User:Physics is all gnomes/NPP tutorial

Template:TrainingPage

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

 Y

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:

1. A new BLP looks notable but has no references. What should you do? Add the unreferenced BLP, and or PROD.
2. A new BLP has a couple of references but could use more. What should you do? Add refimprove BLP
3. Can the article's creator ever remove the BLPPROD? No, it must be by an other user.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.

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.