Content deleted Content added
→Round 1: Add No lead section for tag / Googleov.com |
→Round 1: discussion of answers |
||
Line 23:
:*CSD for Unremarkable person
:*Tag for Uncategorized
:'''Discussion'''
:CSD for unremarkable person is the right tag {{=)|smile}}. 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 {{=)|wink}}. Can you see the difference?
2. [[User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial/Haplostachys haplostachya|Haplostachys haplostachya]]
Line 29 ⟶ 32:
:*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?
3. [[User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial/Sunday morning football in Kings park|Sunday morning football in Kings park]]
Line 34 ⟶ 40:
:*Tag for Unreferenced
:*Tag for Uncategorized
:'''Discussion'''
:Have a closer look at this one. Do you think the topic meets the [[WP:N|notability guidelines]]?
4. [[User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial/AJ Angelique|AJ Angelique]]
Line 40 ⟶ 49:
:*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?
5. [[User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial/Ghjk|Ghjk]]
Line 46 ⟶ 60:
:*Tag for Uncategorized
:*Tag for Unreferenced
:'''Discussion'''
:Yep, total nonsense {{=)|grin}}. It's a bit of a waste of your time to tag for uncategorized and unreferenced here, as this one will definitely get deleted.
6. [[User:Physics_is_all_gnomes/NPP_tutorial/Camairco|Camairco]]
Line 53 ⟶ 70:
:*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 [[Camair-co|perfectly respectable airline stub]].
7. [[User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial/QPID - Jeff Marino|QPID - Jeff Marino]]
Line 59 ⟶ 79:
:*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:PROD]]ed 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.
8. [[User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial/Googleov.com|Googleov.com]]
Line 67 ⟶ 90:
:*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.
'''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.
__NOINDEX__
| |||