User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Girth Summit

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. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I'll read NPP and have a good think about it before posting again. I saw your point about the curriculum - that's fine, I'm happy to go through whatever steps you have found to work, I'm sure I'll learn a lot. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  17:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - OK, I've read through the tutorial section of WP:NPP, and the Deletion and Notability guidelines.

Twinkle / Page Curation tool
I've become quite familiar with using Twinkle through the counter-vandalism work I've done. I see that it has largely been replaced by the Page Curation tool for new page reviewing, but having watched the video tour I can see obvious similarities between how the two work, and I assume that my familiarity with Twinkle will help me get to grips with Page Curation more quickly.

Speedy Deletion Criteria
I had to read through the speedy deletion criteria quite closely as a part of the CVUA training, so I feel I am fairly familiar with them. Patrolling the user creation log was part of the CVUA training, and so I have used Twinkle many times to nominate userpages for deletion - mostly promotional pages under promotional usernames (G11), but one or two attack pages (G10) or webhost violations (U5). As far as I can recall, every page I've nominated has been deleted by an admin, and nobody has ever asked me to go easy with it, so I think that what I've been doing so far has been broadly correct, although I recognise that working on actual articles will likely be a more complex affair than recognising userpages that are blatantly created to be adverts.

In the process of reading and thinking about this, I read through Why I Hate Speedy Deleters and SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion, which were interesting food for thought. I will ensure I don't run in and start CSDing stuff like a bull in a china shop - this description of the stereotypical vandal fighter is not how I'd want people to perceive me.

Interacting with new users / assuming good faith
While doing anti-vandalism work, I obviously do a lot of reverting and warning with templates. I'm careful though to differentiate between obvious vandalism and good-faith (but possibly misguided) attempts to improve content. I often engage with users more personally on their talk page, or on mine if they come to ask why I reverted them, and try to offer advice or provide links to guidance. I actually enjoy interacting with people like that, and I recognise that offering assistance and guidance is a crucial part of patrolling new pages - it's worth spending time helping an editor get started, rather than frightening them away with a load of templates and acronyms.

On the other hand... while I like to think I am always friendly and approachable, I recognise that I have a tendency to be verbose, and am trying to improve that. If I can provide the information that someone needs succinctly, it will take me less time than writing a big wall of text, and it will be easier for them to read and extract the information they need.

Notability
I've read the general notability guidelines, which seem reasonably straightforward; however, from reading a lot of RfA conversations, and participating in a few, I know that there are a lot of separate, subject-specific notability guidelines, at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, discussions about new guidelines at Category:Wikipedia notability, plus a host of other links at Notability. There's an awful lot there - I'm not confident that I would be able to absorb and retain everything just by reading through them one at a time - I think I'll need to work by identifying the relevant guidelines and re-reading them when reviewing a new page, and gradually build up a working familiarity with them.

Categories
I've done very little editing in the area of categories - I can see that this is an important part of reviewing new pages, but the whole area is something that I'm currently unfamiliar with. I took a look at the guidelines, but there's a lot of material there to get your head around; I also see that there is the Hotcat tool to help with this, hopefully I'll be able to get to grips with that. Hopefully this training program will help me to learn about all this.

Copyright violations
I've never investigated copyright violation. The Earwig tool looked pretty useful for that - I had a play with it, and I think I can see how it works, but this is something that I am sure I'll need to learn more about.

Draft Work
Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful answers. The good news is that while categories matter I don't think they matter quite as much you're currently thinking. Glad to hear you have CSD experience coming in - you'll likely come across the need to apply some criteria you've not used before (e.g. A1/A3) but most CSD work these days tends to be G11 and G12, with a big drop-off between those and A7 the next most common criteria. You're right that copyright is an important part of NPP and Earwig is an essential tool, though some degree of copyright scanning has now been built into the tool itself. One script I recommend getting is this tool which lets you run Earwig reports from with-in the toolset. The other essential script, in my opinion, is superlinks.You're completely correct that notability is more complex than what you can read - like you I like to read a lot of stuff and I've found there are a lot of unwritten rules. We'll start our work with a focus on that. 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. 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) 22:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The subject appears to be notable, but the article isn't well sourced yet. There is only one source in the article, and it's not properly cited (an external link rather than an in-line citation) - I'm also not confident that it would really meet WP:RS - it looks like an opinion piece, or a sort of expert blog, and I haven't looked deeply into the credentials of the author or the editorial standards of the website. Nevertheless, a search on Google books for the phrase "The Curb-Cut Effect" (in quote marks) yielded several books by notable publishers (eg Routledge, Ohio University Press) that appear to give significant coverage. I think that we should keep this article, but it will need work to improve the referencing and expand the content.

I worked through the flow diagram at WP:NPP: It's written in English; it's not patent nonsense; it's not blank or nearly blank; it has enough content to identify the subject; it doesn't appear to be a breach of copyright (although I note that it does use a substantial quote from its only source - we might be better paraphrasing and attributing); it does not contain two or more refs (it only has one); it does contain a credible claim of importance or significance; it's not a BLP; a search yields more refs, so I would tag it with more refs needed; the topic doesn't appear to exist at another article (there is Curb cut, but it doesn't discuss this effect/usage); the title appears to be correct; there are no categories aside from the housekeeping ones, so tag as uncategorised; it is a stub, so I'd tag as stub; it does not have Wikiprojects, so I'd add Wikiprojects; then I'd mark as reviewed. I'd also change the external link into an inline citation, and send a note to the author with the results of my Google Books search, and suggest that it might be possible to expand the article using some of these sources.
 * Great analysis. I will say that this article is one place where a number of NPP reviewers, especially the most prolific, might deviate from the flow chart and choose to draftify the article. I don't believe I would do that for this particular topic - I tend to draftify if the topic is derivative with-out references (e.g. Sports Season Year), notable/borderline notable but with issues in an area of encyclopedic concern (e.g. an area with GS or as in your analysis below NCORP), substantial issues from a draft coming out of WIKIED, or not yet notable but likely to be so soon (e.g. not yet aired season of a TV show whose other seasons are considered notable). However given a clearly notable topic and unclear references you should know that is how some reviewers would react. Your course of action, however, is absolutely correct - this is an example of where NPP outcomes out not always uniform. While on this topic let's do a thought experiment and pretend that this article were instead a BLP about a notable person written similarly. How, if at all, would that change your reviewing? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If it was a BLP with such poor sourcing, I think the flowchart would lead me to a BLP PROD. There is a single external link, but as I said, it looks like an opinion piece rather than a reliable source, so isn't suitable for BLP - so BLP PROD seems the only option, with a polite note to the author as to what the problems were with the article. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So this is a very common mistake. If there is a source present, even if it's not RS, then the article is not eligible for BLPPROD. It's important to note that if there is something listed as an external link, or even closer to this case, as an improperly cited in-line citation, that could reasonably used as a source then the article would not qualify for BLPPROD. However, once the BLPPROD has been added in order for the tag to be removed a RS must be added. When a source does or does not need to be RS is something that is easy to get tripped up upon. BLPPROD is designed to be narrow in when it's applied than other deletion tags - I have probably tagged less than 10 in the thousands of reviews I've done - but somewhat more difficult to be removed once correctly placed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that this player fails to meet WP:Notability (sports), which requires that they must have played at least one game in an international match, or in one of the national competitions listed at WP:FPL. The article asserts that he has been signed in the past to a couple of clubs playing in the lower tiers of the English leagues on the list, but only ever played in their youth teams - he has never made an appearance in their senior squads. He's currently signed to a team in one of the leagues below those listed at WP:FPL, so notability would depend upon his meeting WP:GNG, and I'm not seeing the significant coverage in multiple independent sources that would warrant that - the article currently uses his agents' website ('Full Contact', not independent), a listing at Transfer Markt, which I think lists all players from all teams so doesn't establish notability over and above our guidelines, and what appears to be a match report at a blog - not reliable. I did a Google search to look for other references, but only found some passing mentions in match reports by local newspapers - nothing that would count as significant coverage.

On the copyright question - much of the text is obviously very close paraphrasing of the content at his agents' site - I'm not clear on whether it is close enough to be a COPYVIO problem, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this - but it looks like the sentences have been more or less cut and pasted, and then individual words and phrases swapped or altered slightly.

Some of the content might be useful if he makes it into a higher league at a future point in his career, or notability can be established, so this is probably worth draftifying for the time being rather than outright deletion.
 * Good catch on the close paraphrasing. It is borderline whether it should be removed and revdel'ed. I have not chosen to do so but would not bat an eye should someone else take a different approach. Your analysis of the SNG was spot on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The first thing to notice here is that the history shows the page has been created by someone with an obvious conflict of interest - the author's username matches the company name that they are writing about, and they have not declared their conflict of interest. It's probable that they don't know about our rules here - they aren't attempting to hide their conflict of interest by using an anonymous username; nevertheless, I think the account needs to be reported to UAA as a promotional username that implies shared use.

As for the page, given the cautious approach we're encouraged to take, I'm not sure that it is entirely promotional. It certainly contains a lot of promotional language, and I would run it through Earwig to check for COPYVIO (I can't do that right now as I'm on a work computer and can't run it), but I don't think that it is entirely promotional.

I am not sure, however, that the subject is notable. First, I note that this is an article about the Singapore subsidiary of larger company - per WP:INHERITORG, notability for this subsidiary would not be inherited from its parent organisation even if that was notable - it would need to pass the bar independently. However, I've searched Google news for "Helpling Singapore", and also "Helpling" and "Helpling Gmbh", and I'm not getting a lot of significant coverage in secondary sources for either the subsidiary or the parent company. There are a lot stories that look like press releases in trade journals, and a couple of passing mentions in media outlets like the Straits Times, but I'm not seeing significant independent coverage.

When I went through the flow chart, the path went like this: it is written in English; it's not patent nonsense; it's not blank or nearly blank; it has enough context to identify the subject; I'm not sure about copyvio, but let's assume not; it does not appear to have two independent, reliable refs; it does contain a credible claim of significance; it's not a BLP; a Google search did not yield any reliable secondary sources; it does not qualify for the relevant subject-specific notability criteria; I think that the notability is borderline; if the company was deemed to be notable, the article may contain useful prose - so the result is to Draftify.
 * Hmm. I can tell you that if this were in project space I would tag it G11. My reasoning behind this are the likely UPE, or at minimum undisclosed COI, coupled with the way that the article is written to establish credibility in Wikipedia's voice - you have the quote, the list of features, the allusion to other companies that have done "notable" things (e.g. in the lead backed by the German incubator Rocket Internet known for growing companies such as Food Panda and Lazada.) and sources that are not the highest quality. In general, I agree with your modest and cautious approach to NPP (as above with Curb-Cut) - but UPE requires a different kind of caution. Something important that you didn't explicitly mention but seem to have considered is that under WP:NCORP funding rounds and many/most (but not all) acquisitions/merger coverage, even by RS, is not considered when evaluating notability. Draftify wouldn't be the worse outcome and indeed because it was a draft I declined it rather than tagged it G11 based on my feeling, which is somewhat out of consensus with many AfC reviewers, that G11 should be used sparingly in draft space especially when someone is going through AfC. However, it would likely not be the outcome that most reviewers would get to on the flowchart. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the stuff I mentioned yesterday has indeed made me cautious about CSDing! I would not argue against G11 for this article, it is very clearly promotional. I'm eager to develop a feeling for what's appropriate, so I will continue to be cautious about this, but based on your comments I will adjust my 'G11' threshold down a notch. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

- Really nice job with this first set. Since we're looking at real article with all their complexities we're jumping in the deep end and you've got a good grasp of the various aspects to consider, which is more than half the battle. Let's continue with some more drafts as jumping off points for notability (and other issues) before we hit on some other elements of NPP. I'll gather a new set for us to work on together later today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Four new ones below. I think we'll get some good discussion out of these - it includes one that you can't use the flowchart for and one that uses pre-Internet sources. Let's see what we find. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - thanks for your comments so far, and for digging out this next round to look at. I'll take a look at them, and get back to you. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  07:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Of the two references in the article, one appears to be published by FIDAC itself - it's not independent, so wouldn't count towards a claim of notability. However, I did a Google Books search, and found this, published in 2013 by Palgrave Macmillan, and this, by Cambridge University Press in 2017. Both of these books appear to give the subject of the article significant coverage, so it seems notable - but the article needs more secondary sources.
 * Draft:FIDAC (The International Federation of War Veteran Organizations)

If I go through the flow diagram (missing out the obvious stuff at the beginning for the sake of brevity), I note that it does not two or more reliable sources; it does have a credible claim to significance; a Google Books search does yield more sources, so I tag with more references needed; there doesn't appear to be another article on the subject; the article title appears to be correct; no categories, so add categories; no WikiProjects, so add Wikiprojects; finally mark as reviewed.

However - I've got a slight concern about possible copyvio. The text seems fairly good - one of the things that NPP warns you about is articles that appear 'too good to be true'. The author is a relatively new user, and this is their first article, which heightened these concerns a bit. However, I used Earwig, and it came back with only a 1% concern, so it's not a violation of anything in English and on-line. It references an old 1930s magazine article, which I don't know how I would access to check against to check content; also, since it's a French organisation, it seems plausible that there could be direct translation from a French source, which would also be a violation. Is there anything we are expected do about concerns like that?
 * Glad to see you go to Google Books and find those sources. That is indeed important for a topic like this. As for the copyright concerns it is a real concern. The first thing I would do is check the native language wikipedia to see if it has coverage there - sometimes too good to be true text is simply a competent translation from another Wikipedia which is obviously alright (as long as it's properly noted somewhere). In this case fr.wikipedia doesn't have the topic so that's no good. I also then look to see if I can make use of free previews to look at the prose. Again I can't. We obviously take COPYVIO seriously and so I make the extra effort to google phrases and search these alternative means - instead of just relying on Earwig. So in the end I default to AGF and say if I can't find real evidence of it after a thoughtful search then we proceed as if it's OK. That appears to be the case here. Pre-Internet sourcing is a challenge and a bonus. The older the topic is the mere fact that it has sourcing from places the more likely the topic is to be notable - because what was covered was far more selective its mere existence is a positive sign of notability. While I saw the same caution signs as you I think in the end after doing due diligence we can mark it as reviewed with a clear conscience.  One other option, which I don't think applies here, is to put some sort of tag on it indicating your concern and hope that a subject area reviewer will look into the topic. Of course there is no guarantee that a subject expert will review it and not just another NPP reviewer :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, think I understand. Do you think there would be any merit in a situation like this of reaching out to the original author and asking them directly where the text came from? As a new user, they might be unaware of our COPYVIO rules, or perhaps don't appreciate that a direct translation would still be COPYVIO. I'm not suggesting trying to catch them out in the hope of getting them blocked - I mean, we could just note that the text looks very clean, and note that if it's found to be COPYVIO it would be deleted - we could offer advice on redrafting in the case that it isn't viable as it stands. Girth Summit  (blether) 07:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's absolutely value in that. I prefer open ended questions in cases like this (e.g. in suspected COI, I often start not with the twinkle template but with a question of "What's your connection to X?" This is both good faith, makes it more likely we get an honest answer, and also promotes communication (something we're talking more about below). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources in this article are online, which is permitted by WP:RS but makes it more difficult to confirm notability - I can't see whether any of those mentions in the Guardian, the TLS or the Jewish Quarterly are giving her significant coverage, or just passing mentions. However, WP:AUTHOR says that an author is notable if their works have won significant critical attention - winning the JQ-Wingate Literary Prize for Fiction probably passes that threshold, and so I think that she probably is notable. (I checked that it is the case that she won this - our article about the award lists her as a past winner, but its references are behind a paywall; however, Library Thing says she won it, as does the book's entry on Amazon - neither of these is probably reliable in and of itself, but between all of this I have enough confidence that she really did win it not to feel the need to go and actually check the print source listed in the article.)

So, if I'm happy that the subject is notable, I look at the references actually used in the article. The references used for her biography are two museum catalogues - I'm not sure how happy I am with that. I suppose that as academic institutions, museums should have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, but the catalogues are close on 20 years old now, and it would be difficult to verify the assertions. I'd be interested to know your thoughts here.

Earwig seemed happy with the article content (2.9% chance of COPYVIO), so assuming we're happy with the references for the biography, and again skipping the stuff at the beginning, I think that this just needs categories and Wikiprojects. Girth Summit  (blether) 18:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As a BLP we obviously have an additional level of caution. My minimum standard for determining whether awards under AUTHOR or ANYBIO is that we have a Wikipedia page, which we do in this case. I then check-out the page - the sources for the award on that page are not inspiring; maybe the award has an article but it really shouldn't. So I then check out what sources I can find about the award to look at its notability. In this case I can find coverage of the award in RS like the Telegraph who called it prestigious and the Independent without too much difficulty suggesting it really is notable and probably satisfies the criteria for AUTHOR. I agree the sources being used are not high quality but I don't see any sorts of BLP type issues that substandard sources would cause of concern. As such I agree with your assessment - I would mark as reviewed with a refimprove tag (as well as doing the other steps you mentioned). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I didn't think to check the notability of this award - I'll do that in future - but I had heard of the Jewish Quarterly, it's quite a significant publication, I just assumed that its literary awards would be considered quite prestigious. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess this is the one I can't use the flow chart for! Looking at WP:LISTN, I would interpret this as one of the 'List of X of Y' types of lists - things that happened in 1838, that also happened in Germany. If that interpretation is correct, then we don't have consensus on guidelines for establishing notability, so I'm going to follow my nose a bit here.

I did a random spot-check and found a number of other articles for various specific years in Germany - then came across List_of_years_in_Germany - there are loads of them, including every year back to 1868; further back, it gets a bit spotty, but there are still quite a few articles. Many of the articles look broadly similar to this one, so by existing consensus this seems to be OK. Is that right? Girth Summit  (blether) 20:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is again very perceptive and outlines the right steps and gets to the right destination. This article does need to be evaluated against LISTN and the List of X in Year Y is a common formulation which doesn't present any major issues. When getting started with NPP, not infrequently there won't be clear policy guidance, even in the form of an unadopted essay, for you. This essay was very formative in helping shape my approach to articles like this. This is a place where experience is helpful - an article like this would take me a long time to evaluate when I started reviewing but now I can mark as reviewed very quickly because I've done the legwork and seen how it played out with other reviewers whose experience seemed respected. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad my nose led me along the right path! It did seem that, for so many similar article to exist, there must be a general acceptance that these are acceptable or AfD would be flooded with them all the time. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:Notability (geographic features) isn't crystal clear in this case. The claim for notability is this being the highest mountain pass in Bhutan that you can reach by road - the mountain pass is a natural feature, but the road is man-made. However - 'named natural features are often notable', provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist - this is a named natural feature, and being the highest pass accessible by road in Bhutan is probably significant information beyond stats/coordinates, so I'm going with it being notable, provided reliable secondary sources back up this assertion.

I mistook the first source (The Telegraph) for being the Telegraph of London at first - it's actually the Telegraph of Calcutta, the article is here. It's a passing reference, but it does support the assertions it's being used for. There's also the Lonely Planet guide reference used in the article - not ideal, but probably scrapes reliability for a feature like this? I also found this, from National Geographic, which also appears to support the idea that it's the highest point accessible by road. There are a load of other references out there, TripAdvisor and the like, supporting the assertion, but I can't find a really solid WP:RS, like a textbook on the geography of Bhutan, supporting the claim. I'm not happy with some of the 'Dangerous Roads' website - it does not look like an RS to me. The book that's mentioned (which I found more details on here could be cited better, but is probably reliable for the assertion it's being used to support.

So, in summary - I think this gets by on notability as a geographical feature, and scrapes by on two independent reliable sources, but gets ref improve tags, and the existing reference citing needs tidying up to aid others in finding the sources (which I'd probably do quickly myself - it would take longer to explain to someone than to fix). Does that make sense?

One thing I'm not quite clear on - should it be called the Chelela Pass, as it currently is, or the Chele la Pass, as some of the sources refer to it? I'm not clear on this - there is some disagreement (Telegraph calls it Chelela, Nat Geo calls it Chele La), and without a definitive source like a geography textbook I'm not sure. I guess the thing to do would be to leave it as is, and perhaps create a redirect from Chele La? Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  22:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was really pleased when I found this draft since I knew it would let us explore the fact that there can be a guideline and then there can be reality. I ran into some derision as a new reviewer because I thought WP:NFILM meant what it said that future films aren't notable unless the production itself was notable. Turns out that is just not the way it's done in the breach. In this case there's a good indicator that beyond the SNG that there are further practices - the existence of WP:MAPOUTCOMES. The OUTCOMES supplement is tricky because it shouldn't be used as an argument at deltion (but is) and if we were to use what it writes as gospel when doing NPP we would be creating a self-perpetuating cycle. But it is helpful in knowing where the battle lines are drawn - if you choose to patrol a particular article against OUTCOMES you need to have your ducks in a row for why this is not the typical case of something. What OUTCOMES tells us, and correctly so from my own experience, AfDs I've monitored, and that of other veteran editors I've talked to, is that for geographic features (and populated places) is AMAZINGLY low. Does it exist by some reasonably credible source? Then it's notable. So in this case, basically if you can find it on a reputable map, such as here with Google Maps it's likely going to be notable.The naming issue is also a good one. When I accept it I will likely move it to Chele La because it seems like the preponderance of the best sources refer to it that way. If I found it in mainspace I would also likely make this move. If I had found it at Chele La and noted in exploring the topic that it's sometimes Chelela (which might not have come up given how little effort I would need to exert to prove notability for something like this) I would sometimes, but not always make the redirect - just being honest. But the platonic ideal of the reviewer would take that extra step to make the redirect if they found the multiple names so it's good that you mentioned doing that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I hadn't read OUTCOMES before. I think this is the kind of things I need to become familiar - the difference between the exact wording of the policy, and how things are actually done in practice. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all your feedback on these four drafts - I think I'm starting to appreciate some of the subtleties of doing this. I've left some further comments above; looking forward to the next task, when you're ready. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  07:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * So I feel like you've got a good grasp of the flowchart, you have the right general understanding of Notability and, more importantly, the right instinct about what to look for when running up against a new topic to determine how to apply Notability to it. If you'd like to do some more drafts together, with you taking the lead in using the AfC process, to strengthen all this we certainly can. Or we can move on to our next concept (which will still involve some notability work) - communication. Let me know what you prefer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I think I'd be up for moving onto the next stage. As you say, I'm sure I'll continue developing a feeling for notability in the next stages, and would enjoy looking at a different aspect. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  15:16, 16 January 2019 (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, I asked Mz7 to give you AfC permissions which he was kind enough to do. 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 2 or 3 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 clickingpreview). An example of one I did for Curb Cut is here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2019 (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 aritst" 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, as you suggested above, 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 important.
 * 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.
 * Great, thanks. I've installed the 'Yet another helper' script, so I'll go and peruse the new page feed and see what I find. I'll ping you with links after I've done a couple and you can review. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  17:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, could you just lend a pair of eyes to my first one? See Draft:Crows in the Rain. I've got two issues with this.
 * First, I can't really establish notability. I did a websearch, and I find various sites that will sell you their albums, but I can't find much in the way of substantial coverage from independent sources.
 * More worryingly, there are clear COPYVIO problems - substantial chunks of content are copied and pasted from one of the cited sources (looks like their publisher's website).
 * I wasn't sure whether I should hit the big red 'Decline/Reject' button, when actually this probably needs to be deleted. If I go ahead with declining, should I then ask an admin to revdel it? Trust me to pick a difficult one to begin with... Girth Summit  (blether)  19:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Scratch the above - I don't think I was thinking straight earlier. COPYVIO - no significant text worth saving - CSD. Done, and explained to the user. To be honest, I'm kicking myself just now - the author's username is an obvious policy violation, it's the first thing I should have checked. All I can say is that I should have come at this with a fresh head, instead of after a long day at work. Girth Summit  (blether) 22:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've certainly had my foggy headed instances as well. Good catch and communication all around in the end. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I've declined a few more AfCs now, please see Draft:Eddie Chow, Draft:DoraHacks and Draft:Nate West, and associated communication with their authors. I'd be interested to know whether you feel that any of them should really have been CSDed - I considered it for all of them, since I couldn't really find much in the way of significant coverage for any of them in RS, but thought I'd be better erring on the side of caution for the time being and declining/communicating. cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also Draft:Guru Mata Pita Parmeshwar - Ek Khoj and Draft:Danny Sin. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great. This week quite busy for me so I'll get a chance look at it tonight or sometime tomorrow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries - you've been great at responding really quickly so far, but I quite understand that you'll have other things going on - just whenever you have time. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So DoraHacks has been G11'ed and if that article had been in mainspace it's understandable to see why. Personally I favor a more tolerant approach in draft space, but many feel otherwise, and even still I might have given thought to that one. I'd have to do a little digging but it appears that Eddie Chow would be eligible for G4 if it were in mainspsace - this script is great for spotting those. It had been in userspace, presumably through REFUND and I noticed your communication on the talk page about the duplication so I'm not going to tag it even though it's technically eligible - and there are the username issues around it (as you noted). But if you were to take a firmer line on this as a reviewer that would be well with-in the normal range. West wouldn't be eligible for any CSD that I see but could be a BLPPROD if it were in mainspace. I wish Guru could be G1 but would likely tag it A7 - SoWhy, who frequently patrols that category, would likely decline but most other admins would do it. It strikes me as a bad translation and thus potential COPYVIO but good luck tracing that. Sin is just run of the mill stuff and a blessing that since ACPERM we don't have to deal with it at NPP. Anyhow I think communication is a shown strength for you and I feel good moving on. I'll post something new for us in the next day or so. BTW just saw that you're a primary teacher. Awesome. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those thoughts. I was indeed thinking about G11 for DoraHacks - it was written very promotionally - and A7 for the Guru stuff (or indeed G11, as it seemed to be promoting religious ideas). I'll try out that deletionfinder script, thanks.
 * I am indeed a primary teacher - Year 4 mostly, so 8-9 year olds. I've been doing that for about four years now - a big change from geophysics, but I needed a complete change. Kids that age are so enthusiastic to find out about stuff, it's so refreshing talking to them. What do you do when you're not Wikipediaing?
 * I'll look forward to the next stage, just when you're ready. I have to say, you have been incredibly responsive so far - please don't feel you have to get back to me immediately when you're busy. When I was doing the CVUA training with Mz7, there would often be a few days between me finishing a task and him giving feedback and posting the next - I totally understand if you have other stuff you need/want to be getting on with, and am content to be patient and wait until you have a bit of space. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am just trying to match your level of responsiveness - I only think it fair. As for my profession I think I've alluded to but not outright said on wiki and so I'll keep it that way for now :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for keeping the momentum going - I'll try to continue doing the same at this end. Quite understand off-wiki activities. Right, onto deletion... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion
We've obviously touched on this some with the discussions we've had about speedy deletes and draft notability. Couple of things we've not yet talked about: For our next work, with no particular rush as finding these can be a matter of timing as much as skill, see if you can find 5 articles from the New Page queue to nominate for CSD - try to make sure at least 1 of them uses a criteria other than G11 or G12, and post those articles here. Also see if you can find 2 or 3 articles to soft redirect - for this you might find it helpful to use the NPP Browser. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PROD - 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.
 * Soft deletion by redirect - This isn't really addressed directly in the 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 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.
 * You've made reference to doing what is asked here, so I am guessing you are familiar with it, but if not make sure you understand WP:BEFORE. I would estimate about half of my deletions these days are through AfD - this number used to be much more weighted towards CSD for NPP.
 * Finally a note on the curation toolbar. Current NPP practice is NOT mark as reviewed anything nominated for CSD or PROD but TO mark as reviewed anything marked as AfD. The reasoning behind this is that CSD and PROD can be easily removed and the article should perhaps be deleted through another means (normally AfD) and thus stay in the queue. AfD, however, will have some sort of community consensus about the article so it can be removed from the queue. The toolbar, however, will mark all three kinds as reviewed so you have to just unreview your own reviews when using it for CSD and PROD.
 * First CSD - G3 - Draft:Jesus Rodolfo Ayala Villanueva - found zero hits on Google for his name, although there was this LinkedIn profile. Wishful editing, perhaps.
 * Second CSD - G11 - Draft:Charlie Valens - obviously promotional, had to translate the page from Spanish.
 * Third CSD - G11 - Draft:FSElite - pretty straightforward promotional page, just a couple of sentences of puffery with no refs.
 * Fourth CSD - G12 - Draft:Escape theory - direct copy and paste from an online resource, didn't even need Earwig to find it, it was the first result when I Googled the article title.
 * Fifth CSD - G3 - Draft:Kasperisme - a very short (one line) article, written in Danish. Google translated it as saying that Kasperisme is an ancient religion, worshiping a god called Kasper, in the land of Kasperal. Googled Kasperisme - it is a thing, but it's about a modern Catholic movement, nothing to do with ancient religions. I guess this is someone's attempt at humour.
 * Sixth CSD (for good measure) - G11 - Draft:Ultion Lock - promotional, written by a new account that matched the name of a marketing company. Looked through their other editing, reverted the addition of a spam link posing as a source, reported to UAA.

I'll look for some redirects to do now.
 * Great. All of the above are obviously good finds. Especially on the G3 - this is an important tag and one you layout the thought process of how to find clearly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

While using the NPP Browser to look for possible redirects, I came across Arion (band). It's a new article (18th Jan), and I was thinking that it might be a marginally notable band, and perhaps I would find links to to non-notable albums that ought to be redirected. However, I think that the article itself needs some action. The only two sources are the record company's website, and the band's Facebook page. I did a Google search, and found various bands with this name - the one mentioned in the article, but also one from Chicago, another from Maryland and another from Brazil, and that was only on the first page of results.

I haven't found sufficient significant coverage of the subject to pass GNG (although I haven't tried Finnish sources which would be more likely to yield a positive). I think that the strongest claim to notability in the article content is that they were finalists in the Finnish competition to select an representative for the Eurovision Song Contest in 2013. They came fifth in that, so wouldn't pass criterion 8 of WP:NMUSIC (coming 1st, 2nd or 3rd in a major competition), but the contest would presumably have been televised, and they might pass criterion 12 (subject of a substantial broadcast segment). That isn't explicitly stated or referenced though.

I see that a NPP reviewer has already cast their eye over it and made some edits, so I haven't done anything yet. I think that at the very least it needs some 'citations needed' tags, but I'm wondering whether it should be draftified, or even nominated to AfD if I can't turn up any Finnish sources covering the Eurovision stuff. Would appreciate your thoughts. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 07:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear a NPP reviewer did any real action on it, so I would not let that prejudice anything. As for the Eurovision question, wow that's a good one and not something I know the precedent for. I'm going to post it over at NPP Talk (with a ping for you). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into the Eurovision question - it will be interesting to see what people think.
 * I think I've found a newish article to redirect, but since it's my first I thought I'd run it past you before doing it. See Bag Man (podcast). There's only one reference, and it's the producer's website so not independent in any way; I Googled it, but couldn't find any reviews or the like in reliable sources, just on blogs and UGC review sites - I don't think it's notable, but the producer, Rachel Maddow, clearly is. Would you say this should be redirected to Rachel Maddow? Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Conceptually that's correct. In doing my own search I found this Variety article which is likely enough to count towards GNG. But since I'm not finding anything beyond that I think it's a good candidate. In general, I would say 85 - 90 percent of my redirects while doing NPP are from articles that have an applicable SNG but don't make a credible claim to meeting a criteria from it. It is less frequent, though not exactly rare, to have a case like this where I make an assessment against GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've merged the content into Rachel Maddow (with the Variety source you found), and created a redirect - if I am reverted, I won't re-instate it, but will see what the reverter has to say and discuss. I'll keep an eye out for some more redirects. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I've done another redirect at Moonshine (Tyler Carter album). Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 07:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Trickier than most because it does have a lot of sourcing, but since the sourcing appears to be low quality and no clear SNG claim, ultimately I believe correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Barkeep49, I've been looking through the pages on the NPP browser this evening - nothing's jumping out at me so far as suitable, although I've nominated a couple at AfD (and learned how to do this manually, since Twinkle's AfD nomination function seems to be down). Do you want me to continue looking for potential redirects to get more experience of this, or do you think we ready to move to the next bit? (Totally happy with your judgment on this) Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Try using the [browser]. I did a search for song and found several likely candidates right away. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah - OK, good call, slightly embarrassing that searching hadn't occurred to me - I'd just been browsing through the pages one by one and looking at the article titles/snippet. I'll have another try today by searching, thanks for the tip. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Found Animal (Aurora song) - will look for a few more this afternoon. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And No Fadeout Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And Sasami (album)
 * Hi Barkeep49 I noticed that an IP editor reverted my redirect to Animal (Aurora song), and since then a couple of other users have edited the page. I've started a conversation on the talk page, and pinged the IP editor (do IPs receive pings?), but no one has commented yet. What's the etiquette here - if they don't get back to me, should I nominate to AfD? How long would you leave it for them to respond? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So Animal (Aurora song) was one of the ones I spotted when I did my search through the browser. As for what to do when you get reverted, this is an area where I will act differently for an IP and registered user. IP users are not pinged so you either leave them a talk page message on their user talk page (and I do this some percentage of the time with all users rather than article talk page) or you leave a more general note on the article talk page. I would, in an instance like this, restore the redirect from an IP even after being reverted. Depending on the state of the article I will frequently do it for registered users too. This article, however, has enough non-basic info (e.g. beyond track listing and directory information) that I would have likely let another reviewer either restore the redirect or I would have done an AfD. In this case since I am a second opinion I went ahead and restored the redirect myself - I don't mind "tag teaming" a bit when I think policy is clearly behind me but some reviewers will act differently and choose AfD sooner. A note - if there is an AfD that can reasonably be said to be precedent for a redirect I will be far more assertive in my actions given that if it were a straight recreate it could have otherwise been speedy deleted anyway. Does that all make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi - yes, that makes sense - basically, I think you're saying that it depends partly on the state of the article and partly on who reverted it, with a reinstatement of the redirect for articles that very clearly aren't notable, and either an AfD or waiting for a second opinion if it's more borderline. Do you agree with the other ones I did noted above? Nobody seems to have reverted me on any of them, so I'm hoping that they'll be uncontroversial.
 * I did another redirect this morning - The Essential Adam Ant. Another editor had already redirected to Adam Ant discography, and I agreed with their assessment (also found significant COPYVIO issues, which I removed before redirecting in case I was reverted). I was indeed reverted, but have reinstated the redirect and am discussing the notability with the author on my talk page.
 * In the case of assessing the article, I came across Stephen Thomas Erlewine. The article has no independent sources - they're all directly related to companies he works for. I had a look online and found lots of stuff he'd written, and a couple of mirror sites showing our article, but didn't come across anything independent that other people had written about him. I considered a redirect to AllMusic, where he is mentioned, but JOURNALIST allows notability for people who have {tq| created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work}} - do you think he would be covered by this for the work he's done on the AllMusic website? Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've always thought JOURNALIST was an uneven fit with those criteria as it generally does no favors to written journalists (as opposed to broadcasters). Right now Erlewine is linked to a lot of the reviews he's done. Given the age of the article, the lack of any apparent BLP issues, and the lack of promotionalism, I think the article is probably OK. As for the album,I agree with your Adam Ant redirect and in doing my own search, including some databases, came up empty so I restored the redirect. I also agree with your copyvio and would have tagged the page as such but since Diannna did work on the page and she is the leading editor on copyright. I think you've got the redirect concept down. Let's move on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

AfD
I see you've only done 3 AfD nominations. This is an important element of NPP, as there is a different burden with nominating than just commenting, and so getting a little more experience here would be good. See if you can find ~5 articles in the unreviewed queue, at your leisure, to nominate for AfD. When you do please list them here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great - thanks for the feedback and support on the redirects. I'll get onto some AfD nominations, and ping you when I've done a few. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK Barkeep49, I've nominated a few articles over the last couple of days:
 * Articles for deletion/Niko Pueringer - the author found some more substantial coverage that I overlooked when doing my searches, so I withdrew this nomination.
 * Articles for deletion/Guillem Jaime - footballer in a minor league, fails WP:NFOOTBALL
 * Articles for deletion/Kike Saverio - footballer in a minor league, fails WP:NFOOTBALL
 * Articles for deletion/Ignasi Vilarrasa - footballer in a minor league, fails WP:NFOOTBALL
 * Articles for deletion/Timeshifter - I considered CSD as promotional for this, but thought AfD would be safer. Article about an app, based entirely on what look like media coverage built around press releases.
 * Thanks for pointing this out below. I had missed it. I think this is most definitely a G11 and have tagged it as such. There is 0 non-promotional language here. I've gone ahead and tagged it as such. As for notability I think the Inc article definitely checks all the NCORP boxes. Departures is probably not RS and would be borderline (leaning no in my reading) to whether it offers significant coverage. The CNBC article is not significant. My first level of searching reveals articles from Travel and Lesiure and the New York Times. The NYT is not significant by travel and leisure is and I think would also satisify the NCORP requirements. Ideally an app would get at least 3 pieces of coverage, but considering two pieces of RS (and again there might be more, but I stopped looking because of the G11) combined with bite sized coverage in other places, like CNBC, would suggest that the app is likely notable. . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll bow to your experience here, of course. I thought the T&L article looked like a bit of churnalism built around a press release - the images 'courtesy of Timeshifter', the entirely uncritical description, and the generally breathless, puffy tone. I'll keep this in mind in future - do you think I need to be a bit more sensitive to promotion within our articles, and less concerned about it in sources?
 * First FYI but the HP won't work without a sig. Anyhow, I think your concerns about T+L's writeup being churnalism is fair - I'm glad you found it in your BEFORE. In really comparing it to the story on PR Wire I think you're right about it being churnalism. Taking that out does make the notability picture feel different given that it was marginal. As for the articles themselves, I think caution with A7 is the way to go, but not with G11 - leaving promotional material up in Wiki's name is frowned upon in a way that random band is not - the advice you received at the AfD about the CSD tag would not hold true for all Admins BTW. G12 used to be like G11 but is a little more influx right now so I don't have as good of advice about what to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I realise that it's kind of cheating having three that fall into the same category, so I'll continue looking for a few more, just thought I'd give you an update on what I've been doing so far. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will have further comment about Pueringer but I would encourage you to try to find some non biographies to nominate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, will do. (Just in case you missed it, the Timeshifter one above isn't a bio; I'll look for some more tonight). Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Frosted Faces Foundation - feel bad about this one, they're a charity and it looks like they do good work, but the references just had passing mentions to them, nothing like the type of coverage described at WP:NCORP. (I also found that a good chunk of the article was copied directly from one of the sources - I removed it, but should I still ask for revdel of that material even if I'm also nominating at AfD?) Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I would still revdel because you never know what is going to happen, it will stay up at least a week, and some mirrors don't delete deleted articles so it's good to get rid of COPYVIOs prior to deletion anyway. Do you have enterprisey's revdel tool? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I hadn't used Enterprisey's revdel tool before - I've always requested revdel at the admin's IRC channel. Just installed and used the tool - thanks for the tip, that was much quicker and really easy. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Further to our discussions above, I've got a couple of questions for you if that's OK?
 * Could you take a look at Channel Institute? When I first came across it, it had a big chunk of COPYVIO in it, which I removed (and have now requested revdel for). I then went through removing obviously promotional language. What would you do with it now - do you think it is still CSD/G11? In terms of AfD, I'm not sure - this has significant coverage, and the website appears to have some sort of editorial oversight. Other sources I've found seem to be less useful - a few sites with 'Source: Channel Institute' at the bottom, suggesting they're just press releases. Would appreciate your thoughts before I act.
 * So looking at the article without the COPYVIO I would definitely characterize that as eligible for G11. Your pared down state only shows why G11 is correct: promotional language such as "was the initial driving force behind the Channel Institute." and "composed of senior channel thought leaders". I haven't fully explored them but none of the sources which remain appear high quality either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding the three footballers listed - I nominated the first one, and when I saw that GiantSnowman voted delete (I know that he's an admin with a lot of experience in the football area, so thought his judgment would probably be sound), I put in the other two. Having looked at the contributions of the person who created these articles though, I can see that there are quite a lot more in a similar vein - I think they've probably been through the entire Barcelona B team and created articles for them. A few of them probably meet notability because of clubs they've played for in the past, but the majority, I expect, would fail notability. What's the etiquette here? I thought about waiting until these AfDs are decided, and then if they are deleted, nominating the rest of them - but on the other hand, I don't want to be bitey, or make the guy feel I'm hounding him. Again, your thoughts on 'the done thing' would be welcome. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In general when you find articles of a theme, bundling them is the way to go. In this case I would let the ones you've nominated play out and assuming it goes the way you think, bundle the rest (or at least those that don't otherwise meet NFOOTY). Reaching out with a friendly message on the user's talk page explaining why you're doing what you've done is probably our best recourse in a case like this against biting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

So rather than go out of order chronologically, let me just pull a few threads from the stuff above. First I agree with your assessment all around of Frosted Faces Foundation. As for Niko Pueringer obviously there were some sources that didn't pop on your BEFORE. However, I have redirected the page - in reading over the sources that could be RS (which immediately disqualifies the Forbes contributor article) the coverage seems to really be focused on the company, of which Pueringer and Gorski are the most prominent (sole?) employees. This falls squarely in the WP:ENT SNG and thus in-line with the work we did above and was probably the right first step even if you hadn't known about the other articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback given above - I followed your advice on the Channel Institute, which has now been deleted; I will do as you suggest on the footballers - wait for the outcome, and then bundle an AfD with a friendly note to the author.
 * Thanks as well for the comments on Frosted Faces and Pueringer. I confess that you are absolutely right about Pueringer - that should have been a redirect from the get go. I'm afraid that I might need to change the way I'm thinking about each of these tasks - I'm looking for AfDs, so I've been trying to fit articles I look at into an AfD shape, rather than thinking objectively about what the best course of action is. The old saying goes that a man with only a hammer can only see nails (or something along those lines) - I think I've been suffering a bit from that.
 * I've nominated another article for AfD, and tried to stick to the NPP flowchart to make sure I got it right. Please see Low Carbon Cementitious Initiative. I did a search for sources, and came up entirely blank, except for a single biography of someone who has worked for them. My thinking was as follows (missing out the early obvious steps): No copyvio; Doesn't have two independent source (the page does have numerous source, but most of them don't cover the subject itself); the article itself doesn't contain a credible claim to notability (it's a network of academics - not inherently notable); not a person, animal etc; not a musical recording; not obviously invented by the author; not a BLP; Google search yielded nothing useful; topic didn't qualify for subject-specific criteria; I didn't suspect that notability could be established by means that I couldn't access - and then the final step. Is a PROD likely to be contested - I don't really know, I've never done a PROD, but if I assume that the author might contest it, I end up at AfD. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Totally get the everything is a nail problem when all you have is a hammer. LCCI seems like a good delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49 - see Articles for deletion/Brosix Instant Messenger - I originally CSDed it as promotional, but this was declined as it had been previously deleted twice before (once by CSD, once by AfD). Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  22:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your scrutiny of the sources for that page is one of the best such analyses I've seen, very well done indeed. – Athaenara  ✉  09:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I asked the admin about it on her talk page because the decline reason and subsequent !vote were perplexing to me. FWIW I thought it as a good G11. Something we haven't talked about yet is that something can be both a good G11 and not be a good AfD - the topic is notable but the way it was written about was not policy compliant. The PC Mag review goes a long way towards notability for me, but since I'm not seeing any sort of second strong source along that lines, I agree it's both a good G11 and a good AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes you will do everything correctly and a sysop will make an inexplicable decision, one which when asked about they can't explain (see inexplicable). It's nothing personal. Part and parcel of the gig. Sometimes it's worth pressing ahead with, but often times as with so much on Wikipedia, there's a way to still get the right outcome, even if it takes a bit more time and effort, without causing animosity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words Athaenara, and for the advice Barkeep49. As you say, I'd rather expend a bit more time and effort than risk causing any animosity, and I'm perfectly content for the AfD to run its course - hopefully other editors will review the sources and come to the same conclusions I did. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind taking a look at Island Company Rum? I haven't done anything with it yet, but it looks pretty promotional to me, so I was thinking about CSD G11. In case it's declined though, I'm considering notability. There are a lot of references, but they all seem to be press releases based around awards that they have won. The awards, however, seem to be notable, in that we have articles on them - what I'm not seeing in WP:NCORP is that winning an award confers notability for a company/product in the same way that it does for WP:NMUSIC. Would be keen to know your thoughts. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 11:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and CSDed it; would be interested to hear your thoughts on whether all those awards would amount to a claim to notability though. I've looked for sources - I found a few short reviews on online mags and blogs, but nothing yet that would amount to in-depth coverage. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would have tagged it G11 but I also wouldn't say it's a bad tag. Would guess it will, more likely than not, be deleted. I did CSD the image which is a clear COPYVIO. Will say more later. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Awards do not help establish notability for NCORP - only by meeting all five of multiple reliable independent secondary sources that discuss it in significant detail is an NCORP covered topic considered notable. My searching agrees with your assessment that there isn't other information out there to establish notability - that's why there's not an awards type provision for NCORP. In general G11s for new articles are almost always accepted - it's why I remain surprised about the example above - and so I try to be thoughtful and prudent in my application of it. We can continue to discuss articles as you go about things, but if you feel good, I feel good about continuing to a new area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback here Barkeep49 - I suppose that sensitivity for what is, and is not, a G11 CSD is something that I'll continue to develop over time.
 * I would like to move onto another area, if you think we're ready to proceed. I have been learning lots about notability guidelines etc., and I appreciate the importance of this whole area; however, I'm looking forward to finding ways to contribute beyond just deleting/redirecting articles, which (while essential) does start to feel a bit negative when it's all you're doing! Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  04:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Tagging
This is a place where I think the curation toolbar (which you obviously don't yet have access to) does it a whole lot better than Twinkle - the tags are organized in a logical manner for the NPP reviewer. So good news is that it gets easier once you have the permission. The important thing as a NPP is to put as few tags as possible. Only in exceptional (e.g. 1% or less) circumstances should you place more than 3 and normally 2 tags is more than sufficient. Doing this well is important but I'm guessing you have experience with some of this through CVUA. Any questions or areas you'd like to explore here? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not something that we covered in CVUA - we did all sorts of templating of talk pages, but never tagging of articles. I think I know how it works, but would be happy to run through some exercises as there are probably some sides to it I haven't thought of. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright. The following is a, slightly modified, list of the tags in the "most common" used section of the curation toolbar. Try to find an article or two (or three) to use each tag on (can use multiple tags on the same article, just be aware of overtagging as discussed above). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Bare URLs
 * France women's national under-20 volleyball team


 * Copy edit
 * Elle, lui et l'autre.... - also 'Single source'. I thought about redirecting, but I've had some interactions with the article's author in the past, and I expect they'll be able to dig up more sources. I'm going to put a note on their talk page now asking them to do that before the article gets removed.
 * That's a coincidence - three or four of their articles popped up on my radar today while doing NPP. I only redirected one of them but did just leave them a talk page message echoing what you had said. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised that he cropped up - as his username suggests, he's quite focussed on his chosen subject! He's 100% good-faith, knows the subject matter, and can find sources; on the other hand, his English isn't perfect, and his prose tends to read like a fanzine. I spent quite a bit of time with him last summer working on Dalida, trying to demonstrate the difference between encyclopedic coverage and fanzine-style biography, and I always found him eager to engage, and willing to slow down and take advice. Hopefully he'll continue in this vein now he's expanding his remit. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  23:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * More footnotes
 * Martin Abendroth (Well, no footnotes actually) - it's got a 'Bibliography', consisting of one book, but no inline citations. (It also had an external link to a German website selling memorabilia; that didn't seem appropriate, so I removed it)


 * More references
 * Bonnet (wagon)
 * Good tag. Taking a look at the article I'm not sure if we're far enough removed from dictionary definition to actually merit a Wikipedia article. What do you think? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC))
 * I did think about that. I agree, as it stands the article isn't very informative, and I did think about redirecting to Covered wagon, and adding a line there to say that the cover is called a bonnet (if it wasn't covered there already); on the other hand, it seemed likely to me that, being such an icon of American history, where would likely be some sources out there that could be used to expand the article. (I wanted to also add the 'Stub' tag, but couldn't see it on the Twinkle menu - was just researching that when I got your notification). Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a stub finder under "other useful scripts". Best, Barkeep49(talk) 21:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Aha! Thanks. Just found my way to the stub types page - do you think would be appropriate?  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK - I see you've redirected it, probably a good call until someone comes along with some more substantial sources to provide proper coverage. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  22:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * On the stub front I'd probably have gone with Template:OldWest-stub. Obviously in this case there was a nice Wiki target but another option for dictionary definition pages is the Template:Wiktionary redirect. In this case the wiktionary article didn't include this meaning so short of adding it in yourself that could be its own issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better - I didn't see it on the stub types page, but found it with the stub finder so I'll use that in future - thanks again for the steer. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 07:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1964 Icelandic Cup - also doubtful notability, per WP:NSEASON - it is not 'mostly made up of well-sourced prose' - thought you might want to move it into the author's user space, rather than me nominating for AfD.
 * So football cups are not covered under NSEASON and they're not really covered under WP:SPORTSEVENT (though the final match of a cup would be). The same principles apply, but that would likely have enough prose, with the opportunity for future expansion, that I would not do anything with it. Draftifying would likely not get any pushback (I only moved the last one to userspace because the draftspace name was already taken) but I tend to be a bit of a softy in this area. An AfD would not go over well. Be very careful of FOOTY related AfDs that aren't about players. The outcomes range from contencious to snow keep.  Good tag. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks - I'll leave it as it is. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No references
 * Üsenberg Castle (Didn't actually use 'no references', used 'unclear citation style' because it had a couple of refs, but they weren't properly written up).
 * 2018–19 Hapoel Marmorek F.C. season
 * See my reply for more thinking on this one. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * interesting coda - they're now blocked as a sock. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah - yes, I'd overlooked NSEASONS, thanks. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In case I wasn't clear I thought it was a good tag. Missing NSEASONS is easy to do. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In case I wasn't clear I thought it was a good tag. Missing NSEASONS is easy to do. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Uncategorised
 * Koek-en-zopie - Also unreferenced. (I think that the subject is probably notable, from the great number of Dutch hits I got on Googling it, which appear to broadly support the basic article content)

OK, I think I've got the measure of how tagging works. I'm happy to continue doing some more if you have any concerns, but if you're OK to move on then I'm looking forward to the next stage. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  23:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Great. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Culminating Work
At your leisure, find 25 new pages to patrol, and list them here. For all handle as you would if you had the permission, noting which ones you'd mark as reviewed. After this I think you should be in EXCELLENT shape to request the permission. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Great - OK, will do, and thanks for the support. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

TCMG (Tbilisi Consulting and Managment Group)
First one I looked at - totally blatant advertising, so CSD G11 (does that count?!). Upon arriving at the author's talk page, I noticed that it appears they've had an article with an almost identical name speedily deleted earlier today, and they had a few warnings about removing the CSD tag. It looks like it was deleted, but they've just gone ahead and recreated it with a very slightly different name - I left an additional note on their talk page about this, but if it persists what do you think the right place to report it would be - WP:EW3, WP:COIN, WP:ANI? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 17:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You will definitely have to speedily delete stuff, it's why we spent time learning it, so it absolutely counts. It is also a COPYVIO and should probably be noted as both. You mentioned IRC before, personally I would pop in there and see if I could find a friendly admin, but otherwise I'd probably go ANI if the disruptive behavior you've described continued. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK - I'll try IRC if they keep it up, cheers.

Bear Sanctuary Arbesbach
I draftified this. The content looked reasonably well-written, and the subject of the article might be notable; however, the sources used in the article were mostly either connected directly to the subject (their website, or that of their parent company), plus one brief mention in an online directory. I looked for sources myself and didn't find anything that would satisfy CORPDEPTH, but with the subject being in Austria there may well be coverage in German that I'm not finding. I thought draftifying would be the best bet, in the hope that the author would be able to dig up some independent sources to establish notability. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 17:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Locke's Meat Market
WP:NBUILD isn't specific, but I imagine the entry on the National Register of Historical Places (on which we have an article) would make it notable for being historical, and the references do support the assertion that it's listed. Most of the sources are primary, rather than secondary, so I tagged it; it's pretty short, so I added a stub; I would now mark this as reviewed. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:MAPOUTCOMES gives some overall guidance and does indeed suggest its listing on the register of Historic Places lends weight. I agree your tag and marking as reviewed is the right path. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Muhammad Sajjad Khan
The article contains a link to a source, but I wasn't able to find any others searching for his name; the source provided didn't give much coverage other than to support the brief facts written in the article, and the 'full story' it linked to led to a 404. CSD A7 Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I got this one wrong - CSD declined, it was redirected instead. I agree with the admin on the redirect, I should have researched the claim to significance more fully. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SoWhy is going to be the one to decline A7s. Good learning experience from this. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just spotted your response on this - I just made the connection, SoWhy's name did come up before, don't say you told me so... You're right though, it's all good - I actually agree with them, I was a bit sloppy in my research, I should have looked for a potential redirect before nominating. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  22:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Promontory of Tyre
This is a bit of a funny one. The subject of the article is a geographical location, so I'm guessing that it basically gets notability more or less automatically per MAPOUTCOMES. The text is pretty good, and there's no copyvio that I can detect. However, the sourcing is peculiar - it is all ancient primary sourcing, and links to our articles on these sources - at first I thought it was using Wiki pages as sources. I've put a couple of tags on (Primary, unclear citation style), and I think that at this point I would mark as reviewed, but might ask for a second opinion before doing so. What do you reckon? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 19:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Update - I had a brief chat with the author on my talk page, he thinks that the tags are fair comment at the moment, and intends to get better sourcing before removing them. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your tags are good and agree with marking this as reviewed. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Metaltex
About a company, not too puffy/promotional; no copyvio; sourcing was an issue though - three links to the company's website, and a biog article about the family of the founder that only mentioned the copmany in passing. I looked for better sourcing and couldn't find anything close to CORPDEPTH, but thought it possible that an Italian speaker (which the author is, according to their userpage) might have better luch finding sources, so I draftified and left them a personal note explaining what I'd done. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 19:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The contribution history is... unusual. Old account who has never done large content work creating a new article in one fell swoop. I think draftify is with-in the range of acceptable outcomes BUT I want to emphasize that Draftify can be a tempting "easy way out" to avoid deletion decisions for the less experienced patroller. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I take the point about the 'easy way out'. If this had been an article about a British or US company, I'd have gone for delete, but I thought that the language barrier meant that I wasn't best placed to evaluate sources.
 * Because of the ability to change Google's search language results, I think it's not too much worse to do an adequate BEFORE in languages that use Roman letters. It is certainly harder for other alphabets. Sometimes this can mean not reviewing the article at all, or just tagging, and letting someone with those language skills, or who at least has the language skills to evaluate deletion, to do the reviewing. TLDR: It's ok to spend some time on an article and decide to move on. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Phragmochaeta canicularis
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Single source (not properly reffed inline, but details provided at bottom of article); real problem is that there is clear, very close paraphrasing from that source. I'm borderline CSD G12 - most of the sentences are identifiable from the equivalent sentences in the source, but they've been reworded (to a greater or lesser extent). So far I've just tagged it, but I'm leaning towards CSD - I'd appreciate an experienced eye to see whether it could survive as is, or needs a complete rewrite with additional sources and original phrasing. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 21:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So on a strictly notability level that's an easy review - as already did. The paraphrasing is a tougher question. I think the tag but not G12 is the right way to go. I've pinged Boleyn here to see if they wish to give their thoughts on the paraphrase issue. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I felt it wasn't breaching the copyright, but you could scale it back to just a sentence or two to avoid deletion, and it could grow from there, hopefully better-written and using more sources. Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Boleyn. The author left a note on my talk page querying the tag - apparently they translated the page from the Italian article, and haven't actually read the source themselves; I've given them the link to the source, and am hopeful that they'll be prepared to do some reworking. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Self-federalism
Couldn't find any mentions on Google of "self federalism" - I came across a few references to 'fend-for-your-self federalism', but didn't see any clear-cut links to the content of this article. Also tried a couple of the 'also known as' phrases and drew a blank. The text isn't helping me - apparently the phrase was coined by 'American activist Martin', but without a ref of a surname (?-or first name) it's hard to track this down. User's account appears to belong to an 11-year old child, so I'm guessing that this is a term they came up with in a class discussion or something? If I was his teacher, I'd be pretty proud of his eagerness to get involved - but, it appears to be an invention, so it's got to be a CSD. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 22:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you wanted G4 rather than A11 there but your analysis seems correct. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, am I missing something - G4 is previously deleted pages - sorry if you've already gone over this, but how do I check for that? I chose A11 because this seemed like an obvious invented - if it's been deleted before, should I include both, or just G4? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  22:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant G3. If Self-federalism were true it has a credible claim of significance hence why I said G3 instead of A11. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Fc Barcelona
Seemed like an easy one - redirect to FC Barcelona; however, my redirect was almost immediately CSDed. I guess this is because searching for 'Fc...' would automatically find 'FC...', without the need for the redirect. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 00:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Your redirect was right and they self-reverted the speedy delete. So Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah - :)

Harvey Club of London
I removed a couple of slightly puffy phrases, and tagged it because it was relying on sources associated with the organisation, and was ready to say I'd be happy to mark it as reviewed, but I noticed that one of the images - - looked identical to an image in one of the sources. Commons data says that this is not subject to copyright because it was published before 1924 - which is presumably correct for the plate itself - but the metadata shows a rather more recent date for the photo. My understanding might be wrong, but I would have thought that it was the photograph that was subject to copyright, not the silverware. I'm guessing that they've just copied the image from the website - should I tag it for deletion? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 01:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The copyright for that image is 2013 not 1924. Commons is not an area of expertise for me so I imagine that yes it should be nominated for deletion but don't want to give you advice that I can't be sure is good advice. Agreed on the notability of the article itself - though the list of members is a troublesome section as it lists people without articles, which is generally not done, and doesn't list citations for those with articles, which is sub-optimal. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You mentioned Diannna in an earlier discussion as being an expert on copyright - I'll drop her a note and see what she makes of the file. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Diannaa explained how to deal with the copyright issue, so I've done that (flagged it on commons as having no license - uploader is notified, and gets seven days to fix or the file is automatically deleted). I removed the names that didn't have articles, added a no refs tag to the section, and added a category. So I guess I'd mark that as reviewed now. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Roman pizza
(Shouldn't have looked at this one - I'm starving now.) Subject seems notable - Google books threw up lots of mentions in cook books, books about Italian cuisine etc; I also note that there are existing articles for various different types of pizza (Neapolitan, Sicilian, New York style), so it seems reasonable to have one for Roman. Current refs are an issue - there's only one that actually says anything about the subject of the article, the other ref actually talks about a different type of pizza, so I tagged with 'single ref' (with an explanatory note on the talk page), and added an 'Italian Cuisine' stub. I'd mark this as reviewed now. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 17:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It does look delicious. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A Second Birth
Obvious copyvio, so removed that and requested revdel. Sources all either passing mentions or connected to the author - nothing significant and independent. Searched online for better sources, the best I could find was this, which does give some production details, but it's speaking about the production company in the first person - it's a rehashed press release, not indpendent. Since it's a play, not something we've got an A7 category for, the NPP flow diagram led me to AfD, so nominated here. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 18:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. Plays are a surprisingly hard, in my thinking, to establish notability relative to other kinds of art. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Institutional psychotherapy
No copyvio that I could detect; only a single source presented as an external link, but a Google search threw up loads of mentions in books and journal articles so I didn't have any concerns about notability. Tagged with 'one reference' and 'no footnotes'; added a stub, and a couple of categories. I'd mark as reviewed. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 07:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sinful!
No copyvio; sourcing checked out; claim to notability via SNG (song hit the charts in various countries); there were a couple of minor issues (mention of a backing back in the infobox that wasn't mentioned in the article or any of the sources, a second short paragraph that contained assertions that were supported by the sources but not inline cited), so I just addressed them myself. It's already got a stub and some categories, so I'd mark that as reviewed. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 17:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Jim Gash
Basically nothing to say about this one. Prose seems fairly neutral and encyclopedic, notability doesn't seem to be an issue (sufficient significant coverage in independent sources, would probably pass WP:NPROF too), assertions are well-sourced, already has categories - my only problem is that Earwig is timing out for me, so I can't check for COPYVIO that way, but I Googled a few phrases and drew a blank so it's probably OK. I'd mark this as reviewed with no changes. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 19:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you were saying this but once he became President of Pepperdine he definitely passes NPROF and likely does for his other scholarly work. I agree overall but note that his wife and children were named in the infobox but there was no personal section in the article. I have removed these since the source wasn't clear - and in the case of children could involve minors which deserves extra caution. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks - good spot - I didn't check out the infobox properly, agree with your change. To be clear - yes, I was pretty sure about NPROF, I just didn't double check against the criteria because I'd already determined he passed GNG while checking the sources.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Larry David Evans
Quick question about this guy - have you got any experience of notability amongst chess players? He's an International Master - does that traditionally convey notability? Other than that I can find almost nothing, so was considerning A7. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 16:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NCHESS while not formally a guideline seems to have general acceptance in my admittedly not extensive experience in this space. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's weird - I tried typing WP:NCHESS into the search bar and drew a blank - must have been a typo on my part, thanks. The criteria call for Grand Master title for automatic notability, or competing in certain tournaments - neither the articles nor the current sources make a claim to notability on any of those grounds. The only sources in the article are a listing on the World Chess Federation website, which backs up the assertions in the article but does not demonstrate notability, and a puffy interview on a local news site which, given it contains pricing info and contact details for his chess camp, I assume was paid for. I can't find anything better on Google/GBooks/GNews, so I'm going to nominate for A7. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, you were absolutely right about this - DGG declined the speedy, noting the difference between significant and notable; he agreed that the subject is unlikely to be notable, and recommended that I either PROD or nominate to AfD - I've done the latter. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Mysticellus franki
I'm pretty happy with this. It's a short stub with a single source, but as it's describing a species of animal, and based on the discussion we had above about Phragmochaeta canicularis I assume notability is not a problem (I found WP:NSPECIES, but recognise that this was a failed proposal - is there a SNG that definitively states notability for species of animals?). The source checks out, the text isn't COPYVIO, the image seems to be properly licensed, so I just added a tag about using a single source - I'd now mark as reviewed. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 17:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing beyond WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES which agrees with your assessment (tag + reviewed). Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, yes, I should have thought to check outcomes. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 18:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Quinn Slobodian
This guy seems not to meet NPROF, and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES suggests to me that he wouldn't notable. I considered the criteria at WP:AUTHOR for the written work, but I don't think he gets over the bar there either. His 2018 book is probably notable though, as it's received a number of reviews in scholarly journals. Before nominating for A7, I just wanted to make sure that my understanding is correct - an academic, who is author of a notable academic book - is not notable unless they meet NPROF - correct? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 19:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't have time to do a full search but this is not a good A7. I think Evans is likely going to get declined too, though there are a couple sysops who might accept it. This guy however, if the claims are plausible and if true, would be notable. The fact that the claims aren't fully great just means it would need to be a different deletion method. I would recommend reviewing WP:SIGNIF. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that feedback and link. I'm going to read it properly tomorrow, and I won't take any action on Slobodian tonight. You're right - I've been conflating 'significance or importance' with 'notability' - I see from the first few lines of WP:SIGNIF that they're not the same thing; I'll take a bit of time to absorb that before pushing ahead. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone else sent it to AfD; I've actually voted keep there, after re-reading WP:AUTHOR more closely. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Younger Hall
No concerns over notability - there are some sources (not properly cited) in the article already, and a Google search throws up many more. The page already had tag for the citation issue, but I added some categories, added a couple of Wikilinks from the article on the university, and then (since I found a picture on that page) added an infobox. I may go back later and tidy up the citations and add some more, but I'd mark this as reviewed. (COI notice - I graduated in this building in 1999 - can't really believe that was 20 years ago...). Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 12:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bother! Scratch that, it's unambiguous COPYVIO. (Earwig isn't working for me at the moment, pages just time out, so was checking the sources manually). Will remove COPYVIO and ask for revdel; still think the article needs to be kept, as it's a notable building, but it will need rewriting from a stub once the COPYVIO is gone. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Toolforge is having issues and so Earwig is down for at least a day more. It's a bummer. Agree on notability. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Body of water cleaning
I think this article has been created to publicise a competition. I can find literally nothing online using the phrase 'body of water cleaning' in any context - even the sources in the article (all about the competition, rather than the subject of the article) don't use the phrase. The content of the article covering the actual subject is a single, dictionary definition-type sentence, which isn't supported by the sources; everything else refers to the competition. I've nominated to AfD. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 12:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this term doesn't seem to be in widespread use. I do wonder if there's an accepted term for this that's out there and perhaps has an article already. But I didn't find it. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Michael Rectenwald
Yikes - this article has problems. It article was written as a draft, which was submitted and rejected three times with no substantial changes between submissions - looks like the author got frustrated and just moved it into main space themselves without making any changes.

The subject does appear to be notable, but the article is not written from a neutral point of view: it repeatedly refers to things like 'the social justice warrior movement' in Wikipedia's voice (our article that makes it clear that this is a pejorative term); it talks about authoritarian leftism in the academy in Wikipedia's voice; the stuff about the controversies is very slanted and full of WP:EDITORIALIZING; and the 'works', 'articles' and 'selected media appearances' read like a CV. I have tagged it with POV and 'may need to be completely rewritten', but might leave it to editors with more expertise in the subject area to make the necessary changes, since I anticipate that an author who is willing to disregard the advice they were given three times at AfC is likely to fight back against changes to their article.

I would not mark this as reviewed at this point, as I think the article urgently needs some attention. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Update - TheRoadIsLong is doing some work on it now; as predicted, the original author went on to vandalise their talk page, but has now been blocked so hopefully this article can be put into better shape without disruption. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Walton Hi-Tech Industries Limited
A one sentence stub without sourcing; I found enough stuff online to convince me that it wasn't a hoax, but not enough to build an article around, so I redirected to the parent company's article. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 13:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sylvester Renner
The subject doesn't seem notable - sources were his LinkedIn account, the website of his charity, and a couple of mentions on lists at the university where he works. I did regular Google, GNews and GBooks searches, and found very little. He has written a book, Positive Living Through Positive Affirmations, but I couldn't find any non-UGC reviews of it, so wouldn't help pass on NAUTHOR. NPP flowchart led me to AfD, which is what I did. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 17:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Develop Africa charity
Created by the same editor as the previous article, covering the charity that Renner is head of. Similar issues - all sourcing is either directly related to the subject, or it's very brief mentions; searches for sources giving sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH drew a blank. I also noted that the author recently had a page with an almost identical name speedily deleted a few days ago. Sent to AfD. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 17:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Crouzeix's conjecture
This seems notable - it's short of references and inline citations, but Google yielded lots of sources that could be used to improve so I've just tagged it. The subject is listed at List of unsolved problems in mathematics, and there's already a Wikilink in place; we don't appear to have an article on Michel Crouzeix himself, so I couldn't add a wikilink to that. It has some categories; I attempted to add a Wikiproject Maths banner using 'Rater', but the banner that appeared had 'don't use this banner on talkpages' emblazoned across it, so I removed it - I'll need to do some more reading on adding banners before using that. Apart from the banner, I'd now mark this as reviewed. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 18:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * PS - Earwig still seems to be down, but I Googled a few phrases from the article and didn't get any hits, so hopefully it's COPYVIO free; I'll check with Earwig once it's back online just to be sure. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts
Sorry I've been busy the last few days. The uncommented articles all look good. Congrats on all your work! So I think you're ready minus the recent bits with CSD. If you want to go for it please ping me so I don't miss it while I'm busy off-line and I'll be happy to give you a full throated endorsement. Alternatively, you might want to find an A7 that you can successfully tag first so you can show that you understand how that's applied - some granting admin will care about that others won't. The permission is quite unevenly granted in its application so I leave it up to you on what you feel is the best course of action. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Barkeep49 - I really appreciate your comments. No worries about being busy, I saw the banner on your userpage, totally understand. I'll do as you suggest and do a bit of work to get a couple more A7 CSDs under my belt before applying for the permission - I'm not in a rush, and I'd rather take a bit longer and make sure I've demonstrated understanding properly. I'll put a link below to any A7s, and will ping you when I eventually apply for the PERM.
 * Thanks again for all the time you've devoted to helping me out with this. It's given me a much better understanding of the whole area than I had before, with a lot less frustrating and potentially embarrassing trial and error that I'm sure I would have gone through if I'd been trying to figure it out for myself. You've been patient, supportive and incredibly responsive throughout. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  07:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually came across a couple of fairly obvious A7s this morning: Rubenesh Lr and Bhargav Ravibhan - both autobiographical, neither with any credible claim of significance. One has already been deleted; assuming the other one goes through, I'll apply at PERM later today. I'll ping you from the application, thanks in advance for any comments you make. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)