User:Yunshui/Ghorpaapi CSD2

This page is intended to examine your understanding of the speedy deletion criteria. Please answer the questions below in your own words (i.e. don't copy and paste sections of the relevent policies).

A7

1. Describe what sort of pages could be deleted under A7.
A. The pages which mention about a person or a musical band or an animal or an event or a singer or a musician or a company or a website or an organisation; who has no special importance or, who do not have the sufficient notability (which includes the remarkable deeds, features, performance or actions) to be on wikipedia.In simple words : those pages who do not have outstanding worth or observable worth which is verified by third party resources ( minimum 2), if not then secondary resources (more than 3 or 4) atleast and not by primary resources.

Y Your first sentence is bang on the money - but I'm a bit concerned over the statement that notability has to be verified by third-party sources. To meet the basic inclusion guideline, it does - but that's not a requirement of A7, which is negated by just the claim of significance. Articles which are not sourced, but still plausibly state that their subject has done something significant, should not be tagged with A7; they need PROD or AFD.

2. A7 is concerned with notability - what makes a subject notable enough for inclusion?
A. The subject/object mentioned on the page under inspection; should have been published/reviewed/acknowlegded/recognized for its extraordinary feature or remark received.

Y I would have liked to see the phrase, "significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources" (which should be like a mantra to you!), but the above answer is close enough.

3. What would constitute a claim to notability (give one or two hypothetical examples)? Is notability necessary to avoid an A7 tag?
rec A.For example when a new species of fish or a new planet is found it has the worth and notability both. A singer/band/ musician/ makes it to the top 10 charts or worldwide reknowed charts (eg: billabong, beatport, Mtv)it has notability. A film/documentary receiving international awards appreciation and critics. An Organisation/ website which has a gigantic amount of hits ( eg: Game of Thrones the tv serial on HBO ((my fav)) in google and also semi-reliable sources like Alexa mentions about it.

Y Yes, that's the sort of thing. Note that (per the answer to question 1) this claim does not need to be sourced in order to avoid an A7 tag.

4. What sort of pages should not be tagged with A7?
A. The pages before being tagged should be first googled about, to check, in case there is already a similar kind of article on wikipedia, also to control and check the notability. When the results show some considerable notability and it should not be tagged under A7. Nextly those pages which are qualifying to the other General (G1,2,3...) or Articles ( A1,2,3...) and similarly User, Redirects,Categories and Files should not be tagged with A7. Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Google checking is a good idea, and you're right about non-article pages not being tagged - it also stands to reason that pages about anything other than people, animals, organisations or web content shouldn't be tagged, but you'd be amazed how many people get that wrong.

G11

5. Describe the requirements for a page to be deleted under G11.
A. When the language used it already having the adjectives and flashy words used to exaggerate the performance or features of a subject/object are ought to be nominated and deleted under G11. Also when the page has boosting, intensified and boasted deeds which can or in a second bias the mind of a normal reader on wikipedia should be deleted. The language should be ( most importantly) neutral and not partially biased .

Y Yes, that's pretty good. The motive behind the article should be considered as well - a neutrally-worded page that's chock-full of spam links would also fall under G11.

6. When is it inappropriate to tag a page about a company or product with G11?
A. It is inappropriate to tag it when language is written from a neutral point of view and there are sufficient third party sources mentioning the notability and worthiness of the product or the company. Ex: A company receiving a TÜV award, or first to patent and copyright a particular product or having developed a new registered or trademark will possess sufficient notability. Provided the language is neutral the page does not fall under category G11.

Y Yes on the neutrality issue, but notability is not relevant to G11 - an article about a non-notable company would not automatically be considered advertising.

A1

7. What is the minimum level of context required to avoid deletion under A1?
A. When the context mentions about the subject/object being significant for a particular feature/property which makes it unique or at least distinguishable.

Y This would be a N, but for that last phrase "...at least distinguishable". Significance is not a factor in A1 - the question to ask when applying this tag is, "can I tell what the article is about?" If you can understand what the subject of the article is, it's not a candidate for A1.

A3

8. What is the minimum amount of content to avoid deletion under A3?
A. The minimum amount of content should include in 1 or 2 sentences the short description of what the page mentions about.

Y Pretty much - an infobox, on its own, is also sufficient.

9. What is the difference between A1 and A3?
A. Context and Content. Content includes those pages which for example have: the infobox (like almost every other article) just like when you open a thesis or a dissertation there is a page of contents which indicates how the article jumps or flows from one topic to another . Context includes the connection or the meaning of the words following in a sentence. For example mentioning about a theme in header or a footer in will make it CONTEXTUAL.

Y Sort of, yes. You've got the main idea down - if the article has content, it's immune from A3, if it has both content and context it's immune from A3 and A1.

G12

10. What constitutes an unambiguous copyright violation?
A. The copyvio includes copying and pasting the material from web/websites/blogs/books/literature Directly and exactly into the wikipedia articles and pages without having any permission from the publisher or the auther/webpage. Its the usage of privately published material without the proper permission or using rights. Wikipedia will allow the quoting and refering of material but not the direct copy pasting.Strict actions follow when the user commits the copyvio violations. mentioning the websites or web pages ( in wiki language primary or self published ) source will also be included in unamigous copyright violations.

Y I'm, giving you a yellow tick for this one purely because of the words directly and exactly, which you chose to emphasise above. Close paraphrasing is also an unambiguous infringement of copyright - it's important to understand that just changing a few words here and there does not make the content original. Other than that, you've given a pretty textbook response.

11. Can content from other Wikipedia pages be copied into a new article? If so, under what circumstances?
A. Yes. It is possible to copy content from one article to another but it is expected to provide the original link or the source where the material actually belongs. It may also be useful to know the functions like merge and purge in order to distinguish if the copying and linking is worth it for a new article space or a stub expansion could be possible.

Y Yes, good answer. As an aside, shoudl you ever wish to do this, the {{copied}} template is the best way to provide attribution.

G3

12. What is vandalism? How can you tell vandalism from good-faith edits?
A. the acts or edits or intentional attempts to change, recreate or insert unwanted and stupid content which has no connection with the subject / object to the article can be considered as vandalism. Good faith edits and vandalism could be differentiated by comparing the versions or starting a discussion on the talk page of the article for the opinions of others.

Y Yep, no problems there.

13. How would you decide whether a new article is a blatant hoax or not?
A. One can use the google tool for a short and brief research which is useful most of the times just to nominate the article for hoaxing. For the qulification of an article as an hoax a time consuming process follows.first step will be taging and one should always discuss it with other administrators/users in the community and tag the article atleast so that there can be an active discussion on the article.

Y Frankly, if you have to check with Google it's probably not blatant enough for this tag. Some of the obvious signs of hoaxes are outrageous claims, inflated figures, stories that should obviously have been major national news or statements that contradict generally accepted facts. As a rule, you should be checking Google to see if something isn't a hoax, rather than checking whether it is. Basically, if something doesn't leap out as obvious nonsense when you first read the page, you should probably be looking at an AFD or possibly a PROD.

G4

14. How can you tell whether an article has been previously deleted?
A. The talk page and the revision history of the particular deleted article will show the previous attempts about the article or why the article was deleted. Its one of the ways I use. Apart from that whenever I tag the article it appears in the watchlist and one gets regular updates of the further editing attempts or tagging on the article.

Y G4 is only concerned with AFD deletions (PRODs or CSDs don't count). When an AFD is concluded, it gets noted on the article's talkpage - you should see a box at the top announcing the decision. The other easy way to check is to run a search for "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/name of page" - if it's been nominated previously, the discussion should be there.

15. If an article has been deleted via {{BLPPROD}}, can a recreation be tagged with G4?
A. I do not know the answer( lack of wikiknowledge) but still I would like to answer the question . No! it cannot be tagged.

Y Good guess! Only articles deleted via AFD are eligible for G4 deletion.

16. How can you establish whether a recreated article is sufficiently similar to a previously deleted version?
A. I do not have any idea! ( lack of wikiknowledge) but still I would like to answer the question . by relating the categories.

N Categories won't help you much. This is a bit of a trick question, since non-admins have no way of viewing the deleted content: in effect, there isn't a way to check. the best you can do is read through the AFD discussion and see if the arguments presented there could still apply to the new version of the page; if they can, it's probably similar enough to be deleted.

G10

17. What constitutes an attack page?
A. An attack page will include negative propaganda, harassment of personal image for a living person. Until and unless there are references to verify it it will be considered as an attack page.

Y Yes, pretty accurate.

18. If a page describes its subject as a "well-known criminal", does it count as an attack page? Under what circumstances would you not tag it with G10?
A. it will not be tagged under G10 if the page about the well-known criminal has reliable and verifiable third party resources. They can be newspapers or online news articles.

Y Again yes - you'd need to keep an eye out for non-neutral editing or imbalance POV, though.

19. G10 exists because of the biographies of living persons policy. Briefly summarise your understanding of this policy.
A. This policy deals with articles on wikipedia which include material or info about the living persons. Any information related to living persons on wiki will be and should be written with extreme care with respect to the tone and unbiased opinions. The sources and reference should be quoted where ever necessary or else there can be a conflict beginning on the talk page which will result in long un ending , time wasting debates. Hence, in case there occurs such an attack then first attempt will be to change the tone to neutral and if its not working then G10 is the next step.

Y Looks as though you've read and understood the policy; good stuff.

Namespaces

20. Which types of tags (G, A, R, F, C, U, T or P) can be applied to the following types of page? List all that apply.

• Article space (mainspace): G, A, R, C, F Y F only applies in the File namespace, C in the Category namespace.
• Article talkpages: G, A , F, C N Again, F and C don't apply (but R does).
• User pages: U Y Also G (and possibly R in some circumstances).
• User talkpages: U Y Also G (and possibly R in some circumstances).
• Redirects:R Y and G!
• Categories:C Y and G!
• Articles for creation: C, R, F N R is applicable, but C and F are not, and you can also use G.
• Wikipedia policies, guidelines and information pages: P N P is just for portals - the correct types are G and possibly R.
• Articles for deletion (individual discussions):G, A Y G and potentially R.
• Templates: no idea N T!