User talk:Callanecc/AFCA/Jianhui67

Initial

Yo Callanecc! I wonder if you can accept me as your first student in the AFC/A. I would want to be a AFC reviewer. I'm not sure about some the things listed in WP:AFC/A, like notability. I got screwed 3 times by notability. 3 of my created articles got deleted in the past due to notability. I do know how to find copyvios, spam and promotional articles. I am very familiar in those kind of counter-vandalism stuff, like good faith and all those (I work in CVUA as an instructor). I would like to start reviewing AFC, but not sure where to start. I have only a little knowledge of AFC. Would you guide me through in AFC/A? Thanks. I have way over 500 mainspace edits. I believe your job would be small here because I have a big grasp of counter-vandalism knowledge. This can also show people your talent, hey even nice during your RfA. JianhuiMobile^talk 13:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The first step is to read the WP:GNG and WP:SNGs. It's also a good idea to have a good idea of when it'd be appropriate to tag a new article with {{db-a7}}, PROD it for notability concerns, take it to AFD or tag with with {{notability}}. WP:42 is also something which, in the beginning, is very helpful to understand and know when to apply.

However, it's probably better to wait until we see what the requirements are for reviewers. But in the meantime I'm happy to give advice if you want to have a look at some of the submissions. There are plenty there which don't meet the requirements of a myriad of other policies and so could be declined because of reasons even before notability needs to be considered. My suggestion would be that you just don't accept any. If you think I notability check is all that is holding it back then let me know and I'll have a look (though it'd probably be easier if you came to me with a few so I can talk about the differences in establishing between them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely know what is WP:42 and when to tag db-a7. A7 comes in when that article totally don't claim notability and has no significance. WP:42 is about what sources which are applicable to put. Facebook and blogs are not reliable sources. For AFD, I have only little experience in that. I have never ask for an article to be deleted in AFD or tag an article with notability isues because I am not very sure about that. Lots of new articles just look the same. I have been in NPP since July. For AFC, I am blur. JianhuiMobile^talk 14:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth getting some experience at AFD before trying AFC, because that's the standard people expect of AFCs moved into mainspace. Read through the notability guidelines above, then find a few AFDs which have been nominated for notability concerns and read the comments of those voting to keep. This is probably the best way to find out about the application of notability.

In terms of the theory of notability (I should have said read WP:N more broadly not just the GNG) I think the WP:GNG does the best job of summing up what notability is and how it should be applied. But the best way to understand is to see it at action at AFD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So in simpler words, determining whether an article is notable is through looking at how well it is sourced? JianhuiMobile^talk 14:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources (like news articles, assuming the person didn't write them). So if you were to write an article about a business owner but all of the sources were from that person's business or things they've written, that doesn't meet the GNG but would (depending on what they were referencing) be verifiable. The SNG for people complicates it a bit, the various discussions in Mentoz86's RFA are pretty good at explaining the relationship between the GNG and SNGs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And those are about secondary sources? I know an article cannot rely just on primary sources. JianhuiMobile^talk 14:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep independent=third party=secondary source. Notability is one of the (big) reasons why. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you again create another page called User:Callanecc/AFCA/Jianhui67 where we again work through tasks about AFD, notability and AFC. I can try to find some articles and tag them with AFD and then let you see whether it is okay or not? I know there is no AFCA tasks page. JianhuiMobile^talk 15:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will at some point in the next 24-48 hours, but have a go at the tasks I've suggested above and we can discuss them then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably tomorrow. It is already nighttime here. I bet it is 1.48am for you. Sorry to keep you up so late in the night. JianhuiMobile^talk 15:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is RPL anyways? JianhuiMobile^talk 03:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's recognition of prior learning. I know you know how to do it because of the tests from the CVUA training. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also know how to deal with corporate spammers (I have done that before). Tag their created article (can be userspace or mainspace) with db-g11 and report them at AIV (if their username is not in violation of username policy) or UAA (if their username is in violation of username policy). JianhuiMobile^talk 04:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the tasks tomorrow. I'm too busy playing Candy Crush. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 17:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave talkbacks, I'm watching these pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is a fixed training programme for AFC/A. Can I name that (not sure yet) section AFD and Notability? Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope not yet still working/thinking on it as I go along. Not yet, if I wanted it named that I would have done it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]