unreferenced BLP
Tag for Uncategorized

(you forgot the history)

Yeah I did, sorry! Good choice, BLPPROD is useful for this kind of situation, where the person looks notable but there are no sources. The ideal thing to do here would be to google for some sources and add them yourself, but if you don't want to then a BLPPROD is okay. (Also, I'm impressed at how quickly you noticed round 2

- you started answering before I'd finished writing it!)

Propyl Heptyl

Tag for refimprove
Tag for Uncategorized
Tag for Wikify
Tag {{External Links}}

Yep, that seems fair.

Traveling with asmartphone as a guide

(Need help)

CSD for Advertisement
Tag for Unreferenced
Tag for Uncategorized
Move to Traveling with a smartphone as a guide

If by 'need help' you mean leave unpatrolled, then that's a sensible choice. This is a weird one, it doesn't seem to be promoting one phone or one site so it probably can't be CSDed as an advert. In this case this was PRODed, and then went to articles for deletion because the prod was removed. Do you agree with those choices? If so, can you write what you might say in the AfD nomination?

I do agree. If there was an AfD for that, it would be like a promotion of many apps. What about moving it to Traveling with a smartphone as a guide?

Lol yes, you can move it if the title's annoying you! It was the creator's mistake, not mine.

The promotional tone is certainly a problem, but the policy that best describes this article is WP:NOTGUIDE, from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You can see what people wrote at the real AfD here, and indeed vote on it yourself if you like (but check the current version of the article before you vote, it's changed a bit since the version I copied it to my userspace). Have you voted in many AfD discussions before? Have you ever nominated an article for AfD?

Actually, I did make an AfD and I have participated in them.

(I'm back, had to go sleep!) That's cool. I'm planning to do some more about AfD in round 3. By the way, I meant to say that moving it was a good idea :) , especially as the new user wouldn't be able to fix it cos you can't move pages until you're autoconfirmed.

How many rounds are there?

I don't have an exact plan, as long as you're happy we can basically go on until both of us feel we've covered everything. I'm tailoring the tutorial to the areas you need to focus on, and asking less questions on the areas that you've shown you understand well (like how to identify attack pages). I was thinking probably 4 rounds, it depends how long the rounds are. Off the top of my head, I'd still like to discuss copyright violations, AfD, how soon after their creation to tag pages, and a few odds and ends. You can also suggest topics to talk about: its your tutorial.

I really like the tutorial, and thanks for doing this for me. It's okay all of the rounds you do. I would even go up to 1 googolplex!

Thanks! I'm enjoying it too.

Isn't it strange that users cannot move pages, but can make pages before attainding the autoconfirmed flag.

Yeah, it is strange, and problematic in some ways. I'm not sure about this, but I think in the past there were problems with vandals moving existing pages to really stupid titles, so this was a way to help reduce it.

I made an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lego Atlantis 2: The Quest for the Golden King)

Ah I see. Good nomination :)

Hyro Da Hero

BLPPROD

Tag for Unreferenced BLP
Tag for Uncategorized

In reality this one was sent to AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hyro_Da_Hero, where it was decided it could be speedied under A7. I think your BLPPROD answer is also fine though, and if the creator adds a reference but it still doesn't seem notable, you can always send it to AfD later. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Bighoto

Tag for Uncategorized

Good. It also needs copyediting, which you could do yourself or tag, but it's not really a problem if you forget to add a copyedit tag.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nandavarta

Tag for Uncategoized
Tag for Dead-end

That sounds reasonable.

Spot the difference

Use the guidelines WP:PROD and WP:BLPPROD to help answer this question.

List, in as much detail as you can, the differences between BLPPROD and PROD:

For BLPPROD, it is only removable when there is a source. As for PROD, it is not like that (most of the time)
What do you mean by "most of the time"?
Sometimes, for PROD, it is because of sources.
For BLPPROD, there is 10 days, but for PROD, it's 7 day
Perfect.
For BLPPROD, it is only for BLPs, as for PROD, it is not (most of the time)
Yep.

If the article's creator removes a PROD but doesn't address the problems, what can you do next?

Address it on the talk page for discussing if to revert or if it is good enough.

Do you mean you might revert so that the PROD was readded? It's not quite the answer I'm looking for.

Address it on the talk page for discussing if it is good enough to pass.

That sounds very sensible, it's always good to discuss disagreements. The point I was getting at was to make sure you knew that (unlike BLPPROD) you can't re-add the PROD, even if the creator removes it and does nothing about the problem. If they won't discuss it, or they discuss it but you still think it needs deleting, what would you do next?

AfD. (Thanks for the answer. I just didn't see it.)

Cool.

If the article's creator removes a BLPPROD but doesn't add any sources, what can you do next?

Warn the user, and revert
If there was already sources just before the removal of the BLPPROD, do nothing.

Great answer. I like that you're covering all the different possibilities. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Challenge

Did you improve any stubs for the challenge? If yes, could you link to one that you're pleased with so I can see?

I did lots. But I forgot which ones. One of them, there was a big pile of info, for golf like this

Course     Winner   Runner Up
Lots of info

. Then, I put it all in tables. It took about 1 hour.

Oh yes, I found it in your contribs: it was Long Island Golf Association Amateur Championship. Very nice work. Out of interest, did you enjoy doing it?

I did like doing it. Most of the time, when I help articles instead of tagging them, I like to categorize uncategorized articles.

Cool. I think it's good to do editing on wikipedia as well as new page patrol. It helps you understand why people get annoyed with taggers - it takes one minute to add a tag, but sometimes an hour's work to fix the problem. It also gives you a feel for what an article could be, even if it looks rubbish at the moment.

Wait. For the instructions, you said which religion that I prefer but I am an atheist.

I'm an agnostic. It was just a figure of speech really.

Prod prod prod

Unlike the BLPPROD, where the reason is always BLP with no sources at all, for PROD you need to write the reason in. Comment on each of the following prod nominations. Are they fine? Would you phrase it differently (if so, write exactly what you would put instead)? Should the article be PRODed at all- if not what should be done instead? (WP:Reasons for deletion might be useful here, also use your common sense and other experience of wikipedia.)

An article by a new contributor, with one source, about a hockey player who doesn't seem to be notable (but claims enough significance to avoid A7).

No, but it could be in AfD.

Why do you think this should be AfD rather than PROD? (I'm not saying you're wrong, just want to understand your reasoning.)

Well AfD is almost the same thing (it is an article) but its for the notability.

See very long answer below

An article about a minor Harry Potter character.

{{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=We have too many articles about Harry Potter characters.}}

No, too many harry potter caracters is not a valid argument to delete an article. But the notability could do it because that it is minor.

Good answer.

A boy-band who won 7th place in a TV talent show but haven't released any albums.

{{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC.}}

No, but AfD might be good for notability.

Why do you think this should be AfD rather than PROD? (Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, just want to understand your reasoning.)

See above to the hockey player

An article with no references about a new steel-making technology called Expatial which has been developed by a company called Extreme Performance Alloys, Inc.

{{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=This appears to be a non-notable neologism and fails WP:NEO. I find no relevant matches in GBooks or GNews archives. If this were an accepted industry term then I would expect some technical publications with ISBNs to use it.}}

Yes it fails notability and there must have references.

Yes. I also think this is a really great example of writing a good PROD reason, because:

The nominator explains exactly what the problem is and links to the relevant guideline, so that the creator can go read it and try to fix the problem.
They explain what action they took themselves, to check that there aren't any sources easily available.

An article about a radio presenter that's poorly written, has a few reliable sources, but has a "Childhood" section that's unreferenced.

{{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=Poorly written, needs more references.}}

Yes, it could be PROD for that concerns.

Just to be clear, the article does have enough reliable references to show it's notable, but it has these big problems with writing style and the unreferenced childhood section. Do you still think that this PROD reason is good?

It is not for the references, but for the writing problems.

I think this example should not be deleted. Articles that are about notable topics shouldn't be deleted unless they have other problems which are impossible to solve by normal editing. In this case, the article should be kept, tagged for {{subst:Copy edit}}, and the unreferenced childhood section should either be referenced or deleted. You can just delete the problematic section without deleting the whole article.

Rough guide to PROD vs AfD

Given your answers above, I'm guessing you thought that AfD is for articles with notability problems, but PROD isn't? (If I guessed wrong then sorry.) The allowable "reasons for deleting" articles are actually the same for PROD and for AfD: they are shown in the box below. So the boy-band and the hockey player would be okay to send to AfD, but they'd also be okay to PROD.

That seems crazy - why have two deletion processes that cover the same types of articles? Well the whole point of PROD is to reduce the load on AfD. This is the articles PRODed yesterday. There are 56 of them there right now, so if they all had to be discussed at AfD it would make a lot more work.

But the PRODed articles don't get discussed- is this unfair on them?? Actually, this is why the PROD tag is so easy to remove. The idea is that if anyone at all objects to the deletion, it ought to be discussed. So you can force an article to be either kept or taken to AfD, by removing the PROD. But if no-one objects to the deletion, then great, the article gets deleted after 7 days and we don't waste time talking about it.

However, there are some circumstances when AfD is definitely a much better choice than PROD: can you imagine any?

A controversial request for deletion is better at AfD because that lots of editors say there opinion.

Perfect, that's a great example.

~~Something that needs more than just a PROD~~

What do you mean exactly- could you explain more?

I can think of a couple more circumstances, do you agree?

It's an article about a technical topic like 13th century history, or engineering. The deletion discussion might attract experts who would know more about it, and could find sources that you or me couldn't find.
That seems good.
An article that really shouldn't be on wikipedia for 7 days, but doesn't meet any of the CSD criteria either. For example, I found a BLP that had a couple of reliable sources (so I couldn't use the attack page speedy), but was really negative, basically a big collection of negative information about this person. If I'd PRODed it, it would have stayed on wikipedia for 7 days, but at AfD it got loads of delete votes and was deleted per WP:SNOW in 1 day.
Yeah, it seems good too.

That's round 2 pretty much complete Before the break, do you have any questions about AfD or PROD?

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):
Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria

Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish

Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)

Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)

Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

— Wikipedians, Reasons for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy

Break

Phew, that was a long round. I'm really impressed by your progress.

I never asked, are you a guy or a girl? I'm a girl in my twenties.

I am a guy.

What studies are you doing?

See if you can guess. There is a big clue.

Some reading before round 3 in a few days time - WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Your challenge is to comment or vote in a few AfD discussions; try to write comments/votes that are useful and persuasive.

I did lots today.

Yeah I can see, your comments aren't bad and some of them are quite good. The purpose of the exercise is to get you to practise making really good arguments - remember the closing admin will give more weight to comments like "Delete: I searched for sources but couldn't find anything, doesn't meet WP:Notability (people)" or "Keep, here are some reliable sources I found: ...", and less weight to comments like "Keep, it's notable" or "Delete, per above." It's also good to link to relevant guidelines unless someone above you already has, so that new editors can understand what we're talking about.

PS. I just saw your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childproofing, good work checking all the mirrors.

Round 3

Welcome back. Same instructions. Leaving unpatrolled, or asking someone, is (as always) fine. If you decide to PROD or AfD, please say exactly what you would write on the nomination.

User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial/Mobile and Cellular Phone Insurance in India

Tag refimprove
Tag uncategorized
Tag wikify

User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial/The Diffusion Handbook

Tag for Advertisement
Tag for Uncategorized
Tag for refimprove

User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial/Cabbage ball

Note: The article exists already as Cabbage Ball and found because of PROD. The PROD said "Already deleted at least twice as unambiguous promotion; current article is basically the same content but slightly less promotional - still completely unreferenced and not far from a hoax."

PROD for reason above

All the tags on the page

Uncategorized

User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial/Karam Dana

Tag for wikify
Tag for uncategorized
Tag for autobiography

User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial/Jason Turnbell

CSD for A1 (not enough context)
Tag unreferenced
Tag uncategorized

How soon to patrol

People have different opinions on this topic, so feel free to disagree with me when we discuss it. Try to give detailed answers to 2 and 3.

How soon after they've been created do you usually patrol pages, Ebe?
Well, sometimes, its shortly after it was made, and other times, it is the back of the unpatrolled backlog.
What are the advantages of patrolling from the back of the backlog? What are the problems?
The advantages is that there is less to do, but we like to do things.
What are the advantages of patrolling pages created very recently? What are the problems?
The advantages are
1. It is like the articles are seen only by you and the creator
2. Tagging for PROD and CSD are rare in the backlog but not articles made recently.
The disavantages are
1. The creator may get discouraged by tags
2. The creator might get discouraged by PROD or CSD
3. Not enough time to improve