Content deleted Content added
rm TrainingPage per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 10#Template:TrainingPage |
|||
| (33 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<center>{{Purge}}</center>
Hi Ebe, welcome to your NPP tutorial!
Line 168 ⟶ 166:
::::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 [[WP:AUTOCONFIRM|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 :)
====[[User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial/Hyro Da Hero|Hyro Da Hero]]====
Line 231 ⟶ 237:
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=concern=''nn hockey player''}}
: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 {{=)|wink}}
An article about a minor Harry Potter character.
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=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.
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=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.
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=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.
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=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 {{Tlsp|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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_deletion_as_of_9_April_2011 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.
*<s>Something that needs more than just a PROD</s>
: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 {{=)|smile}} Before the break, do you have any questions about AfD or PROD?
{{Quotation|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):
* [[Wikipedia:Copyright violations|Copyright violations]] and other material violating Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|non-free content criteria]]
* [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|Vandalism]], including inflammatory [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirects]], [[Wikipedia:Attack page|pages that exist only to disparage their subject]], [[Wikipedia:Patent nonsense|patent nonsense]], or gibberish
* Advertising or other [[Wikipedia:Spam|spam]] without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
* [[Wikipedia:Content forking|Content forks]] (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
* Articles [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources]], including [[Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms|neologisms]], [[Wikipedia:No original research|original theories and conclusions]], and articles that are themselves [[Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes|hoaxes]] (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
* Articles for which thorough attempts to find [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] to [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verify]] them have failed
* Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability guideline]] ([[WP:N]], [[WP:BIO]], [[WP:MUSIC]], [[WP:CORP]] and so forth)
* Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]]
* Any other content [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|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. {{=)|tongue}}
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
#:#It is like the articles are seen only by you and the creator
#:#Tagging for PROD and CSD are rare in the backlog but not articles made recently.
#:The disavantages are
#:#The creator may get discouraged by tags
#:#The creator might get discouraged by PROD or CSD
#:#Not enough time to improve
__NOINDEX__
| |||