User:CaroleHenson/Afd checklist


 *  _________ of the CSD criteria
 * Article sources are __(RS/SS, exclusively primary, unreliable, nonexistent, etc.)___ and am  to find sufficient reliable, secondary sources
 * Find that it is  according to WP:GNG and _____ because _______

--- Issue: There seems to be a wide variation in how the Afd process works. The only guidelines that are evaluated are the ones that individuals bring up in the discussion. And, the outcome of the discussion is based upon the input from users, some of whom understand the guidelines and others do not. In addition, the decision-making process is sometimes focused on waiting until there is consensus versus weighing the extent to which the applicable guidelines are correctly assessed.
 * For example, articles like Articles for deletion/Alana Lee (3rd nomination), where the person is notable only because they won a Miss Nevada contest and only has a few sources is "kept". On the other hand, there are articles like Debra Ruh, where there are numerous secondary sources that has become a protracted discussion. (As an FYI, I worked on Ruh after it was nominated. It's just an example of a case where the subject did not appear to be notable, but may be viable upon further work/review)

Proposal: Using a checklist, similar in concept to the DYK checklist, and based upon the criteria from deletion reason guideline, will help ensure a thorough evaluation of the guidelines for decision-making.

This document has a proposed blank template, description of the fields, and a rough draft to help with decision-making, it was just started for illustrative purposes and would benefit from collaborative discussion.

Blank template:

Description


 * 1) CSDcriteria: Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
 * 2) plagiarismfree: Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
 * 3) vandalism: Vandalism, including inflammatory pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
 * 4) SPAM: Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
 * 5) contentforking: Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
 * 6) sourced: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * 7) fail to find sources Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * 8) notability: Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
 * 9) breachBLP: Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
 * 10) eligibilityother: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
 * 11) policy other: Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
 * 12) status: Put "y" if no problems, "?" for minor problems, "maybe" if article needs work, "no" if completely ineligible, "again" to request another reviewer take a look
 * 13) comments:  Put any other comments you may have here

Decision-making - very rough draft, it was just started for illustrative purposes

There are some cases where it should be clear that an article should be deleted. Instructions about how to use the template for evaluation of the article should help for more consistent decision-making practices.


 * 1) Unable to find reliable, secondary sources for the subject of the article. For instance, if the article has no secondary sources, and no or a few secondary sources are found, it should be deleted.
 * 2) Clear cases of vandalism
 * 3) Copyright violations throughout the article (i.e., not an easy fix to remove or paraphrase the content)
 * 4) etc.