User:AutomaticStrikeout/CSD exercise answers

These are my answers to StephenBuxton's CSD Exercises as requested by Ryan Vesey at my RfA. For each article, I answer the following four points:

1. Assess whether or not the tag is correct. If not, what tag (if any) should have been used. 2. If the article is to be deleted, what reason for deletion would you give in the deletion summary? 3. If the article is not to be deleted, what should happen to the article instead? 4. Explain any other follow-up action(s) that would be appropriate.

Exercise 1 "A tory liar"
1. The tag is correct. "A tory liar" is a misnomer and likely a BLP violation.

2. An appropriate deletion summary would be "Inappropriate redirect title attempting to disparage subject."

3. The article should be deleted, so there is no answer here.

4. In this case, the article creator is already blocked, but it might be a good idea to protect the redirect title from being created again in the future.

Exercise 2 "Deben High School"
1. The tag is not correct. A7 explicitly states that it does not apply to educational institutions. The first thing to do would be to determine if the schools exists. If not, it can be deleted as a hoax (G3). Per WP:NHS, high school articles are generally notable, so an AfD would not likely lead to deletion.

2. If the article is to be deleted as a hoax, a good summary would be "Deleted article about non-existent school."

3. The article would clearly need expansion in many areas, such as notable alumni, history of the school, athletic teams, etc.

4. One follow-up action would be to explain to the CSD tagger that A7 should not have been applied in that instance. Also, the new user should be welcomed and perhaps it would be wise to explain to them that it is better if they properly verify the existence of subjects they write about. If the article was a hoax, the author should be warned.

Exercise 3 "Malcom Hardee"
1. The tag is appropriate and the article should be blanked by the tagger. It should be promptly deleted as an attack page.

2. An appropriate summary: "Deleting obvious attack page per G10"

3. The only reason not to delete this would be if the subject was actually notable.

4. The warning given was appropriate. However, if the user in question has a history of creating attack pages, a block is appropriate. If the user has no history of constructive editing, an indef block of a vandalism only account should be performed.

Exercise 4 "New article"
1. Being tagged as a G3 may be a little harsh. The edit could easily have been a test edit (a G2), and it would best to assume good faith and give the new page creator the benefit of the doubt. It could also be considered a page with no context (A1).

2. The page should be deleted as a test page with the summary "Page deleted as a test page that had no context."

3. No reason to keep the article.

4. A follow up action would be to welcome the newbie and try to reverse any damage done by the vandalism warning. Also, it would be wise to discuss the situation with the page tagger and advise them to be careful labeling a new user's edits as vandalism.

Exercise 5 "Wizzy Wig the Clown"
1. The tag seems fairly appropriate, I'd lean toward saying the subject does not sound notable based on what information is available. Of course, prior to deletion, I would have to look to see if more information is available that addresses the notability concerns.

2. If the page is deleted, the summary could be "Deleting page about non-notable subject (A7)."

3. If the article is kept, expansion would be beneficial. Research could be done about the personal life of the clown, in particular regarding the character's real name.

4. It appears that this article may be a conflict of interest, it would be wise to speak the article creator about this.

Exercise 6 "Athur the Great"
1. I think the tag is correct. The article does not assert importance about the subject, although it does about another person. Granted, even that assertion is not credible.

2. The page should be deleted with a summary of "Deleting page about non-notable subject (A7)"

3. The article cannot be kept because we don't really know who specifically it is about and therefore cannot confirm notability.

4. Perhaps it would be good to at least offer to find someone to serve as a mentor for the page creator to help them learn at least the basics of how to edit on Wikipedia.

Exercise 7 "Sudar Barash"
1. Yes, it is true that given the promotional tone of the article, it can't really be given much credibility, so the tag is correct. G11 might also have been an applicable tag.

2. If the page is deleted, an appropriate summary would be "Deleted promotional article about subject that does not credibly indicate notability."

3. If the page is kept, it will need a significant change to have a neutral point of view. Also, content will need to referenced, especially as it is a BLP.

4. The page creator, who may face a username block, should be advised that the article needs to adhere to a neutral viewpoint and therefore deletion is fair. Perhaps a good suggestion would be for them to make a submission at WP:AFC or to write the article in user space where it could be edited by experienced editors. AutomaticStrikeout 02:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)