User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/A 10 fireplane

The successful NPP School Graduate will be able to:


 * Successfully use the NPP flowchart, or other system, to arrive at a correct reviewing outcome 90% or more of the time


 * Accurately identify when an article has satisfied GNG


 * Accurately identify appropriate SNG claims an article


 * Accurately evaluate articles against specific SNG criteria


 * Find and accurately apply common Wikipedia practices when evaluating notability


 * Differentiate between spam, vandalism, nonsense, and foreign language articles


 * Identify and appropriately remedy copyright issues in at least 90% of instances


 * Understand, explain, and apply appropriate Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines including, but not limited to, BLP and COI


 * Engage in appropriate and useful conversations with other editors about NPP


 * Appropriately apply warning templates to users


 * Know when to appropriately nominate an article for deletion, including how to have done a BEFORE search


 * Know when and how to use PROD and BLPPROD


 * Know when and how to soft delete an article


 * Use the Speedy Deletion criteria with at least 90% accuracy


 * Apply appropriate tags to article with at least 90% accuracy

, this will be our workspace as we go our work with NPP. I would recommend watchlisting it (I have already done this). The first thing is to read, really read, WP:NPP and then let me know what you think are the two or three parts of that you feel your skills are the strongest and two or three where you could still grow. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have fully read WP:NPP and have come to the following conclusions.
 * I would say my strong skills are Deletion policies sine I tag some for deleation while patrolling. Next I would say Undisclosed paid editing as again I come across it often. Lastly I am good at helping new editors improve their page to get it approved.
 * I would say knowing when an article should be moved to a new name, and if a redirect is necessary. Knowing copyright violations. And recognizing a Sockpuppet.  A 10 fireplane Imform me  00:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Deletion policies are very important with NPP so it's good that you feel confident with that and I personally think protecting the encyclopedia against SPAM is a main function of NPP now that article creation is limited. So cheers to your UPE sniffing abilities. Copyright violations are also an important element of NPP so we'll make sure to spend some time on that. Getting articles to good names is useful; beyond reading policy a big help for me was just paying a bunch of attention to what articles were already at. - as you do any CV pay attention on that point. As for recognizing a sock puppet that is as much an art as a skill. While doing NPP, I definitely come across socks (found one yesterday while doing NPP actually) - it's mostly about examining the article's history which we'll get to later - but isn't a huge part of reviewing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft Work
I like to get started with notability. It is at the heart of NPP - if you're great at communicating, and tagging, but just so-so at notability, then you'll be bad at page patrolling. Rather than deal with pages in the abstract I like to use pages in the drafts queue as jumping off points. I have picked the three pages below based on the preview text - I don't know exactly what we'll find. If you don't think you can get to them in the next day just let me know and I'll do them myself and wait for you to tell me you're ready - I'm placing them under review and I don't want their creators to see that status for too long. It's important to note that drafts and new pages are evaluated under slightly different standards but we'll treat all of these like they are new pages for our conversation. For each draft say what you would do if you found them as new pages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Set 1

 * Draft:Effigy (band) - I don't really see the notability (the band was only active for 4 years) on top of that the article is a stub. A 10 fireplane Imform me  04:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Something I should have said in the intro: know I'm throwing you into the deep end with this work. Don't worry if you're not perfect at first - it's why we'll discuss the drafts together and then I'll act on them one way or another. While stubs aren't ideal they also aren't against the rules (most of the time - we'll probably come across an exception or two during the course of our work). So as new page patrollers we don't consider that. Importantly, we also can't just consider what is on the page. A patroller could mark as reviewed an unreferenced article - and have done the exact right thing. In this case we obviously have some references. It is also a band meaning we're going to use a SNG to evaluate its notability. The correct SNG is WP:NBAND. Take a look at that and tell me your thoughts about notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The band has published 2 albums, and the band did get a track in the hottest 100. However I don't see a gold record. I would probably pass. A 10 fireplane Imform me  14:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as it meets at least one criteria on an SNG it is nearly always OK to mark it reviewed. The Hot 100 evidence isn't as strong even as the links below which show national charting in Australia. Good pass. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:Allen School (Asheville, North Carolina) - there are multiple red links along with 3 referencing errors. I would help the sort the referencing errors and remove the dead link then pass it. A 10 fireplane Imform me  04:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. You would want to fix the ref errors, and also the headings. There should not be a L1 header and the heading shouldn't be bold. You're absolutely correct it's notable. Why? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is notable because it is a prominent school in North Carolina that likly has a lot of people know about. It has published reliable sources. And is neatly written. A 10 fireplane Imform me  14:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The key is that it's a school. Most modern high schools, simply be existing, are generally considered notable. Reading the intro text to WP:OUTCOMES is important and then knowing which topics are covered is helpful. OUTCOMES isn't policy but it does help say what community norms are - if you're reviewing something differently you just need to be ready for why this is an exception. The relevant part of OUTCOMES here is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There doesn't appear to be any reason to think this High School is an exception, especially as it would seemingly pass GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:First Lady of Florida - The first two paragraphs seam to repeate/are hard to understand. Once that is fixed I would pass A 10 fireplane Imform me  04:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is, as you note, clearly notable. While your comment about fixing the paragraphs is fair because it's a draft it's not something that we could do for an article we find while doing NPP. Our options are to fix it ourselves, tag and review it, or delete it. In rare circumstances we can DRAFTIFY but this would not be one of them. It's not clear to me if this is attempting to be an article or a list. It does appear to be much more a list than an article and so we would apply WP:LISTN. Since it clearly has been has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources we can safely say it's notable. I did go ahead and tag it as you can see (this was not instance in my mind where we need the editor to fix it before it's ready for mainspace - if it were possible COI/SPAM/PROMO this would be different). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, I do agree it is notable and ready for the mainspace A 10 fireplane Imform me  14:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ping:
 * Heads that the ping doesn't work if it comes AFTER the signature. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good job with this first set. See my follow-up questions above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ A 10 fireplane Imform me  14:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

SNGS (Set 2)
For this next round I have again selected, just based on the text synoposis, four new articles all of which will, I expect make an SNG claim. If you were to find them as a New Page Patroller, which SNG would you check, which criteria, and does the draft pass or fail that criteria? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC) As a draft I don't have to search for other sources, but at NPP I would. So I went ahead and did that - and didn't find any. I would nominate for deletion if I found this in mainspace as an NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft:DKBmed, LLC - The articles SNG is that the company has helped thousands of people along with specializing in many different types of conditions. Notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So this needs to satisify WP:NCORP. NCORP is the tightest notability standards Wikipedia has. It each source must be (1)reliable (2)independent (3)secondary sources discussing it in (4)significant detail and there must be (5)multiple such sources. This organization clearly comes up short in the draft phase. You can see my analysis of these sources here:
 * Ahh so the references didn't properly work cover the topic. 👌 A 10 fireplane Imform me  17:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:Tamar Ariav - I don't see any notability since it is a single professor, also there is a referencing error. Not notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So professors and other academics are covered by WP:NPROF. Evaluating a professor is among the trickiest standards for NPP because there is an exception to GNG for them. However, in this case the simplest criteria to evaluate is number 6 which is relatively straight forward. Looking at the article for Beit Berl I find it under-sourced and promotional so no real help. However I find plenty of coverage in Haaretz suggesting it qualifies as a major academic institution. So a pass for criteria six. If this were in mainspace I would mark as reviewed and move on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a page that contains all the links like WP:NPROF and WP:NCORP so I can read through them? A 10 fireplane Imform me  17:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you go to either of those pages there's the infobox on the right which lists all 13. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome thank you  A 10 fireplane Imform me  17:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:Herve Tullet - its SNG clame is that the author has written many known books. notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's much easier when their books already have articles but I agree he has multiple such works and so he qualifies under WP:NAUTHOR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:George Valentine II - Its clame is that he is a well known player. He hasn't played for any well known teams making me think this article is Not Notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree does not appear to have played for a team that satisfies WP:NBASKET. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Bonus: Draft:Financial Data Exchange (FDX) clearly came from somewhere and was copied and pasted - when you discover that doing NPP your first job is to figure out where since it might tell you how to patrol it. How do I know that it came from somewhere? Are you able to find where it came from (I haven't looked yet so I don't know if I can). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't say for sure but when searching up Sentence from the draft this website came up alot.  A 10 fireplane Imform me  07:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ A 10 fireplane Imform me  07:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As a novice new page patroller you'll find that you end up rereading the same stuff a lot to make sure you get it right on an individual case. And going back and looking stuff up never completely stops which is why I try to encourage it as part of this training; the SNGs are frequently what you'll be looking back up. So for the above I'm just as concerned with the why (which SNG applies, which criteria does it make a claim at, and does it pass or fail that claim) as the outcome (notable or not). Can you go back (or below) and list the answer to those three things? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I have done it correctly this time A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Armed with your new knowledge of the subject guidelines I'm going to find another set of four for us to look at later today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome  A 10 fireplane Imform me  19:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Set 3
3 new drafts below all of which should be making a claim a a specific guideline rather than just GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft:Emily Tubert - She has not competed in any international competitions, and is not recognized in a golf recognized hall of fame. Not Notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:UpNest - there are 2 references to non existenting websites along with 2 links to UpNest's website (which you need to log in to view the page. Multiple references fail variably Not Notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * and we haven't worked on this yet but it has real issues with PROMO as well to the extent I might have nominated it for speedy deletion if it were in mainspace (I tend to be pretty forgiving of drafts for this). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking about nominating this draft for deleation, however I also think twice when its in the draft namespace. A 10 fireplane Imform me  18:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:Lala Lala (Indie Rock Band) - Fails requirements 2,3,4,7,8,9 and many more. Not Notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Done A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So this last set was definitely easier than the first grouping and you did a good job with them. Let's do one more SNG focused grouping. Will post the drafts sometime today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:Ace & Tate - Multiple referencing errors, also is written as a promotional page. Not Notable could be tagged for deleation under A7 or G11 A 10 fireplane Imform me  20:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So it's definitely not A7 - there is a credible claim of significance. I however definitely agree with your G11 analysis and if it were in mainspace would nominate it for such a deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But let's look past that for a moment. If they rewrote the article in a neutral manner is the company itself notable under NCORP? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think yes, there are multiple secondary sorces A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:Dieter Ebert - He is Not Notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How did you get to this conclusion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After re-looking into it further According to WP:ACADEMIC #1 it might pass, however I don't know if it "had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" A 10 fireplane Imform me  17:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So when I saw a full professor at a fairly major university I thought it would be a fairly easy pass under criteria 1. When I actually dove into it, however, I was unable to find evidence of that. I did find evidence of a claim for criteria 3 in that his university bio says he's a fellow at Institute for Advanced Studies but he doesn't appear on their list of faculty so I don't think he passes that either. So I agree he's not notable but it was definitely a harder eval than I'd initially thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:Patiala Babes - This show doesn't pass requirements Not Notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What requirements? This was one of the "tricks." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It passes the General Requirements but when you get to "Other evidence of notability" it fails most of those requirements A 10 fireplane Imform me  17:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So the tricky part here is that there is actually specific guidance around media. But it's a bit buried. When I was knew I would frequently do a search for the subject I was needing. So in this case WP:NTV or WP:NTELEVISION which brings us to an official supplementary guide. Sometimes you get instead a failed proposal which is a little helpful in framing what to think about but ultimately means you're making a GNG determination. And sometimes you still don't find anything. But in this case we have some more guidance. Now being aware of that how do you rate its notability? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It aired nationally in India so I would say yes, it would pass. A 10 fireplane Imform me  18:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:Kasper Lunding - Article is Not Notable along with it being a stub as well as looking more like a list than an article A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most soccer articles look like this when created - creating stubs is not against policy and can be reviewed without issue or concern in many circumstances. This is a relatively straightforward yes. Here's the thinking which would get me there. The relevant criteria is WP:NFOOTY #2. Going to the list of leagues the Danish Superliga is on there and the source supports that he really did play. So he's presumed notable according to the SNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahh 👌 A 10 fireplane Imform me  17:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:Debbie Lawlor - She has received multiple awards from well known UK organizations Notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which awards actually matter as we examine notability? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Being named in the top 1% of scientists who are “the world’s most influential scientific minds in her field for 2015, 2016 and 2017 along with being awarded a Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. A 10 fireplane Imform me  17:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The CBE seems might tempting but actually isn't generally considered a high enough honor to meet WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 - this was one of the other tricky pieces. I would have to do more research to see if the Thompson listing of top 1% meets NPROF criteria 1 - I don't know. I do know, however, that she clearly meets criteria 3 for being a Academy of Medical Sciences fellow, which I know through prior research qualifies, and so I stopped once I established that. If the 1% claim is reputable I would certainly agree with you that it meets criteria 1. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

New set of 5 above. I screened these a little more closely (I have a pretty good idea already of 3 of the 5 whether they'll pass and have an inclination but am not certain about the other 2). I threw in a twist or two - if you have questions don't hesitate to ask them as you go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome I will get started A 10 fireplane Imform me  19:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright just replied to your follow-ups. It's important when doing NPP to not only get at the right decision but to get there for the "right" reasons. A CV mistake is more likely to be corrected than a NPP mistake so we need to take that extra care. You're definitely making progress here which is always great to see. I'll pull another group of drafts for us to look at later. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I got ya, I am keeping track of all the subject guides in my sand box A 10 fireplane Imform me  18:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good plan. There's definitely a lot of different places to look for information. We have a couple of others that we'll be looking at in the course of our work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Set 4

 * Draft:Iconary - The articles SNG clame is that the game "the first demonstration of an AI system capable of playing a Pictionary-like game with a human partner." The article has good sorces and seams to be well known Notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The first demonstration of AI being able to play a pictionary game while a direct copy of the headline still has a promo feel given that this article falls under NCORP as a product. However, the Psychology Today source is a reliable independent secondary source discussing it in significant detail so that's a big plus. And you're right that the other sources are also good ones, so this is a pass even under the tight restraints of NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:Sampakhanda - Doesn't have enough imformation to properly explain topic Not Notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The notability standard for populated places is VERY low. Can you find it on a map? Likely notable. See WP:NGEO and WP:MAPOUTCOMES. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahh ok  A 10 fireplane Imform me  18:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:Trieste Campo Marzio Railway Museum - Good independence sorces, also topic is a wekk known museum Notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:Douglass High School (Oklahoma City) - has multiple secondary sorces, topic seams notable but the article is porly written. Notable but tagged for clean up A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost all High Schools are going to end up notable. This is a good time for you to read the WP:OUTCOMES essay which talks about high schools at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It's important to note that it is not a policy or guideline. However, it does tell you what precedent is for a topic and lets you be ready to explain why going a different way (saying something is notable that is generally not or vice versa) is an exception to what normally happens. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good I will read the above A 10 fireplane Imform me  05:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft:Edmund Berrigan - 6 referencing errors along with no notable awards or titles. Not Notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The referencing errors aren't great but don't effect notability one way or the other. However I can see no evidence that he meets NAUTHOR so I agree with not notable. 14:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Another set for us to examine. Most, but not all, of these will have an SNG claim. As with our previous work say why you think it is or isn't notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The Flow Chart
I think there's still some room for growth around notability, but we'll be keeping those concepts in mind through the rest of our work and so there will be more chances to discuss and refine your skills. For our next step I'm going to try something suggested by my last graduate. Let's see how it goes.

An incredibly important tool for the beginning NPP is the NPP flow chart. For this next part I'm going to list 3 reviews I did. See if you can, based on the article's history and logs, trace my path through the flow chart. It'll potentially touch on some areas we've not really talked about yet. So if you don't completely understand the why, ask while making sure you can understand the "what" of my actions. Something that would be helpful for this work is the Superlinks script. I recommend installing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

* Catherine Fish Stebbins
 * Since this has now been deleted it was a copyvio. I'll find another article to look at and add it below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

* Phyllis Yaffe - English, Not G1/2, Not blank, Sufficent context, Not Copyrighted, Good references, Not another title, Correct name, Reviewed A 10 fireplane Imform me  03:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

* 2014 Russian Cup Final - English, Not G1 or G2, Not 2 sorces, claim of significance, not blp, reliable sorces found, tagged as unreerenced, no another title, correct title, reviewed. A 10 fireplane Imform me 03:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Orphée (song) - english, Not G1/2, Not blank, Sufficent context, Not Copyrighted, Good references, Not another title, Correct name, reviewed A 10 fireplane Imform me  04:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your answers are correct. I will note that for articles with SNGs I will check that instead of the Good References google check first and then just check the references in the article itself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 👌 A 10 fireplane Imform me  04:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Bonus: I went off the flow chart slightly for this article. Where and can you guess why?
 * Another title, not different imformation, plausible search term, Redirect. I think A 10 fireplane Imform me  04:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I went off the flow chart at "Does a Google search..." because I think the article creator has some obligation to establish notability. It acts as a form of soft redirect which we'll talk about later on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have installed the super links and will start reviewing the flow chart in the morning  A 10 fireplane Imform me  05:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. That was an interesting experiment. I want to reflect some more on it but you did well with it. Let's move on for now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion
Our next area of work will be deletion. There are several different types of deletion processes:
 * Speedy - For major problems not worth community discussion. The scope of these kinds of deletions are intentionally limited.
 * PROD and BLPPROD - While BLPPROD has a useful function in NPP, I have found PROD to generally be less useful. Sometimes when patrolling from the back end of the queue (e.g. drafts that are 45 - 60 days old at the moment) you could successfully PROD something but in general these tend to get declined and end up at AfD anyway. PROD is much more useful outside of NPP in removing uncontroversial non-notable stuff. Unlike other tags, obviously it's ok for anyone, including the page's author, to remove. For BLPPROD there are also limited circumstances you can apply it - a biography with no references (including something like an external link that could be a reference) but in order to remove it a reliable source must then be added.
 * Soft redirects - This isn't really addressed directly in the NPP tutorial but is a real thing which has more limited oversight than other forms of deletion, and speedy deletion, and so needs to be used responsibly - this is what I did with Opaque Couche above. This lack of oversight also makes it controversial among many in the community. An example, as I noted above, when you would do this is in the clear case of an SNG. Like if a notable musician has an article made about a new album that's not yet shown as notable by NALBUM or a song from a notable album that doesn't yet qualify for NSONG. If this gets reverted, out of respect for the community's unease with this, I tend to let another reviewer decide whether or not to restore the redirect (though I will "tag team" in some clear cases). The other time to do this is when an AfD had come to that consensus and the recreated page (normally available by the history) is substantially identical. In this case if I'm reverted I will restore the redirect myself. One option when you think a redirect is the right outcome but have been reverted is to go to AfD. There's a misconception, even among some sysops, that you can't do this. They're wrong. It's definitely OK and normal to nominate an article at AfD that you think should be redirected. If you ever run into this feel free to leave me a message and I'll layout evidence of why it's OK.
 * AfD - Our formal method for deletion which normally deletes non-notable entries though in rarer circumstances will delete notable entries with other substantial issues. Before nominating for AfD it's important you do a WP:BEFORE search. If you haven't read that essay yet please do that now.

We'll practice all of these for sure except PROD/BLPPROD which we might or might not see a candidate for while doing our work. To start let's begin with formal AfD discussions. For your next work find 5 articles from the NPP Queue that you think lack notability - both GNG and SNG - and could be deleted. You are welcome to just post those articles here and I will give my feedback or if you feel ready and confident to nominate them for actual deletion (and then note them here). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

My Pages:
 * The Doors Remixed under G4
 * Game program under G4
 * Apodinium floodi under A1

Please stop placing speedy deletion tags. We'll cover speedy deletion eventually but for now know that these tags are not correct. For now we are focusing on formal AfD discussions - that is articles which will have to be deleted because they are not notable. ''Please list here 5 articles from the NPP Queue that you think do not meet GNG or any SNG criteria. I'll then give feedback''. If you have any questions let me know - but I will probably not be available again until morning. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My Bad!!! I will 👌 A 10 fireplane Imform me  05:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Checking in on your finding some articles which might make for good AfDs from the NPP Queue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sanyuanfang station - no references
 * Nanmen station - exact copy of this article
 * Tuanjieqiao station - another copy and paste
 * Ahh train stations. You wouldn't think those articles would be notable but the barriers for notability for train stations is basically "does it exist"? This is why two different reviewers marked those as reviewed after you saw them. Ideally a page should have references - I've gone ahead and tagged those - but these stations from what I can tell, really do exist and that is enough that they'll likely survive an AfD. To be notable the article doesn't have to have sources (except a BLP) there just have to be sources which exist which could prove it notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By way of anecdote the first time I came across a train station I spent a bunch of time looking at other related articles and was amazed to discover the low standard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ok, does it matter that the articles are exact copys of each other? A 10 fireplane Imform me  14:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean it's not great but if it's technically true and it's the same writer it's OK (you don't need to attribute content you wrote 100% yourself when copying/pasting on Wikipedia). The whole thing is not great but probably OK for NPP purposes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * understood A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also tagged this AFC for AFD under G3. It talked about how America was apart of Asia.  A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good job there. By way of example I nominated Hroswitha Club yesterday for notability reasons. It looks like it might end up keep, which since I thought it should be a redirect, isn't the end of the world but I give as an example of a notability based article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted, I will find some more articles A 10 fireplane Imform me  15:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

More: A 10 fireplane Imform me 16:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Could Tanya Torres be nominated for deleation as there is only one sorce and all the imformation in the article can't be confirmed on the reference? A 10 fireplane Imform me  14:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft:Steve Hutt - is not notable
 * Draft:Jack Brammall - not enough imformation was given to make the topic notable
 * Draft:Sportizen - referencing errors along with the topic being not notable
 * Sorry I've been a little slow here. Taking a look at the articles you've noted:
 * The issue with Tanya Torres is not that she only has 1 citation in the article. The issue with her is that she doesn't seem to have better sources elsewhere. I think that's absolutely a good find - despite it being marked as patrolled by a sysop. I don't have the inclination to do a full WP:BEFORE but this does seem like a good deletion candidate.
 * I think I agree with you about Hutt.
 * Draft:Jack Brammall is much closer. Given the age of his films it's much more likely he is notable. What did your WP:BEFORE turn up?
 * Agree on Sportizen.
 * Much improved on these. See my question about Brammall. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, as for Brammall I don't see multiple notable films. No large fan bace and no innovative contributions. Making me think he is not notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  13:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Some more
 * Draft:Calcionews24.com
 * Good call . Can you see what you can find when looking at the new page feed? The kinds of non-notable (or notable) topics which go through New Page feed differs substantially, in my experience, from what goes through drafts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will look through and find some  A 10 fireplane Imform me  13:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Added above  A 10 fireplane Imform me  18:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft:Organ of Corti (Liminal Studios) - topic is not notable along with a referencing error.
 * Draft:Timo Kaukolampi - not notable
 * Draft:Watkins Associated Industries, Inc. - is copy and pasted from the only reference
 * Draft:The Theory of Revolution - I couldn't find a specific notability guideline thus fell under but overall I think the topic is not notable
 * I haven't commented on the above entries because, as I mentioned above, new pages and drafts run have slightly different nuances to them. While we started working with drafts, for now I'd like to see us switch to new pages and so I await some examples from Special:NewPagesFeed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, my NewPagesFeed was st to the Articles for creation tab.  A 10 fireplane Imform me  13:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Rustom Sohrab (1963 film) - Article has no sorces making it fail the General requirement for notably
 * The sources that are present in the article don't decide whether it's notable or not. If sources are ANYWHERE that support notability that is good enough. My searching didn't reveal any "this clearly proves it" but the soundtrack reference in the article and sources like this suggest that this 1963 film (i.e. before the content glut of today) suggest that with deeper searching (and knowledge of Indian film) it could meet WP:NFILM criteria 2. Obviously this criteria would not apply to modern films where I think your analysis would be closer to the mark. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Kwesi Slay - I cannot see anything that qualifys him as notable
 * I cannot judge the importance of Muse Africa awards. If that was notable than this artist would be notable for winning the award. I think there's a good chance you're correct here but given my uncertainty I would not personally nominate it for deletion (nor would I mark it as reviewed). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Mayanagari-City of Dreams - might be notable but no references are given causing it to fail
 * I agree it might be notable. The lack of references doesn't mean it should be deleted. Modern Indian TV/Film is not an area I particularly enjoy patrolling, as finding good sources from the sea of non-RS tends to be a time consuming process, so I haven't spent too much time looking into it. My very initial search, however, was not promising. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Xpeng P7 - Article has only one reference that isn't in the correct format. On top of that the article is poorly written and hard to understand
 * Cars from major manufactures are going to be notable. Issues with the writing and sourcing can be tagged for fixing rather than deleting the article altogether. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Wang Xudong (museum director) - topic is not notable
 * I would agree most museum directors are not notable. However the fact that there is an extensive article (in English) about him from a source which appears to meet RS. I would be very hesitant to nominate this for deletion and might even mark it as reviewed (with a notability tag). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Microwave welding - Article is not notable, not a well known term. (Also in non of my welding class in school has Microwave welding been referenced)
 * What did your BEFORE reveal? Mine showed numerous academic papers on the topic in what appear to be peer reviewed sources going back to the 90s (ex:   suggesting that the phrase is real and notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually had not done a BEFORE. After doing one I came to the same conclusion as you. Notable A 10 fireplane Imform me  16:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane Imform me 13:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's where I think we're at. You have several areas of strength as a Wikipedia editor. Notability seems like it's an area for which there is further growth potential and is one for which a deep understanding is necessary for NPP. From our work here it seems like that's going to be a longer term area for improvement. What I would suggest is that we put this NPP work on pause for 3 months or so. This could give you a chance to see more areas of the encyclopedia and pick-up some more skills and background so that when we start discussing it again it would be a more comfortable area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan, Until then  A 10 fireplane Imform me  18:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)