User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes

Of all the criteria for speedy deletion, A7 (and by extension A9 and A11) is probably the one that gets misapplied the most. This page serves to outline common mistakes and strives to provide a list of claims that make an article's subject important or significant enough to fail speedy deletion.

The Wording

“ An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. ”

The big mistakes

The following criteria are often, mistakenly, used when applying A7:

"Subject is not notable"

A7 is not about notability. The wording clearly states that the standard for A7 is lower than that, using "important or significant" instead.

"No sources" / "No references"

A7 is not about whether the indications of "importance or significance" can be verified. An article does not have to have inline citations or sources, let alone reliable sources to fail A7. Those are concerns for an articles for deletion discussion.

Limited scope

A7 only applies to real people, individual animals (not species), organisations, individual events and web content. It does not apply to books, films, albums (see A9 for that), fictional characters, locations (considered inherently notable anyway), buildings, games, software, products or anything else.

Retagging declined speedies

This is a mistake people make with every criterion. Admins are allowed to decline deleting a page even if the tagging was correct. This is a binding decision for everyone involved and it should not be retagged for the same reason and, as one can assume that admins consider all applicable criteria, none other (except valid G10 and G12 taggings). If an admin decided that a page should not be speedy deleted, do not retag it for speedy deletion but rather choose alternative venues like WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Retagging may be viewed as attempted admin shopping. Of course, this does not apply if circumstances change after the declined tagging or if new circumstances become known that the first admin declining the tag could not consider. For example, re-tagging as G7 when the user requests deletion after the declining or as G3 if it turns out that the page was created for vandalism-purposes.

Common indications of importance or significance

→ This list can now be found at Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance

This section is retained as an archive. The list has been moved to the aforementioned stand-alone essay.

The following lists common claims in articles incorrectly tagged with A7. If the article makes any of these claims, it almost certainly does not meet A7. All subjects Has received coverage of any kind in possibly reliable sources Has multiple Google News hits that cover this subject explicitly Claims winning one or multiple potentially notable awards or participated in a competition in a noteworthy way People Actors Played a part in a notable film (not as an extra) Was on a notable TV series (not as an extra) Journalists Wrote for notable magazines/newspapers Hosted/presented notable shows Athletes Played for a notable team, even if only on minor or amateur level Has won a championship or taken part in a notable championship Musicians Is or was part of a notable band Is or was associated with a notable musician Is or was signed to a label with a Wikipedia entry or to a label that is part of such a label Claims to have charted in national charts, no matter which country Has received airplay on larger radio stations Business Is CEO or another high ranking employee of a notable company Founded or otherwise helped start a notable company Invented or pioneered a notable product / method Politicians Major party candidate for any (possibly) notable office Holds (possibly) notable office and/or position Computers and Websites Created notable webpage Created notable webcomic Develops or has developed notable software Artists Created notable work of art Academics Is a teacher at a notable university Has published something in a notable journal Claims to be an expert in a particular field of study Organisations Bands Has a notable band member Is support band for a notable musician or otherwise associated with them Is signed to a label with a Wikipedia entry or to a label that is part of such a label Claims to have charted in national charts, no matter which country Has received airplay on larger radio stations Has or claims to have won notable awards Companies Has a notable founder or CEO Claims to be major company in its line of products/work Produces one or more notable product(s) Is subsidiary or other child/family company to a notable company Other organisations Is part of a nation's government Is part of a notable organisation Has a notable founder or president Has multiple notable members Web content Created by notable person or company Claims to have won notable awards Events Attended by multiple notable people, groups, bands etc. Created by notable organization or company Hosted by notable person

Handling articles about potentially significant or important subjects

The aforementioned section mentions a lot of common indicators why A7 should not be applied to the subject in question. Those are, however, not reasons why the article should be kept. If you encounter an article about a subject that is potentially significant or important according to these indicators, check whether it also is notable enough for a stand-alone article. If it isn't, remember the alternatives. If significance or importance is indicated because of an association with a notable subject, consider merging and/or redirecting to the subject's article. Otherwise, see if there are suitable lists or other entries that can benefit from the inclusion of this information. In most cases, any article about a subject that meets one of the aforementioned indicators will not have to be deleted, even if the subject does not merit its own article.

See also

• User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion
• Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion
• Wikipedia:Why I hate Speedy Deleters
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions
• Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance