User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Bingobro

We'll use this page to do our NPP work. 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. That will help inform what work we do next. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The areas where I'm the weakest are
 * 1) Tagging with correct criteria.
 * 2) I also marked a few pages reviewed and later they got unreviewed  and deleted as they were not up to the standard.

The areas where I'm a little better are


 * 1) I've been active on WP:WPAFC and have been involved in WP:RM as well and I've got a understanding of proper titles. I've moved pages (drafts) per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOS. So, if there's a new page and it doesn't have a proper title I wouldn't mark it reviewed before moving it.  Bingo bro   (Chat)  04:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Roughly speaking there are what I see as four main ideas in NPP: evaluating Notability, handling deletion, tagging, and communication. Since some of your reviews were later deleted let's start with Notability as our focus. Where possible I like to do actual work on the project rather than just hypotheticals. AfC is a helfpul I've placed the following three articles (somewhat randomly selected) as under review. Take a look and say what your thoughts are about their notability - as well as what you would do if you found them mainspace rather than draft (e.g. mark as reviewed, nominate for AfD, tag for a speedy delete, place a copyedit tag, etc). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to this first thing in the morning! And thanks for taking the time to accept me back as your student. Bingo bro  (Chat)  16:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft Set 1

 * Draft:John Scholl
 * Draft:Mostafa Matar
 * Draft:BitLife

I have to review them right? Bingo bro  (Chat)  05:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you have AfC you can go ahead and review them or you can just post your thoughts here. Important in this whole process is how you would handle if you saw it at NPP and not AfC - for instance if it's not notable at AfC you reject, but for NPP would it be a CSD, PROD, or AfD. Even accepts might be more complicated in the NPP vs AfC sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Draft:John Scholl I believe that the person himself may be notable however the draft clearly needs more independent sources and a few sections are completely unreferenced which needs to be taken care of. For now (as a draft) I would decline and leave a comment stating the same as above. If it were an article I wouldn't mark it reviewed and neither WP:PROD/WP:CSD and I would leave a note on the authors talk page asking him to provide more reliable and independent sources and if the author does so, then it could be accepted. Bingo bro   (Chat)  05:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A big difference between AfC and NPP is your responsibility to do a WP:BEFORE before nominating for deleting (the NPP equivalent of declining). It is fair enough if you would not want to do that in this case, but it's important to note that if there is an article topic that is notable but has bad sources in NPP the correct action is to mark as reviewed and to put some sort of tag on it (e.g. refimprove). The curation toolbar will help you with that. The biggest red flag to me with sourcing is a reference to Wikipedia. We all know that Wikipedia is not RS (I have now removed). WP:BLP requires a different level of sourcing than would otherwise be necessary for a topic. Given that this person is from the 19th Century, notability is going to play out differently. I have accepted the draft, but certainly understand how you would have just skipped it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Draft:Mostafa Matar Pretty much same as above and I would also want more coverage about the person. If more coverage and reliable references are there the the person being in the squad of a continental tournament would probably be notable. Bingo bro   (Chat)  05:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I choose this because the claim of playing for the national team clearly meets the SNG WP:NFOOTY. What makes this more complicated is that while he has been named to the squad he hasn't actually played a match for the national team yet (the tournament is just starting). If/when he does play a game there wouldn't need to further sourcing to presume notability according to the SNG. So this turned out to be somewhat tricky - if I had realized this I wouldn't have chosen it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Draft:BitLife This I would outright decline as the game and its developers at this moment are not notable. The only sources/ref's I got were download links and only one other website which has many pages about cheats/achievements. If it was an article I would tag under WP:A7. Bingo bro   (Chat)  05:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So this is definitely not A7. First because A7 doesn't apply to products only to organizations - I made this same mistake at first. Beyond that it's not A7 because it makes a clear claim that, if true, would make it notable: "The game became popular in 2018". Now the article doesn't really adequately prove that with the citation given but for speedy delete it doesn't have to. This essay does a nice job of explaining what credible claim of significance means. My search into it suggests that it has borderline notability - the Common Sense Media review and Newsweek article both tick all the requirements of WP:NCORP. What makes it harder is that it doesn't have coverage in the kinds of reliable sources normally used by video games. If I found this in NPP I would do what I do in cases where I think it's more likely than not notable, but only barely - mark as reviewed and place a notability tag. I try to avoid doing that but this would be one of those circumstances (which I do on probably 1 or 2 percent of all my reviews) I would. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for your feedback. Bingo bro  (Chat)  05:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your fast response and work on these. While a good NPP is able to patrol most articles, we all have our interests and areas we avoid. For instance I do a lot of sports articles but tend to avoid professors. Are there kinds of articles you see yourself more (or less) interested in? This could also be a geographical area - so some people like to or don't like to review from certain countries for instance. That can help us get some good examples for future articles to review together. One thing that seems like a good next step would be to spend some time doing is examining all of the SNGs. I would read WP:BIO in its entirety and read at least the LEADs of the others. Overtime you'll memorize the criteria for the ones you work with the most, but as a beginner it's more important to know where to find an answer than what the answer is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do have an interest in (and work with) articles related to aviation (airlines/airports/aircrafts) and Cricket . Bingo bro   (Chat)  04:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well NPP can be a bit of a sticky wicket at times but we'll see what we can't do. Let me know when you've read the essay I linked to above, as well as BIO and at least the leads of the SNGs and we can move to our next bit of work together. No rush. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Lol so true (at least for me) and I've read WP:CSS, WP:BIO andothers. Bingo bro  (Chat)  17:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

SNG
Let's stay with SNGs for a bit. All three of these below might meet a SNG criteria. What is their notability under that (and GNG, if applicable)? What other tags/work would you do if you found these as a New Page Patroller? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

1.Draft:Lallit Anand I've accepted this one per WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF but, also tagged it with needs 3rd party sources maintenance tag. I'd also like your consent before moving on with the next two. Bingo bro  (Chat)  09:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This was a clear accept under NPROF - he holds a named chair and has been elected to the National Academy of Engineering. Good accept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not accepting this one mainly due to the lack of 3rd party sources, and the sources provided also only give a trivial mention (GNG 1) to the sportsman it also does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:ANYBIO.I've also tagged it with the cleanup-reorganize template. Bingo bro  (Chat)  04:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft:Ryan Tanser
 * I agree with this but for this one can you explain your reasoning - why doesn't he meet NFOOTY? It says he played with in league and cup games. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This fails NFOOTY as it does say he's played in the NPL but on the NPL wiki page there's no mention it's a professional league. I await your feedback. Bingo bro  (Chat)  15:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. The idea of professional vs hybrid vs semi-pro is one that is very important when evaluating most sports entries (which you'd indicated you were interested in with Cricket). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Neither am I accepting this as it also lacks independent sources it just has the university newspaper, i tunes and another similar music site as sources. A Google search also brought up nothing. Fails WP:BAND as well. Bingo bro  (Chat)  04:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft:Honors (band)
 * Agreed. It was also a COPYVIO and I have nominated it for deletion as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Do those first and then see if you can find 5 unreviewed New Pages that make a claim to a SNG and fill out the table below for them. Try to use at least 3 different SNGs. Take your time with these.

While we can take our time with the second part, I would prefer not to keep the drafts underreview for too much longer. Do you think you can get to them soon or shold I release those and you let me know when you have some availability to do the next set? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll do them between today and tomorrow and sorry for the inconvenience. Bingo bro  (Chat)  08:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the above assignment still is ready when you are. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I've done this assignment and await your feedback. Apart from this assignment would you have the time to leave a few suggestions on my recent Afd's. Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  13:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * this SNG work looks good the two you'd identified as good had already been patrolled and one of them had already been A7'ed so certainly no SNG claim. I will circle back to AfDs later but do you have any SNG related questions at this point? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Nope, at present I don't have any further queries related to SNG although if you see any red-flags kindly, let me know. Thanks! Bingo bro   (Chat)  16:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So Federation Mapper could have been an A7 and looks to be an excelled AfD nom. WeOwnFire has already been deleted. I am curious what you think about the further discussion at Articles for deletion/Greenfield airport. Lokal App also looks like a good nomination. Lots of positives there. If you confirm your availability I'll post some more drafts for us to do as a next step. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm available and your feedback on my Afd's is really appreciated. Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  16:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll post drafts in a second but did you see the question I asked. Really am curious about your thoughts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yup, I did and even bumped into an edit conflict.I wouldn't take my vote back though, the article could be merged with an existing one.Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  16:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft Set 2
As before say what you would do if you found these through NPP. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:MEGAN (Sci-Fi film)
 * I'd mark this one as reviewed because the sources like IGN, Gizmodo, Empire and Entertainment Weekly give a fair amount of coverage to the film and are reliable. Apart from that the CBS source does appear reliable but, is no longer online. A quick search also brings up a few more sources and the film has received a few awards and nominations as well, of which Holly Shorts is certainly notable. I'd also move the IMDb sources to the External Links section. For me it passes WP:NFILM. Bingo bro   (Chat)  03:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't do a full read of these when I choose them. Instead I just glance over the first few sentences of the LEAD to understand what kind of claim to notability they are (or aren't) making so I can know if it'll be useful to us. I saw Viral film released on YouTube and presumed it would not be notable. However, I agree with your assessment that it's notable but I actually think it struggles with NFILM criteria. I think it makes a better claim to GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:Missing Sounds of New York (album)
 * I'd mark this one reviewed as well because it has pretty good coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources like JSTOR and the New York Post among others. With all of that coverage and it being featured on The Daily Show it passes WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Bingo bro   (Chat)  08:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it passes NMUSIC. As a helpful exercise which specific criteria you think it passes? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated in the albums section it requires independent evidence per WP:N. I'd also like to add it (obviously) passes WP:GNG.Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  09:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:Mining community of Alquife
 * This one I won't be marking as reviewed . I wouldn't tag it for deletion though, instead I'd take it to WP:PM to be merged with the town's article itself. At present the towns article is a stub and is poorly sourced, but I found a bunch of sources online to make it somewhat better. The mining community by itself is not notable and has no significant coverage. I believe it'd be best to merge the two articles and add more sources to the town's article this way we'd be preserving a bit of content for the encyclopedia and improving the town's article, which will pass WP:NPLACE. If this was at Afd I'd be going for a Merge as well. Bingo bro   (Chat)  09:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great observation about scope of that vs Alquife. I think with NPP going straight to proposed merge is a little too cautious. I'd encourage you to think about BOLDLY doing the merge itself. If that's contested PM is still there but knowing when to strike the balance of discussion and when to do an action is part of the skill of the NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:Jeremy Piasecki
 * I'd mark this article as reviewed because of the fact that the person has good coverage in multiple reliable sources like The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and The San Diego Union Tribune. With that coverage the article passes WP:GNG. Also, I'd remove the link to his Facebook page and change a few things to meet WP:MOS. 09:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So the LA Times and Chicago Tribune story was the same just reprinted. However there does seem to be enough coverage for GNG - I also see coverage from the Times of London for instance. This one would have also needed some kind of tag because of the writing style. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bingo - strong stuff here. I'll post something for us to work on soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Hey, I've gone through this set and hope to hear on it soon. Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  09:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
You've done a good job with the drafts showing a nice understanding of many of the elements of notability. Next we'll turn to speedy deletion. First read WP:CSD. To truly understand this you'll occasionally need to read some of the links (ex: To do A7 well you will also need to read WP:CCS. After doing that:
 * 1) Please make sure in your Twinkle preferences "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" is checked -->
 * 2) Bookmark Earwig's Copyvio Detector in your computer.
 * 3) Install CV-revdel. After saving, you may have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Bypass your cache

Then try these scenarios. For each say which speedy deletion criteria, if any, applies. For scenarios 1-3 and 9 all names are made-up and should not be looked at outside of the training environment; the rest may be searched.


 * Scenario 1

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text: John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.


 * This looks like a G10. All this page is doing is intimidating the person in question and has no notability or anything encyclopedic. Bingo bro   (Chat)  08:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 2

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text Good Times LLC is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.


 * This one is a G11. This text is entirely promotional and I'd also report the user to WP:UAA for having a username implying shared use and making promotional edits. Bingo bro   (Chat)  08:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ G11 works. Is also U5. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 3

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text: Edward Gordon (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 500 subscribers on YouTube.


 * I'd go for an A7 specifically a, because this article doesn't have anything notable or significant in it. School plays, albums on a website or 500 subscribers is nothing notable.  Bingo bro   (Chat)  10:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 4

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content: Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.


 * As stated by you for scenarios other than the ones you mentioned I looked this one up and found a few thingsThe Nice. Although this has content it does attempt to correspond with the person and has a chat-like feel to it so, I'd be going for an A3. Bingo bro   (Chat)  10:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This scenario was designed as a bit of a gotcha by . Your searching for his name is what this is designed to teach - behind this nonsense there's actually some degree of claim of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 5

A user creates an article Marks v. Shoup with the following content: Under the law of Oregon which was in force in Alaska when the seizure and levy of the plaintiff's goods were made by the defendant as marshal of Alaska under a writ of attachment, that officer could not, by virtue of his writ, lawfully take the property from the possession of a third person, in whose possession he found it.


 * A search brings up the exact same text as in the article, so I'd be tagging it under G12. Bingo bro   (Chat)  10:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahh you fell into a gotcha that I created. You found the correct source but it's not actually G12. Why not? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I took some time to figure this out, I read the sites "Terms of service" and found out that the site does not claim copyrights for works related with the US Federal or State Governments. Bingo bro   (Chat)  10:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language.


 * This one actually depends on a couple of things, if the article exists on another wikipedia and has practically the same content then I'd go for A2. And if it doesn't exist on any other project then I'd tag with and take it to WP:PNT.  Bingo bro   (Chat)  10:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
 * This looks like a pretty clear G7.

A user creates an article which is an identical copy of another article on Wikipedia.
 * Scenario 8
 * Straightforward A10 for this one.
 * Well as it happens it's actually not that straightforward. It's only A10 if the newly created article cannot be a plausible redirect target for the original article. If it can be a redirect term it should be turned into a redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 9

A user with the name "WikiRockers" creates the following article Phabricators are Fabulous is the debut single of an exciting new group called the WikiRockers.


 * This would be an A9 because,this musical piece has no claim to significance. However, I'd do a search to check its notability (in case it does have coverage) before the CSD tagging and report the user to WP:UAA.


 * Scenario 10

A user creates an article and 5 minutes after it was created the article only has a single category with no other text.


 * I'd check for notability per WP:GNG and if it fails, I'd tag it with A1.
 * So the key wording here is 5 minutes. Certain kinds of articles (COPYVIO, attack most notably) shouldn't be left around. But in general people need to be given time to write their article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey man, I've gone through the scenarios and posted my answers. I've also installed the said scripts. Bingo bro  (Chat)  13:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * these are designed to be tricky and you handled yourself well. Another set will be forthcoming soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * the second set of scenarios are below. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A user creates an article Larry Footy with the following wikisource (in other words it properly displays in the article):
 * Scenario 11

I did a search and found that the club is notable. If the player does meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY I'd actually mark this as patrolled instead of tagging it with CSD. Bingo bro  (Chat)  15:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A notable club is not enough to suggest the player is notable. It is much easier for a club to be notable than its players. But yes this is clearly not speedily deletable. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A user with the name Gamerfan123 creates the following article: GamerCon is an annual event held in the garage of Shelly Sony. Last year 10 people attended - a record. This year's event will be held October 19-21.
 * Scenario 12

I'd tag with A7 (specifically ) because, ten people attending in garage is certainly not notable. Bingo bro  (Chat)  15:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ it's certainly not. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A user creates the article HomeTown Pizza with the following content: HomeTown Pizza is a local pizza maker. It has been open since 2004. Its most popular topping, according to the local paper, is pepperoni.[1]
 * Scenario 13

References 1.^ localalnewspaper.com/hometownpizza/profile.html

Another A7 for me, a local pizza joint with nothing notable about it. Sole ref. may not be reliable or even independent (owner said .... etc.). Bingo bro  (Chat)  15:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good analysis. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A user Someguy54321 makes the following article and 3 days later gets community banned for repeatedly operating a bot without approval. Mary Beth Walz is a state senator in the New Hampshire House of representatives.
 * Scenario 14

I searched her name up and found that she indeed is a state senator. If seen here her article is actually a red-link. I found passing mentions in multiple sources but no in depth coverage, I wouldn't tag with CSD and since she may pass criteria one of WP:POLITICIAN I'd mark the article as reviewed and add a maintenance tag for sources with more coverage of her. Bingo bro  (Chat)  15:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So yes she's notable. But your analysis misses an important point. What impact, if any, does the user being community banned play into what you do? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd say the article stays because the user was banned after the article was created so, G5 won't be eligible. Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  09:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User:PhilHDoct creates the following article at Solar Panel 2.0: Phil Doct has created a new solar panel which will increase energy output from existing solar panels by 30%. He was granted a patent on this invention on May 15.
 * Scenario 15

According to WP:NPROF a patent isn't a guarantee for notability. So, if he fails WP:GNG then I'd be tagging with A7. Also, the user has a clear WP:COI. Bingo bro  (Chat)  15:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

A user converts a redirect Tayo into an article with the following wikisource. In your answer, also evaluate if anything would be different if a user made this as a new article, rather than from a redirect. You: Kill Tayo!!!!!!!!!!! Rogi: Nooooo You!!!!!!! Tayo:Help!!!!! Blood, this is my sad Gani: Call Emergency!!!!! You: Kill Gani!!!!!! Lani:321! Bomb you!!!
 * Scenario 16

So, Tayo is an actual redirect so, I'd just revert the edit. If it was an article I'd tag with G1 because I can't make anything out of this.
 * ✅ The fact that it was a redirect is key here. Good job, you nailed it. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Assume that there is secondary sourcing present for all statements. Acme Inc is a Mumbai based widget company with 1200 employees and 10 million (US) in revenues. They were founded in 2015 by Wiley C Oyote. Their first product was a one inch widget. Acme have won several awards for quality.
 * Scenario 17

Although the user has an obvious WP:COI, the article is backed by secondary sourcing, the revenue is a WP:CCS and adheres to WP:NPOV so, I'd mark the article as patrolled and leave a COI note on the creators talk page.

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Assume that there is sourcing to the company's website present for all statements. Acme Inc is the premier award-winning Indian widget company. Located in beautiful Mumbai, the company has 1200 hard-working dedicated employees who have powered the company to over 10 million (US) in revenues. In a flash of inspiration brilliant inventor Wiley C Oyote started the company in 2015. Their first product revolutionized widgets and amazingly each new product has been even more impressive. Acme has shown themselves to be the best in the business and only has the greatest things ahead of them. "If you want widgets, you want Acme," Chief Marketing officer John Roadrunner said.
 * Scenario 18

This is entirely promotional so I'd be going for a G11.
 * You correctly note that this is G11. What distinguishes scenario 17 from 18 for you? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that scenario 18 is written from a non neutral and clearly promotion perspective, which gives it an advert like feel distinguishes it from scenario 17. Thanks! Bingo bro   (Chat)  09:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good analysis. So the question for 19 becomes "Does it need to be fundamentally rewritten to avoid the promotional language?" I think that's ultimately a judgement call and it's not an easy one but ultimately I would come down, in the case of a company article, that yes it needs to be fundamentally rewritten and woudl agree with the G11. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * So, I believe that if the article passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG then yes it should be rewritten. And if it fails then G11 should do the job.Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  08:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A user named John from Acme Inc creates the following article. Acme Inc is an award-winning[1][2] Indian widget company. The company has 1200 hard-working dedicated employees[3] who have powered the company to over 10 million (US) in revenues.[2] We were founded in 2015 by Wiley C Oyote.[3] Our first product was a one inch widget.[4] Acme has become an important widget manufacturer.[3] "If you want widgets, you want Acme," Chief Marketing officer John Roadrunner said.[4]
 * Scenario 19

COI
wow I had sat on this longer than I realized. Sorry. Here we go. Please read WP:NPPCOI, WP:COI and WP:PAID and answer the following question

I'd say we can spot a COI/PAID editor by the manner in which they edit. If the user is new and is making promotional edits or creating articles which are promotional then, the user is almost certainly a COI/PAID editor. Some users have usernames of their company or business and they create articles about their business which I believe is certainly COI and or PAID editing.
 * 1. How do we spot a COI/PAID editor?
 * Everything you've written is right. One big piece of how to spot UPE with NPP is a rush to get autoconfirmed so they can bypass AfC. A bunch of minor/simple edits followed immediately by a few thousand well formatted bytes. The jump from fixing a typo to writing content is large and you'd expect to see some intermediary steps along the way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If the topic of the article in question is notable then I'd be WP:DRAFTIFYING it to completely reword it (if promotional) and add secondary reliable sources (if not in the article already) to it. If the topic is not notable then I'd be tagging it with CSD G11. Apart from that I'd also leave a note on the author's talk page regarding the COI.
 * 2. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a COI editor?
 * G11 might not always be appropriate for COI - it might not always be promotional. Your DRAFTIFY answer is correct but sometimes you'll need to do a regular old AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd WP:DRAFTIFY the article immediately (if it has some degree of notability) because all paid article creations must go through the WP:AFC process. If its not notable, depending on how the article is written I'd be tagging it wit CSD G11 or A7. Also, I'd inform the user to disclose their PE per WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. Bingo bro  (Chat)  13:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 3. Please read WP:PAID. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a paid editor?

COI practice
For each of the following prompts, identify how likely it is that the described behavior is COI or PAID editing (not COI/unlikely/possible/likely/very likely), as well as what measures would be appropriate to take (both in terms of messages sent to the involved editors and whether to approve/delete/draftify/tag the article). Don't assume any information about the scenarios beyond what is written: if you feel like you would need additional information to provide a proper answer, describe the various outcomes you would consider based on additional hypothetical evidence.


 * 3 An editor makes 10 edits to a variety of articles, then creates an article about an obscure businessperson in a single edit, and does not make any additional edits for 3 months. The article appears to meet notability guidelines.

I believe the chance of this user having a COI/or being paid is unlikely to possible because, the ten edits are just a requirement for WP:AUTOCONFIRM which is required to create an article also the fact that the article was created in a single edit makes a COI possible but the notability part slightly lowers the chances of a COI for me. Since, the person in question is apparently notable I'd mark the article as patrolled and leave a note on the author's talk page regarding this possible COI.
 * This is very typical COI/UPE beahvior. A notable topic is important in this case but does not mean it's not COI/UPE. This probably means I would tag it as undisclosed paid if I decide not to draftify. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 4 An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics makes a new article in a small amount of edits about a new TV show. The article is not neutrally written. Since having finished the article, the editor has continued to make a handful of contributions to other articles.

The chances of this user having a COI is unlikely, because of the fact that there are at least a few hundred edits to other articles both before and after creating the said page. I'd do a WP:BEFORE and go through the sourcing to see if its notable and if it is then I'd WP:DRAFTIFY it. If its not notable then I'd tag it with G11. I'd leave a note on the user's talk page regarding WP:NPOV.
 * You're right this is not COI/UPE. Depending on how not neutrally written this could just need a neutral tag. If it's not COI/UPE the case for draftification goes down a lot. In these circumstances I would not draftify. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 5 An editor makes 10 edits to articles about locations in Georgia, then creates a meticulously sourced article about a species of tree native to Georgia in a single 50,000 byte edit. They have not made any additional edits since then.

I'd say this is not a COI. Probably a local creating and editing articles about their state (or country if its the Republic). I'd see if the article is notable per WP:GNG and mark it as patrolled if it is, otherwise I'd take it to Afd. I don't believe it is necessary to communicate with the author for a possible COI although I'd tell the author to read WP:N, WP:YFA and WP:RS. Bingo bro  (Chat)  17:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅A COI with a tree is not likely. While this fits the general pattern, it is more likely to be a COPYVIO or restored deleted article than COI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

So, after I looked up the username I found out that Apo Ocalan is the founder of the PKK (a Kurdish political outfit). The fact that the article has WP:POV issues and is about a topic so closely related to the username I'd say that this user 'very likely' has a COI. I'd try to communicate with the user and reason with them and maybe even persuade the to get a renaming done and if that fails I'd be going to WP:COIN.
 * 6 An editor with the username "ApuOcalanPKKForever" creates a biography about a Turkish dissident. The article is not neutrally written.
 * ✅ Good. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say this user has a very likely COI based on the username and their POV. Once again I'd start out with reasoning with the user and if that fails I'd go to WP:COIN. Also, I'd like to add that if the article passes WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG then I'd draftify it and otherwise I'd take it to Afd.
 * 7 A new editor with the username "BillieFan214" writes a non-neutral article about an upcoming Billie Eilish album. They have not made any edits to other articles since completing it

For me this is another case of a very clear COI based on their username and no further contributions. I'd also go straight to WP:UAA because of the "official" in their username. Bingo bro  (Chat)  14:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 8 A new editor with the username "BEOfficial" writes an article about an upcoming Billie Eilish album. They have not made any edits to other articles since completing it.
 * ✅ What do you do about the article? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It'll depend on the article itself, does it pass WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG, is it promotional or neutral? and then accordingly I'll tag it with a paid article template , csd or if needed take it to Afd. Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  05:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This is probably not COI because even if the articles are interconnected they're neutrally written and well sourced. The user is probably just interested in the topics of the articles they have created. I believe no action is required apart from patrolling the page.
 * 9 Over the course of 5 years, an editor writes several articles about a small group of academics and their business ventures. The articles are well-sourced and neutrally written. You've come across their most recent creation, which appears to be notable. Every single article that they've edited in the past five years appears to be somehow related to this group of academics
 * Only writing about a group of connected people is at least a suspicion of COI. This is where a friendly note on the talk page might be the right first step. You are correct that it's possible nothing might need to be done about the articles themselves. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd AGF on this one since the businessperson in question is notable hence, there are bound to be some press interviews or something and the user could be present at one of those to take a picture of the person. But, the "own work" photo is also one of the prime characteristics of a paid editor. So, I'd start a discussion with the user and see if they are being paid to create the article and disclose any COI per WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE, I'd mark the article as patrolled but tag it with the template. All in I'd say this is a possible to likely COI.
 * 10 An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics named "Ismail Oyo" makes a new article about a notable businessperson from Nigeria, and claims the photo i the infobox as their own work.
 * Maybe. the own work of the photo is the biggest red flag for me in this scenario. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 11 An editor with 50 edits to a variety of topics is named "StacyRichardson". Included among these edits are the creation of two new articles about businesspeople from Russia. You are reviewing the most recent article, and it does not appear to be notable, although it is neutrally written.

I believe this is likely case of a COI. I'd tag the article with A7 and start a discussion with the user regarding the issue. Bingo bro  (Chat)  15:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Might or might not be a7 worthy but yes to the likely COI/UPE. BEst, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 12 An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with less than 50 edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked for sockpuppeting. The subject appears notable

This is a possible COI for me because of the low number of edits of the user and the user might be another WP:SOCK. I'd probably go through their edits to be sure and the SPI page and tag the pag with G5 if thats the case.
 * Yes to the SPI and yes to tag the page either G5, if applicable, but at minimum with a COI tag. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 13 An article is moved from draftspace by an AfC reviewer with several thousand edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked as NOTHERE. The subject does not appear to meet GNG.

This looks like a very likely case of paid editing. The original editors being blocked, the article failing WP:GNG and an experienced reviewer moving it into the mainspace makes it suspicious. I'd bring this up at WP:COIN too.
 * So conversation and thought about the AfC reviewer is needed here. Maybe there's something you missed about the article. Maybe there's something they missed. Maybe there is a suspicious pattern. Best, 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the subject is a borderline case of notability I'd still draftify it for improvements. And this appears to be an unlikely to possible COI.
 * 14 An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with a few hundred edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by an account that has been blocked for violating CIVIL. The subject is a borderline case for notability.
 * Someone blocked for civility is much less likely a problem than if they were blocked for another reason. Not likely COI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I've left my answers for this set. Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  16:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See feedback above. Let me know what questions you have. One point I need to stress: COI is definitely a reason to draftify. But draftify is, in most other circumstances, not a substitute for deletion. So some situations with likely COI/UPE it can be OK to draftify where it wouldn't be otherwise but over draftifying is a common mistake for new reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, I went through your feedback and yes I'd like some WP:DRAFTIFY follow up to improve. Thanks! Bingo bro   (Chat)  05:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, I had a question though its slightly off topic, I wanted to get involved in NAC's (uncontroversial ones) like closing Afd's which are Speedy Keeps like here [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus (2012 film)], relisting discussions for clear consensus , keeps which have clear consensus and RM discussions with clear consensus. So, do you think I should get involved or I should wait more regardless of what your answer is the help and suggestions are highly appreciated. And oh yes I did read WP:NAC and WP:RMNAC. Thanks! Bingo bro   (Chat)  09:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am pretty opposed to non-admin involvement at AfD, beyond closing speedy keeps. This is something that has bothered me since well before I become an admin myself - you can read more about my thinking at WT:NAC (not sure if you ventured to the talk page). RM and RfC non-admin closes are very different. I'm not sure how much experience you have with RM but either of those could be great places to dip your toe into the closing water. It sounds like you've done your homework which is a really encouraging sign that you could do it successfully. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC


 * Thanks for the response and I'll stay away from Afd's apart from speedy keeps and I may close a few RM's with clear consensus in the coming days. Thanks! Bingo bro   (Chat)  15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Draftify
First please read WP:DRAFTIFY and let me know any questions you have. Make sure to install User:Evad37/MoveToDraft which makes the whole process really smooth and easy. Moving an article to draft is a form of deletion. It is my experience that new reviewers (including old me) are too reliant on DRAFTIFY when really a different form of action should be done. Often it's done as a way of avoiding a deletion discussion. Don't let this be you. Outside of UPE/COI, draftifications should be rare. Once you've done the reading see if you can find a couple examples from the New Page Feed of articles that should be draftified (which are not COI/UPE - we covered that pretty nicely above). List them below and we can discuss them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we're getting there but let's try a couple more. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I've added two more and I'm waiting for your thoughts on them. Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  09:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See comments above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, the feedback is as usual appreciated and I'm waiting for the next exercise or more of draftifying if you think I need more experience with that. Since, you're a sysop and a highly experienced editor could you just have a look at this user Parlebourbon3 (didn't want to ping for reasons), their comments on  User talk:Andiefreude19, User talk:Manish Utekar their somewhat over the top right-wing comments on User talk:Manish Utekar and mainly my interaction with them on User talk:Andiefreude19. I'm saying, is this editing behavior acceptable, was my communication with them appropriate (neutral and friendly), can something more be done while communicating with such editors? Thanks!  Bingo bro   (Chat)  14:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Update This trash looks like its escalating quickly (which I really don't want it to), this is what Andiefreude19 has to say about me:- What I edited wasn't biased at all and even cited an article from a left group media outlet namely Scroll. You're making people question the very credibility of Wikipedia. So, yeah I've been here 4 years (no achievement) all I'm saying is that I probably have more knowledge of policies around here. Bingo bro  (Chat)  04:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the offer to canvass is not good. The idea of Wikipedia being biased is not new. And people have been questioning the credibility of Wikipedia since it was invented. So I don't worry about either of those things really. I did leave a note to Parlebourbon asking them not to build up a brigade. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I had a question related to moving pages, I have now closed a few uncontroversial RM discussions with clear consensus to move and not to. Sometimes I come across proposed titles which are already redirects so, is it possible for non sysops to implement such a move because?, it certainly isn't for me. Also, apologies for this assortment of non NPPS questions. Thanks! Bingo bro   (Chat)  16:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are limited redirect overwrite abilities for general editors. If you get Page Mover (which RM closers frequently qualify for) you have more options. And don't sweat the outside NPP questions - I welcome them. I will have your next NPP assignment up soon (hopefully in a few hours) - I'm in a work crunch for the next month and so my wiki time is limited. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Draft Set 3
I think the right next step would be to do another set of drafts. Can you confirm for me when you'd be ready to turn around a set in a timely manner? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'm available for the Drafts. Thanks! Bingo bro   (Chat)  03:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:Chingari (app)
 * So, this was a tough call for me mainly because of the fact that the app came online in the play store in 2018 and the app store in 2019. Where was the coverage then? It simply didn't have any back then because it was one among hundreds if not thousands of other similar apps. All the coverage for the app has come in July of this year itself because of the fact that the Indian Government has decided to ban all apps made by China based developers. I did find a few extra sources like which gives some coverage to the app itself but also contains an interview with the developer,  this one  which is probably not a WP:RS states that the developers are raising INR 10 Cr. (roughly 1.35M USD) while this one  states that its in talks to raise USD 10M (roughly 75 Cr. INR), so here are two sources sorta contradicting  each other. These are one of those discussions (if at Afd)/ pages at (Special:NPF/Special:NP) I would simply leave to someone more experienced and abstain from. However, if I absolutely had to take action I'd not mark it as patrolled and take it to Afd because it's getting some coverage only because of the ban on Chinese apps, some sources are contradicting each other, while another also has an interview with the developer in it.  Bingo bro   (Chat)  05:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Overall your instinct that this is not notable is, from my work, correct. However, there proved to be a different simpler answer: it was G11 from . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:Soco (Song) By Wizkid
 * On going through the sources the Afro Hits Magazine looks decent and gives coverage to the song. The second source  from pulse.ng looks reliable but the problem is that its an interview with the song's producer, which has only a trivial mention of the song itself and that too in the words of the producer. The third source  from a Nigerian entertainment magazine 'naijaloaded' is also decent in giving coverage to the song in it's review. Now, outside of the article I found these sources  again from pulse.ng, which states the song has had 122 million streams. This one  from okayafrica.com which does not give WP:SIGCOV to the song but mentions it as one of the best Nigerian songs. And this   from allafrica.com goes on to state that the song has even influenced Nigerian pop. So, judging by the sources it meets WP:GNG although it probably doesn't meet WP:NSONG. If the awards won by it can be verified by a source then I believe notability would increase. And yes Earwig gave a 35.9% confidence so I'd certainly change the associated text. Also, the article has WP:MOS and even WP:AT issues in the end, I'd mark it as patrolled and tag it with maintenance tags or if time permits get it done myself.
 * I agree that the Afro Hits sourcing is definitely the kind of review that establish notability and NL Music is pretty good too. And yes an interview is not going to be the kind of source that counts for notability. I would be very cautious about using the number of streams as a proxy for notability in general though once we get to 9 figures I also wouldn't dismiss it. The AllAfrica source makes a pretty strong claim and strong claims require strong evidence and that paragraph doesn't do it for me. However, I do see another RS making a similar claim so I also won't dismiss it altogether. The sum of these parts is enough for me to say this is notable as well - and might actually be a poster example of Wikipedia's undercoverage of topics, even in English speaking countries. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:Jangdung Village
 * So, I couldn't find the village in this because for some reason the "find" feature wasn't working and the document was pretty lengthy. Although the village can be found here  and is mentioned here, a gov.bt source which states a Principle from the village became a lead farmer. Since, the village's existence can be verified per WP:NPLACE I'd mark it as patrolled.  Bingo bro   (Chat)  07:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good find on those two sources. FWIW the village is in the election document but I don't blame you for missing it (if it hadn't been on page 1 I wouldn't have found it). I had initially opened it with the intention of just accepting it because NGEO accepts tend to be pretty easy. However, the election document gave me a little pause (as I was not sure if village was more akin to a city or a neighborhood in a Bhutanese context). I grew a little more wary when I then couldn't find it listed on the two internet maps I searched. I had stopped there (though I would have gone farther obviously in a normal context). Your analysis of sources of those other sources is good and I agree. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:DeAsra
 * If I found this while doing NPP I'd probably tag it with G11 because the content in its current state is quite promotional. Going through the sources contains "founder said......" while also giving independent coverage. This one  barely talks about DeAsra itself, and is focused more on NSDC and the collaboration between the two. Outside the article I found this  which states that DeAsra has signed an agreement with some banks, but again there is little coverage on the organization itself and more on the deal/agreement and an interview with someone related to the agreement. Even if the article was neutrally worded I think it could qualify for A7 and would struggle at Afd in my opinion.
 * I personally wouldn't tag it G11 but I would probably accept that tag if someone else did it and I was patrolling CSD as an admin. I would decline the A7 as a quick Google search comes up with enough significant claims (even though it's primarily press release related like this) that it would deserve an AfD discussion. One important thing to do as part of NPP: spend some time figuring out if the article should be at DeAsra or DeAsra Foundation (with the other titling being a redirect). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:Minister of Health and Child Care (Zimbabwe)
 * This looks like a major office in the government of Zimbabwe. And even its holders could possibly be notable if they meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Yes, the draft in its current state has WP:MOS issues, needs more sourcing (which is available) and a bit of reFill, I'd be marking this as patrolled and while tagging it with a few maintenance tags. Bingo bro  (Chat)  09:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure just how ranking this position is (Ministry could, as you indicate be a sign of easy NPOL pass, or not depending on the government) but as a government department it is an easy yes for notability for just the reasons you specified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

, as before please evaluate as if you found them while doing NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've posted my thoughts above. And as you mentioned earlier that your wiki-time is limited, there's certainly no rush for you to give me feedback. Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  09:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is indeed but giving timely feedback on drafts is important because I want to be fair to the people who created those drafts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Communication
While notability is the most important concept for a reviewer, communication is our most important responsibility. I am guessing you've read WP:BITE before but if not please do read it. Communication takes a few forms for the NPP reviewer: To put this into action let's make use of your AfC pseudoperm. If you haven't already you should install the helper script. After you've done that, at your convenience, go ahead and use the AfC side of the new page feed to find a 3 or 4 drafts to decline where you would also be able to leave a comment explaining further context or helpful tips (the script will, in the decline reason, give a stock message which you can see ahead of time by clicking preview). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Always using clear and helpful edit summaries while patrolling - While using edit summaries is generally good practice, while doing NPP it's important to take it a step further. For instance, a common occurance will be to find an album by a musician with a page, but a particular album doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUM. The normal patrol action here is to redirect the album to the page of the artist. An inadequate edit summary would be "redirecting to artist" or some such. I prefer a more complete summary along the lines of "No indication in article of how album is notable per WP:NALBUMS. Redirecting as an WP:ATD."
 * Edit summaries are not a replacement, however, for real communication. Depending on context this should either be done on the talk page or the user talk page of the editor. This is especially to be done even if the other editor is only communicating through edit summaries. We have a higher obligation to do it right. Doing this proactively is great. Just as frequently it will be more reactive - for most editors who contact you it will be out of confusion or ignorance. However you will get some angry ones as well. In all cases being the calm professional one in the conversation is vital.
 * The final main mode of communication is through the toolset itself. Find a great article? Make sure to leave a comment. See a few articles in a row by a newer user all of which are notable? Leave some wiki love.

Hey, I added 3 drafts and plane to add a couple more. This isn't an NPPS question but it's related to communication nonetheless, with an "angry" editor (to put it subtly). I don't want you to mediate or comment because that's obviously canvassing. All I wanted was some help in dealing with folk like the editor in question. This extravaganza is almost entirely available on my talk page and I'm trying not to take this to ANI because it probably doesn't belong there anyway.Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  14:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , my advice for this situation is that you would have been best off just asking a question in your first reply. In your second reply you address what you understand the problem to be. In your third reply you express empathy for his frustration and explain where he can go to get further help. And then you let him him get the last word; if he won't drop it then maybe you go to ANI. As much as possible meeting anger with calm as NPP, content in knowledge that you ultimately have the upperhand against a newer editor, is going to go down well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, it certainly helps. I've left the editor a message stating that reversion of one's edits is frustrating and could happen with anyone. I told them to start a discussion on the relevant talk page and build consensus regarding the image. I also gave a link to the Teahouse so they could get assistance and ask questions and I signed off respectfully thanking them and wishing them happy editing. Bingo bro  (Chat)  17:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I hadn't yet visited the article's talk till now, and I found that there was a discussion (less than a month ago) regarding the editor and their image (the editor was pinged in it), which was unopposed in adding a different image than the one the editor prefers. So, I doubt the consensus part of my message is anything useful but, I'm keeping calm and will probably not go to ANI or anywhere unless of course they keep piling on the namecalls. Bingo bro   (Chat)  17:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I added another draft and am awaiting your thoughts on them. As always Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  09:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * These look good Bingo. Apologies for the delayed delayed delayed response. Take a look at the NPPS curriculum. Is there an area you would like to go over next? Best,Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, no need to apologise on the late response, we all have our priorities. An area I'd like to do some work on is AFD noms and participation in AFD discussions. Thanks! Bingo bro  (Chat)  16:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, if you went through my contributions you may have noticed I hadn't edited in like 12 days or so. Some awful things happened off-wiki which needed to be taken care of, and because of that I simply could not do anything over here. I'm backnow and will be doing this assignment within a week or two. Thanks! Bingo bro   (Chat)  05:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I am so sorry to hear about that. As always we're here at a relaxed pace. So take care of yourself (and loved ones). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion Part 2
We've already looked at Speedy Deletion. Now let's discuss what actions should be taken for those articles do not fit under the CSD criteria but do not meet relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia. An important part of this is considering alternatives to outright deletion.

'''Please read WP:PROD,  WP:BLPPROD, WP:MERGE, and WP:REDIR, WP:AFD and answer the following questions. (Provide links and hisdiff as needed.)'''

Answer: We PROD a page when the deletion is likely to be uncontroversial (i.e. any objection is unlikely). We may PROD a page as it is less complicated than a deletion discussion at Afd.
 * 1. Under what circumstances do we propose deletion (PROD) a page and why do we do that?

Answer: Before we PROD a page we should check if the page has not previously been nominated for deletion through PROD or AFD or undeleted, we should also check if the page has not been vandalized.
 * 2. What should we do before we PROD a page? And what should be considered during a nomination?

Answer: I'd BLPPROD a page if it has no sources/citations to support the content of the article. Alternatives to BLPPROD would be-
 * 3. What is the criteria when nominating a BLPPROD? If we choose not to BLPPROD a page what are the alternatives? (give three examples with explanations)
 * 1) I'd search for reliable sources and cite them in the article. Example- Say, "Business Man Joe" (Ignore MOS/AT for now) is an newly created article with no sources, and a search brings up reliable and significant coverage about the person then I'd add those sources to the article. The article then will likely pass WP:BIO.
 * 2) If there are statements with no available sources to support them, I'd remove them. Example-"Business Man Joe" is one of the greatest entrepreneurs of all time or "Business Man Joe" is the coolest CEO, apart from claims like Joe graduated from Harvard or Joe is qualified pilot.
 * 3) If the page entirely negative in tone then I'd use CSD-G10.Example- "Insert BLP title here" is an idiot he scams his customers and is known to underpay his employees. "Expletives here".

Answer: An article can be nominated for deletion at AFD, if it does not meet notability guidelines though, does not meet a CSD criteria either or the deletion would likely be controversial (i.e. warrant a discussion). Prior to nominating an article to AFD- I'd check for reliable sources, previous AFD nominations , talk page discussions/page history and if the page meets PROD/CSD criteria.
 * 4. In what circumstances can we nominate an AFD and what step should be done prior such action.
 * How would you check for reliable sources?
 * At first I'd go through the sources in the article, then I'd do a simple Google search and look for news reports from independent (regional/national) outlets which give significant coverage to the subject. In certain cases I'd also look up dedicated sites/databases like say there's a new airline then I'd also look up databases like ch-aviation, routes-online and CAPA which are independent and pretty reliable apart from the usual sources. Bingo bro   (Chat)  07:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you have the right idea here. Ultimately the idea is to follow the directions of WP:BEFORE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Answer: I believe that depends on the source, if there are no claims of significance in the article then I'd tag the article wit CSD-A7, if there are claims of significance in the source/article and the source is a blog/interview etc. then I'd nominate the article at AFD.
 * 5. Suppose a page has been previously BLPROD and a source was provided. If you still think that article should be deleted, what can you do?

Answer: I'd propose a merge if the articles in questions are very similar as in an "overlap" or the cliché duplicate page and the NOTINHERITED criteria as well.
 * 6. What are the reason to WP:Merge a page to another page?

Answer: Say if the subject of the article itself is not notable, but the subject is part of a notable topic we could redirect the page. Like we may have a non notable movie or show, but it is part of a notable franchise or a non notable album from a notable artist. Another one which I bump into every now and then is the names of an airport or a city like, Astana being renamed Nur-Sultan, one wouldn't wipe out (delete) Astana and start Nur-Sultan from scratch, instead Astana would (and was) moved to Nur-Sultan and a redirect was created.
 * 7. List some reasons reasons we may WP:REDIR instead of deleting.

Answer: I'd go through the sources in the article and assess them and search for other sources on google or a relevant database. As I've mentioned above for articles on airlines I'd go through specific sites like ch-aviation or CAPA. Now, for the languages I can't read, it is still possible to identify a reliable source, for translating the content a simple online tool could help but this would not be perfect and I'd certainly try and get some help from a user who can speak the language before taking a call. And yes if I were on NPP and bumped into an article with sources I couldn't read I'd leave it for someone else to assess.
 * 8. Please list the ways that you should search for sources in preparation for a PROD or AfD nomination, including steps which may only be relevant for certain subjects. How does this list change for subjects which are likely to have coverage in languages that you cannot read?

Answer: As an NPR I would use them as guidelines not hard core enforced policy. These articles can help an NPR understand what is generally considered notable what kind of sources are reliable, and what/who/why is a topic of the Project notable but there are exceptions and that's where the judgment of the NPR comes into play.
 * 9. Some WikiProjects have published essays on notability for topics related to their project, such as WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. As a new page reviewer, how should you use such essays?
 * Off topic-- been on and off of WP lately, since the lockdown ended I've been caught up with work and WP had to be put on the backburner. Bingo bro   (Chat)  10:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Answer 1:
 * Nominate 5 articles for WP:AFD by using WP:Twinkle and provide explanations for your nominations.


 * Participate in 5 WP:AFD that have no votes other than the nominator's statement. Please provide your reason either to delete, keep, redirect or merge.


 * Question Hi, I've been off wp lately but has our policy on cross namespace redirects changed? (if so could you please direct me to the relveant pages?). Back in the day (if I'm not wrong) draft to mainspace redirects of accepted Afc submissions were tagged for CSD. I accepted this and classified it as a stub, added a couple of sources to verify its existance and then formatted according to IR's stations. The question being, Liz declined the CSD of the redirect so, what has changed and why? or was I alsways under the incorrect impression that these redirects are tagged for CSD? Also, regarding the assignment I'm actually looking for certain AFD's where I can genuinely give a +keep !vote, as piling on +delete per nom or +delete as I couldn't find any sources doesn't add too much experience in the area imho. Thanks! Bingo bro   (Chat)  07:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Good question . Only Mainspace to somewhere else (draft, user, etc) redirects have ever been fully covered by a CSD. At times AfC accepted pages have been done but also has been always been common to have redirectsin my experience. So I think it's a bit of a judgement call. However, when it was done it was done under G6. R2 can only be put on pages in mainspace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nominate 2 article for WP:BLPROD and state your reasons.


 * I know I've not been active at all and the fact that this has lasted for 5 years now but I have a question, Articles for deletion/Bouriema Kimba, the athlete does seem to have a claim to notability (being the Nigerian champion in 100 and 200m sprinting) (a source not on the article), has appeared at 2 Olympic games (92 and 96) and was the Nigerian national coach. However, there exists pretty much no significant coverage. Perhaps a separate article is not justified but what could be an alternative to deletion (given that redirecting to the 1992 games has already been tried). Bingo bro   (Chat)  13:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)