User:True Pagan Warrior/Admin coaching/Lesson 2

• G1: - An entry that doesn't actually use real words in any language.
• G2: - Test pages, such as "hi" and "does this work?" type entries that aren't in a sandbox or user space.
• G3: - Obvious hoaxes (i.e., Obama being an alien) and clear vandalism.
• G4: - Recreation after a deletion debate, such as if I tried to create an article for Suite101.com. Exception is made for pages that are sufficiently different from the original, including when the new page addresses the old deletion reason and pages which have been userfied for a sincere attempt at improvement.
• G5: - Pages made by banned or blocked users. If other editors have made significant contributions to the article, this does not apply.
• G6: - Non-controversial maintenance deletions such as deleting a page to make way for a page move a for which there is consensus.
• G7: - Request by the sole author of the article.
• G8: - Orphaned pages such as subpages with no parent and talk pages with no article.
• G9: - Deletion by WMF.
• G10: - Pages that attack a person with unsourced or POV material. If a neutral version exists, reverting to it should be done instead.
• G11: - Purely promotional writing about a business. Entries about companies that meet WP:V and are written from a NPOV are not included.
• G12: - Clear copyright violations that copy text from another source without proper attribution or permission. Reverting to a version free of the infringement, or simply removing the text if there's anything left that can stand on its own, should be done instead of deleting if possible.

Y 1. There is a fine line determining whether a "hoax" article should be deleted per WP:CSD#G3 or taken to WP:AFD. What is/are the determining factor(s)? [making a list is just fine]

A: It must be an unambiguous hoax to be eligible for speedy under G3. A source like Snopes.com listing evidence demonstrating that it's a hoax would be strong evidence, as would the presence of an article about the hoax itself here on Wikipedia, since that would point to reliable sources (hopefully). Absent that kind of clear evidence, the likely hoax should be nominated for deletion instead. Speedy deletion is never appropriate if there's any doubt.

Y 2.The main author of a fairly decent article (let's say B class) gets in a dispute with other editors who edit the page somewhat infrequently. The main author subsequently requests speedy deletion of the article per G7. Do you honor this request? Explain.

A: No. The fact that there is a content dispute presumes more than one editor. Even if the other contributors haven't edited the article much, they have contributed to the discussion about it. I would not consider this eligible under G7.

Y 3. Could you please expand on what is meant by WP:CSD#G8? Additionally, give an example of what qualifies for deletion under WP:CSD#G8 and what would not.

A: "Orphan" would be the best description if the word didn't have another specific meaning. Some of these are pages that make up a single part of what a user might think of as a page, such as the talk page of an article or the description page for an image. You can't actually create a talk page independent of its article page, but you can delete the article by itself and leave a talk page stranded in the wiki-wilderness. Subpages such as template documentation, to-do lists, and GA nomination discussions would also be eligible if the parent page had been deleted (or never created in the first place). If the page upon which the nominated page still exists, this criterion does not apply.

Y 4. What determines whether a article is a copyvio? (Hint: Not all pages copied word for word from other websites/external sources are copyvios. Think about how this could be possbile.) [I'm looking for a specific answer here]

A: If the text is copied from a source in the public domain or under an appropriate free license it is not a copyright violation. What I can't tell you is how to make that determination easily in the context of a speedy deletion.

Any text published under a license less restrictive or equivalent to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License is acceptable on Wikipedia and would not be considered a copyright violation. Good on you to get this question right; these days, most people haven't a clue what constitutes a copyvio :( -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - this was a hard one, even though it's an open book test. Apparently I have a slightly stronger grasp of copyright than I thought!

User pages

• U1 - User pages and subpages requested by that user, such as me requesting these coaching pages be deleted. User talk pages not included.
• U2 - Pages and subpages of nonexistent users. Does not include pages of active anon editors and redirects to existing users, such as User:Otherlleft.
• U3 - User galleries of mostly non-free images.

Categories

• C1 - Empty at least four days. Cats which can be tagged {{Possibly empty category}} or have been tagged for discussion are not eligible under this criterion, nor are featured content categories (although I'm not clear why featured content subcats are not eligible). (On a side note, this seems like a place an admin could spend much of his time.)
• C2 - Deletion in support of a merge or rename that corrects an obvious typo or violation of naming conventions. This criterion must be very narrowly interpreted, and a cat may only be deleted under it after it's been properly tagged for 48 hours to allow for some discussion, make it more of a semi-speedy deletion.

Redirects

• R2 - Redirects from mainspace to the User, MediaWiki, File, or Book namespaces or the virtual namespaces Special and Media. A recent page move (other than vandalism) is reason enough to wait a day or two before deleting.
• R3 - Redirects from very unlikely typos, like Baraqk Obama. Does not include likely misspellings and typos, or redirects which were once articles.

Templates

• T2 - Those contradicting or misrepresenting any policy, including disclaimer templates.
• T3 - Templates that are essentially copies of existing ones, including bad copies that hard-code information that is represented with more dynamic template syntax in the original. These cannot be deleted for seven days, making the distinction from WP:TFD extremely fine.

Portals

• P1 - Blanket criterion used if the portal would be eligible for CSD if it were an article; the article criterion must be referenced.
• P2 - Empty portals, defined as having only a stub for a header article or when fewer than three non-stub articles exist that could be included in the topic.