User:Ingratis/NPP School

Welcome. We will use this space to do our NPP work; I recommend you put it on your watchlist (I have done so already). I will normally try and put assignments in bold though follow-up question will just use normal Wikipedia conversation methods. Let me know at any point if you have questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Getting Started
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. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok - will report back.Ingratis (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

For the last decade or so I've worked mostly on content, generally of historical articles, so I'm strong on: I'm less strong on: Hello. I'm not clear whether I should be letting you know when I've finished a task or wait for you to spot me on your watchlist. Please do clarify! I dealt with the first request a couple of days ago.Ingratis (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) most things to do with helping a potentially OK article (cats, stubbing, tagging for refs / sources etc; adding sources; translating; also with merging / redirecting / renaming). There are some specific guidelines (BAND, CORP, SPORT) that I haven't referred to much because I don't usually work on that kind of article, and I've never dealt with Drafts.
 * 2) most things to do with removing a clearly not-OK article (CSD, PROD / BLPPROD, AfD)
 * 3) I am very conscious of the need to deal courteously with new editors.
 * 1) copyright, because it's technical and fiddly, but know what to do if I find a straightforward copyvio
 * COI, paid or promotional editing or bad usernames - they don't come up very often in historical articles. Again, I know how to recognise them, if straightforward, and what to do if they come to light. Ingratis (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * pinging me when you're done is helpful in case I miss it on my watchlist (as I did here). Thanks for this. It will be helpful in knowing where to spend some time. For COI it's less important with NPP to know what to do with the user than with the article - which is the good news as those rules are far more straightforward than what to do with the user, which has a lot more discretion and judgement. I like to use drafts as real world learning labs. Because they are real examples we need to be able to finish our work with-in 24 hours (and ideally less). So let me know when you'll have some time and I will put together 3-5 drafts for us to look at to begin our work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Now is very good for me (while I'm still furloughed). Ingratis (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Drafts 1
We'll start by doing some practical work with articles submitted through the Articles for Creation process. For each draft below say what you would have done if you had found these while doing New Page Patrol (there are a few differences in practice between AfC and NPP - for this assignment pretend they are not drafts but are instead in article space). This will give me a sense of your thinking and approach. From here (or perhaps after another set or two) we'll go to some focused generic exercises. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:Who's Got Game Sport
 * The only sources given are WGGS's own website and a blog: I cdn't find any others to demonstrate notability. Clearly there is promotional content, but not only that, so presumably G11 is not appropriate. Para 1 is taken straight from the website, so probably a copyvio (but the author may be connected with the organisation and have permission). AfD, because there may be some push to keep it. No reason however to think that it was not created in good faith, so pleasant note to creator.
 * Good catch on the copyvio. I agree it's not G11. AfD is a reasonable outcome for that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:HalfPagan
 * HP doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND: the only possible ground I could see is #6, that one member is notable in his own right but only one, so not enough. The sources are v thin, and I cdn't find any significant others, but this is an unusual band, so there just may be more in the specialist press - Draft tagged for better sourcing? but more likely PROD. . Afterthought: merge to existing article on Michael Homan.
 * Yes if this were in mainspace redirecting (and merging as appropriate) to Michael Homan is an excellent alternative to deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:José Arechabala
 * No doubt in my mind - I'd say that this man is notable: there's a stack of sound independent sources, even if not in English. I would pass this, probably removing the existing tags, as it seems well-referenced already.
 * Agreed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:Tipu (missile)
 * I don't know. A nuclear missile must surely be notable, even a non-existent one, but this has only one source, in two different locations, and I cdn't see more (in English). There may be more in Urdu sources, but even if so this would be a permastub. I can't see an obvious target for a merge - draftify, tagged for more sources?
 * Yeah this is a toughie. My instinct also says it's likely notable. But the lack of other sources makes it hard to verify that it really existed as the single source isn't that great. I agree not a lot of great options. Honestly I would leave this for someone with more subject area expertise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

- done.Ingratis (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * this was an extremely promising start. Well done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So rather than going with the set curriculum I think I might go back to what I did before we had a nicely developed curriculum. Let me know when you have availability to do another set of drafts. This next one I will go deeper in my responses and we can hopefully get a discussion going from taht which will point us in useful directions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm very happy to be guided - let's do that. I'm available on the computer for the next 2-3 hours, and for most of tomorrrow.Ingratis (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Drafts 2
Sounds good. Here we go - as with last time these are only loosely screened so I don't know what we'll find in the end. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:Mayor Tim McGallian
 * The only source given is the city's own website (so not an independent source) - beyond that, just social media and purely local coverage. Concord is not a major city (< 125,000) so its mayor is not a major politician, nor is there any other claim to notability (WP:NPOL) - PROD
 * So the first thing I notice here is the article name. I am immediately on alert - why is it at Mayor Tim McGallian rather than just Tim McGallian? It could be a clueless new editor. Or it could be a sign of past trouble and they're trying out a new name hoping to escape the past history. I check Tim McGallian] and find nothing. So we're just at clueless newbie. At that point I agree with your analysis - not notable. I would move it to its correct name before doing the next step. You suggest PROD. That's a reasonable thing to suggest. I'll also say that I find PROD rather worthless while doing NPP. The article creator tends to be still around and so it gets declined. I tend to just go straight to AfD. But PROD is a reasonable enough step here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought about that! noted Ingratis (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:Henry W. Grady statue
 * This must surely meet WP:NBUILD. Very well sourced and referenced - accept, without question.
 * Well referenced indeed but that doesn't necessarily mean notable. NBUILD does not really cover statues so we're in the realm of GNG. This is especially important because this statue has the potential of coverage that is about the controversy and thus would otherwise have concerns about SUSTAINED. What sourcing there helps convey notability in your opinion ? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is referenced in works that predate (1940, 1969) the controversy by a long time, so for that reason. Ingratis (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So yes that does seem to show sustained coverage. But when looking at GNG (and NCORP which is really just super strict application of GNG) you need to look at:
 * Is it a reliable source?
 * Is it independent (an interview can be in a reliable source but is not independent)?
 * Is it a secondary source?
 * Is it significant coverage?
 * How many sources that answer yes to all of the above are there?
 * So applying that to the first source (Blair) I come up with yes, yes, yes, no (this is a bit of a judgement call and it is a long parapgraph but it's still only one paragraph). What are your thoughts on this for the other sources? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the very detailed entry from the Smithsonian meets all of the above and is unconnected to the controversy. Garrett (all 4) gives this statue three pages and a photo plus passing mentions. Grem has nothing to say about it. There are several other usable sources out there that could be added that don't relate to the removal question, but surely the removal issue makes it a more notable subject. The statue is by a notable sculptor: if the article were to be rejected, then the content, in summary, should be added to the article on Alexander Doyle. Many of his statues have their own articles: this doesn't of course imply that this one has to, but it may be that Doyle is of such artistic importance that all his works merit their own articles - I'm not familiar enough with American sculptors to say definitely.Ingratis (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that other statues of his have articles is important as NPP. Even OSE says so. And yes I agree with you overall on the sourcing - this is why I accepted the draft and moved it to mainspace. With NPP it is important to not only do the right action but to do so for the right reasons and hence the questions. Good analysis. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting about OSE - I've only ever seen it being used to say that Wikipedia not bound by its own previous decisions! Ingratis (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah OSE gets thrown out a lot by people who haven't really read it or not read it in a while and forget the nuance it has. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:Lictor(novel)
 * This fails NBOOK. Also, para 1 is a copyvio from the entry at amazon.com and the only other content is an extract from book itself, so does this qualify for G12? if not, PROD
 * Similar note about the busted article title as Mayor Tim. And again it's just harmless newbie editing. But yes it is completely COPYVIO and thus I've tagged it for G12. Assuming it hasn't been deleted yet what indications do you see that it fails NBOOK? Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That it misses all 5 criteria!Ingratis (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha. Fair enough. One thing I was hoping to elicit in your response as whether you looked for sources outside of the crud that was in the article. At NPP we are looking to establish true notability not just judge it based on what sources are in the article. You've indicated this in other places so I'm guessing you did that here as well but just pointing that out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Yes, I did, and found nothing (but admittedly did not search Farsi sources). Ingratis (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:OptimusWay
 * No sources given beyond the company's own website. I cdn't find anything else much on the company except for standard stuff on company registration and so forth. Named individual products - eg, Xin - crop up a little more often but only in a retail context; I didn't find any in-depth independent review. So I'll say that it fails WP:NCORP. AfD, just in case there is a technical dimension that I've missed.
 * So it's blockchain. Blockchain was for a while a huge problem for NPP as they attempted to use wikipedia to burnish credibility using our reputation. Still an issue but not what it once was. I agree with you that this is NCORP. This is someone with a declared COI which is great that they've followed our guidelines but also tells us where they're coming from. Given the COI bit does that change your AfD answer in anyway? Why or why not? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll need to think about that.03:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Still thinking... will come back.Ingratis (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I can't form any opinion on whether this is a notable company or not: for all I know, they're the field leaders in a technical field I know nothing about. I also hadn't spotted the - as you say, very honest - declaration on the author's user page. In practice I would just leave this for someone better qualified to assess, but I think the fair thing to do would possibly not be AfD but to draftify in case more technically minded editors were able to chip in with further sources - if there are any. Ingratis (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thinking this over. The one place that COI/UPE editing makes a difference in the NPP context specifically is with WP:DRAFTIFY. Draftify is also an easy crutch for new reviewers - we'll talk more about it later - so I am not promoting its use in this theoretical case. But it does became a possibility. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft:De Facto Group
 * No sources given at all (except for a broken link to the company's own website in the infobox) and a search for them - if any exist for a company this recent - is made difficult because the company name is also a generic legal term. So it fails WP:NCORP. The tone doesn't seem to be too promotional - does this warrant G11? The director's name is also the name of the author, so there is a COI. Every sympathy for someone trying to run a new business in the current climate, but clearly non-notable: if not G11, then PROD.
 * Before we talk G11 (and we should it's an interesting discussion here) let's discuss A7. What, in your view, saves it from that? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing saves it from A7 - I just forgot about it. I'm particularly keen to grasp G11 better, and look forward to further discussion on it. Ingratis (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a relatively large divide in the community about how to apply G11. Because of that I've come up with several theoretical exercises that let us explore the boundary cases in more detail that we'll definitely get to at some point. But the idea of what constitutes promotional material is one that editors, including administrators with excellent reputations, can tak very different viewpoints on. I am on the side of more inclined to delete while others are fairly on the more inclined to preserve. The basic question for G11 is, if you take away everything that is promotional do you still have an article? For this article the two sentences of the lead are fine, you could probably save a sentence, maybe two, from history, the first sentence of Network and Bases (which should be Network and bases) is fine, and the whole last section needs to go. With that amount left would it be worth keeping? Given the complete lack of referencing for what remains I would suggest that the article would need to be (which is the actual wording of WP:G11) and so if this was tagged in mainspace as G11 I'd delete. However not all sysops would. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is very helpful! I've noticed many times that editors - not sysops - often now use G11 where in the past we would just have used the PEACOCK tag. I've been doing more or less what you recommend, which is common sense, viz., taking out the florid stuff to see if a straightforward article remains - and often there is one. I can certainly see that in this article, combined with A7 (which I hope I won't forget from now on) there is really nothing to save. It seems very common now for people to misapply the speedy, and I look forward to the exercises when we get to that point!Ingratis (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

- done! (note gross copyvio @ Lictor). Ingratis (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * well done again. See a whole bunch of follow-up questions above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you! I've given some brief replies and will be back in a few hours.Ingratis (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I"m done for the night myself so I look forward to picking back up with you tomorrow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - thanks for the further comments. I'm still thinking about the blockchain one but have commented on the statue.Ingratis (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - thanks again - further comments. I'm around on and off for the next 8-9 hours.Ingratis (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

CSD Work
since we've been talking about them let's jump to these scenarios. The idea here is to say which, if any, speedy deletion criteria (or multiple criteria) apply; it is also helpful to say which ones seem like they might apply but ultimately don't (e.g. Would be A7 but there is a WP:CCS). For scenarios 1-3, 9, 11-13, and 15-19 all names are made-up and should not be looked at outside of the training environment. I normally break this into multiple pieces but we've been moving fairly quickly so I'm giving them all to you. Feel free to take your time and/or to jump around. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

- thanks for these. I've done all of them except #15, and the redirects at the end. Ingratis (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC) - OK, finished now.Ingratis (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going through and commenting on them. I have a busy morning so I might not finish for a bit. Just a reminder - these are designed to trip people up so don't worry if you stumble in places (to carry through with the tripping metaphor). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! I've replied on a couple of them. I'm around now for several hours.Ingratis (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Scenarios

 * Scenario 1

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

G10


 * Scenario 2

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

G11 (and A7: commercial organisation) - I've just realised that this is a user page, so changing to U5
 * It'll probably get deleted as U5 but G11 applies everywhere so it could have been tagged G11 without issue. I sometimes think that drafts get over tagged with G11 (we need somewhere for people to get help with what they can't include) but by the rules of the tag it is OK. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 3

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

A7 (and also G11)
 * My casual scan of this page shows that you fall into the "let me throw a couple things against the wall and see if one of them sticks" style of CSD. If you're confident of a tag - as you should be with A7 - then you don't need a second tag. I personally would decline the G11 for this - the information is factual and language neutral enough. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 4

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

A7 (and not A1, because the subject may well be identifiable)
 * So this is a famous CSD scenario that came up. You're right it's not A1 because Bazz Ward is a clearly identifiable subject. Given that you have to be confirmed to create articles we don't see to many A1s anymore. I also agree that as written it is A7. However the point Ritchie was trying to make - and which I now make - is that a quick Google search is going to turn up enough context to suggest some credible claims of significance. While you're not obligated to do this quick search (and I do mean quick as opposed to WP:BEFORE) it is a practice I strongly suggest. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 5

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

''Not gibberish, just convoluted, so not G1. If the case M v. S can't be confirmed, then it could be a hoax - G3''
 * Can it be confirmed? I agree it's not G1. Is it G3? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It can be confirmed so not G3 but this para / sole content is a direct copy from the Justia website - so is it a copyvio?
 * So that is the heart of this question. It is not COPYVIO because the text it's using is in the public domain. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 6

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

''A2 only applies to articles copied across from another Wiki. Otherwise a translation, or summary, is needed: add the tag and list at WP:PNT'' (I'd usually be able to identify a foreign languages; if I did, I'd tag it appropriately)
 * ✅ Even if you can't identify the language Microsoft or Google translator normally can. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.

G7

A user creates an article which is an identical copy of another article on Wikipedia.
 * Scenario 8

''A10 if the title is also an exact duplicate. If not, consider it as a possible redirect.''
 * A10 is the right idea but you need to consider if the article title is a possible redirect first. If it is redirect. If not then you can consider A10. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Scenario 9

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

A9, since (i) there is no CCS and (ii) the artist has no article


 * Scenario 10

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

''No action until at least 10-15 minutes have passed. If still no content by then, A1''
 * There's a better tag. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry - A3 (no content) Ingratis (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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

''Not for a speedy. Not A1, because the subject is identifiable. Not A3, because there is meaningful content. Not A7, because there is a CCS: Oxford City is a professional club so LF is likely to be a professional footballer.''
 * ✅ People sometimes miss that infoboxes count against A3. Good analysis all around. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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

G11 + A7, as this is an event
 * Same idea as scenario 3. This is a perfectly good A7. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

G11 + A7, as this is a commercial organisation
 * Same as scenario 3. Perfectly fine A7. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Not G5, as the article was created before the user was banned, that not being a topic ban.
 * ✅ Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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

[still thinking] ''if this has correct sources there is a CCS, and despite the COI, not for a speedy. If the sources aren't there, then G11 as promotional (I had problems with this one)''
 * What do you see as the CCS? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the claim that these solar panels are 30% more effective than existing ones.Ingratis (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm I could see that. ✅ Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

A user converts a redirect Tayo into an article with the following wikisource. How, if at all, would it be different if a user made this as a new article? You: Kill Tayo!!!!!!!!!!! Rogi: Nooooo You!!!!!!! Tayo:Help!!!!! Blood, this is my sad Gani: Call Emergency!!!!! You: Kill Gani!!!!!! Lani:321! Bomb you!!!
 * Scenario 16

As a new article, either G2 or G3 (on reflection, more probably G2)
 * There's a better option than G2 (though it is clearly test page type stuff). Can you come up with it? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not gibberish, so is it a copyvio from somewhere? in practice, would G2 see it off?Ingratis (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So the key here is that it had been a redirect. The easiest least disruptive thing would be to just put the redirect back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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

This seems fine: independently sourced; no promotional stuff, so not G11; and a CCS for the awards

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

Highly promotional, by a COI author, all sourced only by the company itself: so G11

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

CSD Tagging
, let's take it out of the lab and into the real world. First please do the following: Then, using Special:NewPagesFeed please find 5 non-G11/G12 examples of articles that you believe should be speedy deleted and at least 3 each of G11 and G12. You can either tag directly and post a link below or just post a link with which tag you'd have used. Feel free to take your time - it's OK if you can't find enough articles today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC) - OK, understood! this may well take me some time! Ingratis (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) If you haven't yet, please enable WP:TWINKLE. Then make sure its CSD log is active by going to Twinkle/Preferences and checking "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations"
 * 2) Bookmark Earwig's Copyvio Detector in your computer.
 * 3) Install CV-revdel and after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Bypass your cache.
 * - Progress report:- I have been WP:BOLD and done some direct tagging - with slightly variable results. So far I haven't found any G12s. I have one G11 but also 2 A7s which could equally well have been G11s. Beyond that I've 2 A7s for people and an A3. I also had some speedies declined for an interesting range of reasons. Do you want to wait until I've got the three G12s or can we continue? Ingratis (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * let's see what you've got and go from there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wait to hear! Barbara Bombi was a mistake - I was falling asleep over the computer and misread it - but I think the rest are defensible. I'm around on and off. Ingratis (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you post here what you've done for discussion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - as follows: Ingratis (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Without Limits Ultimate: CSD G11 (db-spam); notified 01:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Associação Desportiva de Argoncilhe: CSD A7 (db-club); notified 02:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The deleted page had the following
 * 2005-06: - 1st district division in the Associação de Futebol de Aveiro
 * ---:- The club wins the Aveiro Cup
 * How'd you decide that those weren't CCS? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they're too local. Ingratis (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Indeed. Just important to check such things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Willem Frederik Lamoraal Boissevain: CSD A7 (db-person); notified 02:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So I don't think this was a good A7 and have restored it. There are several CCS I see; this was a longstanding article with plenty of issues but not A7 types. To the extent that he's not notable that can be dealt with at AfD. To the extent that it needs grammar clean-up there are tags for that. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * TorkLaw: CSD A7 (db-corp); notified 04:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Filipino language/Tagalista: CSD G2 (db-test); notified 12:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * P J Film Production: CSD A7 (db-corp); notified 13:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ you reverted yourself and it was later draftified but I don't think your A7 was out of line when you placed it though I do think draftification was a reasonable action also as there are some marginal CCS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oversimplified: CSD A5 (db-transwiki); additional information: {A5 location: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oversimplified}; notified 16:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oversimplified: CSD G7 (db-author) 16:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The A5 here looks good but when it was recreated I don't see anything that suggests author blanking. Do you recall this one? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't immediately see what the editor was doing, which was using Redirect to Wiktionary instead of R2 after moving an article to draft. I thought he was just trying to blank the previous content.Ingratis (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Barbara Bombi: CSD A7 (db-person); notified 18:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I fell asleep at the computer and didn't read it properly.Ingratis (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It happens. Glad you see it now. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jeanne Motin: CSD A3 (db-nocontent); notified 12:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This was really a kind of soft redirect but also an OK A3. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it was lazy! Ingratis (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dale Cabaniss: CSD G7 (db-author) 14:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ (and it was deleted by a former NPPS student of mine which is so fun to see). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Les Halles D'Anjou: CSD G11 (db-spam); notified 14:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * my G11 was removed by a 3rd-party editor and I disagree with that; as written the slant was promotional, and I think on balance still is, and I'm not convinced that this is a notable shopping mall
 * One of those G11's that can go either way. Mall notability is a funny thing which can be very unpredictable at AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Robert Mugabe Kakyebezi: CSD G12 (db-copyvio); additional information: {G12 url: next256.com/story-of-my-life-mugabe-robert-kakyebezi-mayor-mbarara-city-a-true-story-of-raising-from-grass-to-grace}; notified 14:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I messed this up, although there is a real copyright problem. I first used a G12 on this because it showed up as almost 90% a direct copy from the man's own website but changed my mind - there may be salvageable content and RMK, who is apparently not the author, may be happy for his own website to be used, so I changed it to a different copyvio tag. It's quite possible in any case that he isn't notable.
 * A CCI was a reasonable action here. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Corona d'Aragon: CSD G7 (db-author) 15:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the author did clearly blank this, but my G7 was declined on the grounds that it was nevertheless a reasonable redirect
 * Yeah it was a G7. But the redirect is reasonable so that does feel like the right AtD. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Robert Paddock: CSD A7 (db-person); notified 15:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I left this for what I thought was a reasonable time before tagging it as an A7 based on the state of the article at that point, but more content / refs appeared afterwards and the speedy was declined
 * Here's what it looked like when you tagged. I definitely would have declined also. In retrospect what CCS do you notice? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Archaelogogy of Palau: CSD R3 (db-redirtypo) 02:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This puzzles me. It's clearly an implausible typo so I gave it an R3 but then spotted that someone else had tried the same and been declined previously, for some reason that I didn't understand, so I removed my R3. I still see no sense in its being declined: it's an implausible typo! and although the history is bitty because of the various moves, it looks though it was the creator of the page who asked for the deletion, so that doesn't seem to apply here either. Ingratis (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you see the explanation in the history by the declining admin? Checking history is an important step prior to CSD. Have I pushed Superlinks on you yet? If not it's a fantastic script and can make things like that easy. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Panaroma Movies: CSD A7 (db-corp); notified 02:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Panaroma Movies: CSD A10 (db-a10); additional information: {A10 article: Draft:Panorama Movies}; notified 02:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Finnigan-Klaembt: CSD A7 (db-corp); notified 11:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Finnigan-Klaembt: CSD R2 (db-rediruser) 13:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Try to decide what to do before placing your tag. Moving to draft is an OK move here instead of speedy but try to do that as your first action. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maher Alkhwandi: CSD G11 (db-spam); notified 16:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bataille de Fairhaven: CSD G7 (db-author) 11:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry - posted this hours ago but forgot to sign it so presumably it didn't ping you. Ingratis (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added some comments on the declined entries.Ingratis (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Plan to get to these tomorrow. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice to have a break from the New Pages! Ingratis (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * beginning to take a look at this as time allows at work. Just a note that when indenting from a numbered list you want to use #: so that the numbers continue. I have fixed that above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK! Ingratis (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry - posted this hours ago but forgot to sign it so presumably it didn't ping you. Ingratis (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added some comments on the declined entries.Ingratis (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Plan to get to these tomorrow. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice to have a break from the New Pages! Ingratis (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * beginning to take a look at this as time allows at work. Just a note that when indenting from a numbered list you want to use #: so that the numbers continue. I have fixed that above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK! Ingratis (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ingratis, some more feedback above. Overall I think you seem pretty good on speedy (except for maybe taking an extra moment to consider alternatives before placing the tag). However, A7 isn't quite as strong as the rest of what I'm seeing - that's not surprising it's a hard one. Can you find 4 new articles (using the new pages feed) that are all A7s? You can even, if you'd like, link to the version at the time you'd have tagged rather than placing the tag. If you can do 4 solid A7s in a row I think we can move on (feel free to do the A7 follow-up above first so you can get a better sense of WP:CCS). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. You're absolutely right to highlight the importance of thinking before rather than after! it doesn't matter nearly as much in content editing, where I'd got used to trying things out and then just undoing them if they didn't really work, but I'm very aware now that it does matter a lot here. CCS follow-up shortly and then I'll go and look for 4 A7s. Ingratis (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've a couple of questions: can I speedy drafts as well as articles? because if so, I'd tag Draft:Nnenna Ani as a G7. Also, what's the best thing to do if someone insists on removing a speedy tag from their article? Ingratis (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All G series criteria apply to all namespaces, while A series only applies to articles. However that is not an A7. An a7 is a blank. Or explicit "delete this". People aren't supposed to remove speedys. It's a bit of a tricky thing about what to do next. Where's this happening? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I meant A7 - it's 3.30 in the morning and I'm fading fast. I had an A7 removed from Maximum Fredrick. I haven't replaced it as someone else has now tagged it, so I don't need to go back to it, but it made me wonder whether there was a set procedure. Enough for one night! Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We're in no rush here :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are the latest, most of which will I hope by the time you see them have turned red:
 * Nicole sandler: CSD G11 (db-spam); notified 00:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I presented this as a G11 because the promotion was so striking but it could equally well have been an A7 (and it turned out also to be a G12) Ingratis (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maximum Fredrick: CSD A7 (db-person); notified 00:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * NeverLeveled: CSD G11 (db-spam); notified 01:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Green Man at Inglewhite: CSD A7 (db-corp); notified 11:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was like this when I tagged it, but the author then added a claim of architectural significance (although I suspect it might not survive AfD), so I felt obliged to remove my tag.Ingratis (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 8D Creative: CSD A7 (db-corp); notified 13:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I got this wrong: I thought that this agency would not be notable just because some (two) of its clients are, on the basis of NotInherited, but this is apparently not so, so declined.Ingratis (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ashna Kishore: CSD A7 (db-person); notified 16:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * still waiting for the result at the time of posting. I did do a Before and thought that she seemed not to be prominent enough in either of the two programmes mentioned to warrant a separate article yet, and could find nothing much else, but could be wrong. Ingratis (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * CN Voiceovers: CSD A7 (db-corp); notified 17:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * still waiting for the result at the time of posting Ingratis (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been round the houses. The creator has now removed the speedy tag twice. At the moment it's tagged with an A7 and also an A10 because there is also a draft with the same title (declined). I expect the speedy tags will be removed again any minute.Ingratis (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that the draft I mentioned to you earlier - Draft:Nnenna Ani - has now been deleted, although obviously not as an A7, in the light of your explanation.Ingratis (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I've installed Superlinks, I can see why! Ingratis (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

, I think there's probably a critically important point with A7 that I should have emphasized earlier. Notability and a credible claim of significance are two radically different standards. A credible claim is basically "if everything is true and in the best possible light, would this be notable?" So for 8D the clients don't help with notability but do represent a CCS. Same with Kishore (which I declined) - we have an article on Meri Durga for instance. That's enough for a CCS though I am incredibly skeptical that she's notable and would survive AfD. I'd encourage you to take another read through CCS and ask questions you might have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - I've re-read it, and think I've grasped it now. Just to make sure, I assume I was on the right lines with The Green Man at Inglewhite, when I removed my A7 tag after the creator added the claim to architectural significance, even though it's a feeble one? And with CN VoiceOvers above, when the author added a claim that his company had won an award, even if not notable, that was presumably enough for a CCS? I did have this straight but seem to have lost focus at 8D Creative but all is now clear! Ingratis (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple of general questions: (a) if, as for example above Green Man at I, and CN VoiceOvers, an article creator adds a CCS after the speedy tag is added, is it the right thing to do to take the tag off again? and (b) what is the best way to deal with someone who just removes a speedy tag themselves, sometimes more than once (which seems to happen quite a lot)? Ingratis (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ingratis, yes in general claim of an award would be enough to be a CCS. In general if an editor deals with the concern for the speedy tag it is proper to remove the tag - sometimes things will still need to be revision deleted (e.g. attack or COPYVIO). It does seem like you have a better grasp now but being able to accurately do A7 is essential to successful NPP. So I'd still love at least a few successful examples in a row before we move on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - can you tell me the best way to deal with people removing the tags? (if you have a minute could you please take a look at Ben Chase (content creator), where I'm wondering whether the brand new editor removing the tag is really different from the article creator). Ingratis (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So I will admit I've been ducking that question because I think the community has pretty different thoughts on this. I think restoring a removed tag once, along with a reminder not to do so (there are these templates in Twinkle or you can always leave a personal one) is a good thing. I think some parts of the community could see it as edit warring so to be cautious about this and have some faith that some other editor will come and do the tag (or you could just go to AfD when it's not something like COPYVIO or attack). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've just realised that I put an A7 on a university, so I'm calling it a day.Ingratis (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Let's move on and circle back to this. I'll post something new for us tomorrow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can confirm you'll have availability today I will do another round of AfC drafts and see what discussion we can get from there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much - that would be very helpful! At the moment I have the same feeling with the A7s as I have with various board games where you can't make any progress until a specific card or piece turns up. Because I'm keen to move forward I'm taking chances with dubious cases or jumping in too soon. What I'd like to do is keep them going in the background without any target. Also, I've several "fine tuning" questions arising from some of the articles I've seen. For example, Danny Erskine had a long list of apparently obscure awards - without any of the other problems with that article, would those have amounted to a CCS? Also, on some showbiz articles there is often a section "Associated Acts", where they throw in names of bigger celebrities, without further details of how they were associated - again, is that enough by itself? Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a diff with the long list of obscure awards but the even beyond that - which might get overlooked but probably doesn't - the roles in multiple notable shows/movies are enough for a CCS. On the other hand, being on the same record label as other notable people is not in my view a CCS. To be a CCS it needs to be something done by the person/org themselves not just because they were in proximity to something. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - Sorry - missed your other message. Yes, I'm available today.Ingratis (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft Set 3
As with our previous work please say what you'd do if you found these in mainspace doing NPP (AfC has slightly different nuances which we won't worry about at this point). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Moeen Marastial
 * He has been an MP and had other significant roles in Afghan politics. There are adequate sources. It needs a thorough clean / rearrangement /ref formatting / inline citations but with the appropriate tags I would accept it.
 * Agreed. I put clean-up, inline, and BARE url tags on it. I try to stay at 2 tags and so this is a rare exception where I go up to 3. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Warren J. Cox
 * I'm slightly less sure about this, only because, although just from the list of their buildings WJC's firm is clearly notable - there is no Hartman-Cox article - there is not so much on what he's done personally apart from the firm. Then again that's how architects often work and the "firm" in practice consisted of just two architects, so he must had major input, and it seems clear that he is also notable. The sources seem adequate, so I would accept this. However, if someone writes a substantial article on Hartman-Cox, I do wonder if this might then become a merge / redirect.
 * Yeah the firm is definitely notable. It's a little harder to see if Cox himself is but I would either mark this as reviewed or I would move the article to be about the firm, leaving a redirect - a couple of the sources mentioned associates beyond the two principles. One piece of clean-up with this article is getting rid of the extra external links. It's not true in this case but these are often used for SEO purposes and should be removed from new articles when found. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Hi, My Name is Dicky
 * There is not much content and just a couple of sources, so I would be inclined to redirect this to the article on Richard Clune. It can always be resurrected if there turns out to be a lot more material than seems likely on present showing.
 * Redirecting is a great option here. But as a reminder that at NPP we don't judge articles based on what's present but what is out there. I didn't see anything further so again we end up at redirecting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Special Adviser to the President (Nigeria)
 * There are already articles on equivalent positions in the UK and Norway and there are sources backing it up. Although I suspect that if it is not constantly monitored it may turn into either a red link farm or a list of unsupported names then to be used as springboards I think it would have to be passed.
 * Good analysis. As for the red link farm that can actually be OK. List notability criteria allows for such things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Amplified MRI
 * Sourced enough to demonstrate that this is a known thing, and not just one person's hobby horse (despite the username of the creator) and different enough from MRI to warrant a separate article rather than being redirected there (which at first I considered), although it would benefit from better citations. I would accept it.
 * I agree. What should its article title be? Amplified Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Amplified MRI (or something else)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Google, Amplified Magnetic Resonance Imaging (aMRI) is apparently the commonest way to refer to it. The MRI article is at Magnetic Resonance Imaging, not MRI. This one should probably be at Amplified Magnetic Resonance Imaging, with redirects from aMRI and Amplified MRI. Ingratis (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Ensuring articles follow our title policy is an important element of the NPP process so paying attention to this element of prospective articles is important to our work. We'll talk more about that when we do the flow chart. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

- done Ingratis (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ingratis, another strong set of responses here. I'll set out our next task soonish (might slip until tomorrow). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - OK - I'm available on and off whenever you get a minute. Ingratis (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Communication
While notability is the most important concept for a reviewer, communication is our most important responsibility. I am guessing you've read WP:BITE before but if not please do read it. Communication takes a few forms for the NPP reviewer: To put this into action, I have given you Articles for Creation permission. If you haven't already you should install the helper script. After you've done that, at your convenience, go ahead and use the AfC side of the new page feed to find a 3 or 4 drafts to decline where you would also be able to leave a comment explaining further context or helpful tips (the script will, in the decline reason, give a stock message which you can see ahead of time by clicking preview). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Always using clear and helpful edit summaries while patrolling - While using edit summaries is generally good practice, while doing NPP it's important to take it a step further. For instance, a common occurance will be to find an album by a musician with a page, but a particular album doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUM. The normal patrol action here is to redirect the album to the page of the artist. An inadequate edit summary would be "redirecting to artist" or some such. I prefer a more complete summary along the lines of "No indication in article of how album is notable per WP:NALBUMS. Redirecting as an WP:ATD."
 * Edit summaries are not a replacement, however, for real communication. Depending on context this should either be done on the talk page or the user talk page of the editor. This is especially to be done even if the other editor is only communicating through edit summaries. We have a higher obligation to do it right. Doing this proactively is great. Just as frequently it will be more reactive - for most editors who contact you it will be out of confusion or ignorance. However you will get some angry ones as well. In all cases being the calm professional one in the conversation is vital.
 * The final main mode of communication is through the toolset itself. Find a great article? Make sure to leave a comment. See a few articles in a row by a newer user all of which are notable? Leave some wiki love.
 * - read and understood! I will take this steadily, as it is clearly important. In the meantime is it OK if I throw you some more CCS questions?
 * Of course. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Back again. I've now declined four five drafts with added comments:
 * Draft:Joel Lamb
 * Good decline and comment, but I'd have made mention of NFOOTY given how much lower level Lamb is. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of footballers categorised as players for Braintree and I didn't want to get into a discussion about why membership of the team doesn't make the cut for notability when there are so many Braintree footballers categorised as such. Ingratis (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Sarthak sharma
 * Good use of the rejection option. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do I need to tag it for it to be deleted? or are rejections automatically deleted? or retained in perpetuity? Ingratis (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * After six months of inactivity it'll get deleted under WP:G14. If you think it's particularly egregious, or it keeps getting edited to avoid that, you can always nominate for WP:MFD. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Peter G. Kirchschlaeger
 * Nicely handled with the revdel. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it better to use the revdel in a draft? or to go through the procedure set out at AFCR? or does it not matter as long as the copyvio is removed? (On this occasion I started with revdel and only then saw the instructions, but only got halfway with them).Ingratis (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing COPYVIO wherever it happens is a priority. Doesn't matter if it's an article, a draft, or somewhere in project/user space. You handled this situation well. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good! I was just trying to clarify the best methodology.Ingratis (talk)
 * Draft:Viking raid on Nekor
 * I like your suggestion of merge. Military battles have a pretty low threshold for notability so this might be a notable topic. If I was able to verify some of the sources I might have accepted at AfC where the bar is intentionally low - "more likely than not to survive at AfC". Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Rachel Ezra
 * Historical figures generally have an easier go at notability than contemporary ones. However, I agree that it does not appear Ezra passes that. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A couple need further action. Sarthak sharma presumably needs deleting but I'm not sure how to tag it. Is this a G6? Also, Kirchschlaeger is partly a copyvio, and I'm not sure I've done all the steps correctly. Ingratis (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone has now actioned Kirchschlaeger but I still have questions.Ingratis (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (The CSD questions are in the wings but can wait a bit. Ingratis (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC))
 * Another question about drafts: if I accept a draft and it moves to mainspace, do I then have to delete the draft, or is it removed automatically (or does it stay as a redirect)? Ingratis (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

- I'm around for the next few hours, if that would suit. Ingratis (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm mostly not around as today is a holiday for me. I promise to give attention tomorrow as I expect to begin the break I talked about in the next week or so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK - thanks! Ingratis (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * if you accept something the page is moved and a redirect is left behind in draftspace. That is just the way we want it to be. Happy to take your CSD questions (will be reviewing the drafts in the next little bit). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason you copied Sumaili's comment to his talk page and replied there? Technically you needed to have noted this for attribution/license reasons in your edit summary but I'm more wondering about the why. Also be careful with colloquialisms like "in the firing line" with people that are either non-native speakers or speakers of a different English variant as they might not be understood. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks
 * 1) I've interlined some further comments on your comments above.
 * 2) In particular, do I need to do any more to have the rejected draft at Sarthak sharma deleted?
 * 3) Sumaili: I saw it the exchange as a continuation of the Speedy Deletion notice already on his talk page, which was the obvious place for it to be.
 * 4) I notice that occasionally, where a draft has already been reviewed, the script doesn't offer the option of Decline/Reject? Is it OK - or indeed, possible - then to add some sort of tag manually?
 * 5) CSD questions: these are all to do with the level at which a low-grade claim ("biggest toilet paper maker in Bialystok") becomes a CCS, esp in business and IT related articles, which are still causing me problems. Perhaps the best way is for me to watch out for those while you're on your break to get more of a sense of where the line is being drawn, but at the moment I'm not seeing much significant difference between the ones that are CSD'd and those that are accepted.Ingratis (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You can add a comment using the script after you've declined but there's not an easy way to add the templated message except to manually edit which is doable but a bit of a pain.
 * Yeah CSD can be a bit of a crapshoot. Biggest something in a country is probably a CCS. In a city? Not in my book though I could see how for some it would be. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. On exactly how best to tackle a copyvio in a draft - is it to use revdel as elsewhere, or the procedure outlined at AFCR, or does it not actually matter as long as it gets dealt with quickly? Ingratis (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Apart from continuing to work on CSDs, drafts, tagging and all the rest of it, is there anything else you'd like me to be working on while you're away? Ingratis (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Using revdel is definitely the correct method. I'm not sure what you're seeing at AFCR that suggests differently (I didn't find it when doing a quick search). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion
We've obviously touched on some of this but a large percentage of deletion will not be speedy deletion. Instead it will be through a PROD format or through Articles for Deletion. A few thoughts on all that:
 * WP:PROD - While WP: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.
 * WP:BLPPROD is very useful but also has a very narrow scope. Is there anything that is a link? If so, no matter how awful that link is, it's not eligible for BLPPROD. What BLPPROD can do is get rid of some uncited BLP issues in a lower drama way than AfD.
 * 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.
 * If you're not already familiar with WP:BEFORE give it a close read. If you are familiar it never hurts to revisit.
 * 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.

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 an article from the New Page Feed to nominate for BLPPROD and see if you can find 2 or 3 articles to soft redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)#


 * Understood! Should I have / am I yet allowed to have the curation toolbar? Ingratis (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No that goes with the NPR perm which you don't yet have. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK - I'm relieved it's not something I should have done but forgot about! I'll go and look for BLPPRODs and soft redirects. Ingratis (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

- a lot sooner than expected, I've used a BLPPROD on Tong Cheng, and redirected two articles tagged with PRODs: Sri Chandramouleeswarar Temple and Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Porbandar.(I'm afraid I was so pleased at finding them quickly that I forgot your advice about making edit summaries more informative). Ingratis (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All three of those look good and glad you thought about the edit summary, if only after wards. In general when doing NPP I find music related articles to overwhelmingly be the most likely candidates of soft redirects but those two definitely make sense. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

AfD Part 1
AfD is the main forum for deletion. As a NPP you will be there somewhat regularly when doing patrols. Find 5 AfDs where you can be the first person to comment. Make sure to have at least 1 delete and 1 keep in the 5. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So far - three Deletes and a growing stack of Redirects (which seems to be my natural tendency). There are some "difficult" people hanging round the AfDs... I'll keep working at it but have a couple of questions in the meantime:


 * 1) what's the current thinking on whether the existence of an article on another Wikipedia or other Wikipedias automatically means notability for the equivalent article here (I think this may have changed over time)?
 * 2) apart from a sentence in OSE, is there a specific policy or guideline on series of articles of uneven notability, by which I mean, for example, if the 1st, 3rd and 5th Earls of Foo are notable, can articles on the 2nd and 4th earls be waved through so that the series of earls is properly covered? Ingratis (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a big fan of ATD myself so no issues with your finding redirects. Casting an informed AfD vote takes time, no doubt about that. As to your questions let me take the second one first because I've been neglectful in not bringing it up already. I think what you're searching for is WP:OUTCOMES. That essay is both really important and must be used very carefully. It is not a guideline so don't treat it like such (which some do). Still it can save time and help establish what the precedent is. But that precedent isn't binding or endorsed. So if you want to argue against it (either for keep or delete) you can do so. You just need to be ready to explain and justify why. As for whether having an article in another language means anything it means more in its absence than if there is one. Other wikis have very different standards of notability so the presence of an article doesn't mean it qualifies here. An article on another wiki is a useful data point but it shouldn't be used as definitive proof or notability or lack of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! On foreign wiki articles, that's obviously the sensible view! It's useful to have clarification. Presumably that applies even if an article exists on another 10-12 plus wikis but is not yet here. On series completeness, I'm reasonably familiar with OUTCOMES, but can't see anything in it that bears on the question about members of series - cd you point me to it? this crops up a lot in various contexts so I'd like to be very clear about it.Ingratis (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

five Deletes plus (finally) a Keep:Ingratis (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Kumar Keshav
 * Rick Sollars
 * Hell Yeah! (Tiësto & Showtek song)
 * Boothgate
 * Markus Dünzkofer
 * Abujh Mon (this is the Keep)
 * These look good overall. I'm curious why you didn't think there was a redirect at Hell Yeah. I especially liked that you looked for outside sources (with several different spellings) for Abujh Mon. I think it can be easy as NPP to get into a "there's so much junk let's delete stuff" mindset. Instead I think the right NPP mindset is "We need to find what's notable and what's not and act accordingly." Articles don't have to be perfect to be acceptable articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - Thanks!
 * Hell Yeah - it was a joint project between two otherwise independent artists. The proposer cited WP:XY and I saw no reason to disagree.Ingratis (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On series completeness, from previously, I can't see anything in OUTCOMES that bears on the question about members of series - cd you point me to it? this crops up a lot in various contexts so I'd like to be very clear about it.
 * I note Part 2 below! Ingratis (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to XY - just wanted to make sure that was your reasoning :). Sorry I started typing a response to that question about series yesterday. So there isn't really anything formal on what you're talking about. Sometimes there can be really strong work, if unofficial, offering guidance on a topic. I don't see that for nobility. OSE, in a lesser known aspect, actually talks about this with some stuff exists. So if there are several longstanding articles on part of a series and a new one is created there's a good sign that the topic is thought to be notable and I would treat it as such. Does that help? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking - it's very helpful to know that beyond OSE there's nothing formal. In the days when Jimbo used to intervene more on various issues he commented very specifically on this (in favour of covering all members of a series of titleholders including less notable ones for the sake of the completeness of the series) but I couldn't find it, and no-one seems to pay him much attention now.Ingratis (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

AfD Part 2
Good job with the participation. Now let's shift to nominating. Again find 5 articles from the New Page Feed to nominate for deletion - try to vary the topics, as you did with your participation. Then list them below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

- I did try to vary them but there was not too wide a choice, so I ended up with 4 bios. Ingratis (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jishad Shamsudeen
 * Forsale.Plus
 * Ronel Lehmann
 * Raymond J. Haigney II
 * Dolors Altaba
 * These all look like reasonable nominations Ingratis - nothing in my searches turned up anything to suggest issues here. I'll peek back in closer to 7 days but I think we're ready to move on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks - Looking forward to it! Ingratis (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2020 (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. 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 that you think is notable or two (or three) to use each tag on (can use multiple tags on the same article, just be aware of overtagging) and which you think is notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm a big skeptical that a UK council opposition leader is notable but certainly a good tag. The station is a good tag and is notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bare URLs - Claire-Louise Leyland, Combs-la-Ville – Quincy (Paris RER)
 * London Boroughs are a big deal, especially Camden. Ingratis (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word - truly didn't look into this at all - I just know that more often than not when I see council members at AfD it ends in delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ahmad is certainly in need of a cleanup. Curious what you see as the claim to notability - I haven't looked at sources so it might be clear there but I can't make heads or tails of it from that muddled writing. What do you make of the Astruc AfD nom? Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Copy edit - Molna Saradr Ahmad, Edmond Astruc
 * In the cold light of day I don't know, if I'm to be honest, how far I wd stand by Molna SA. He's clearly a Sufi figure of some significance but I'm not sure whether that can be backed up by sources in English. As for Astruc, I thought when I tagged it that it was borderline but just on the right side: his works crop up often on the better art valuation and auction sites, which implies standing as an artist, and (I thought) that was likely to translate with further googling into better sources and museum / gallery representation = notable. On the other hand the note that most of the information came from family papers is a red light. I think the AfD tag appeared too soon for a thorough BEFORE to have been made, but I've spent some time on it since and am starting to think that the article might not be defensible, as although there is a published biography of Astruc (not given as a ref) which would fill the gap for an independent source, I've not so far been able to find any of his works in permanent museum or gallery collections.
 * Sources don't have to be in English to demonstrate notability. Religious figures are hard to evaluate in a lot of instances and so I would have just left that for someone more conversant in the background knowledge. Good analysis on Astruc - I think the COI stuff is particularly important to weigh when doing an assessment as when we press review it's unlikely someone else will come and see it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * More footnotes - Nikolai Protopopov, Edmond Astruc - "No footnotes" rather than "More footnotes": that was what happened to come along
 * I don't quite understand your comment. In terms of Astruc I might have leaned more references but more footnotes is reasonable. Definitely a good tag at Protopopov. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there two tags, More footnotes and No footnotes? I was saying that I'd only found articles with no footnotes.
 * Yes there are two tags. More footnotes can be when lots of info is pegged to 1 or 2 sources (and/or it's clear that the sources don't verify all the information as in many a sports biographies where it'll be to some reference site but not one that verifies some of the info). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't know enough about the history to say if Pharsalus is notable but it is a good tag. I like the Hampstead Road tag as using four pages from a single source makes it appear better referenced than it is. Good one. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * More references - Roman Catholic Diocese of Pharsalus, Hampstead Road, London
 * I'm pretty sure that all RC dioceses are notable.Ingratis (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * TIL. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

All good tags and all notable in my book. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Not sure about Sharbel's notability but certainly a good tag. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No references - Stade de la Croix du Prince, Notog railway station, Kingswood Island
 * Uncategorised - Daniel Walton, St. Sharbel Catholic Church
 * I thought it was notable (a) because it's a Maronite church over 100 years old outside the Middle East and (b) unless I've misunderstood, doesn't the article state that it's listed as being architecturally significant? (as part of a development). Ingratis (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I missed seeing the reference to being a place on the national register of historic places when I was looking before. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - understood! I'll come back to you. Ingratis (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - done Ingratis (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good job with the tagging. Curious to hear more about the notability aspects of a few of them above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - thanks very much for your comments. I've added explanations of what I was thinking with the doubtful ones Ingratis (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * well I think we've covered all the big areas (minus the flowchart) and you have proven yourself well acquitted with everything except for A7s. You feel up to circling back? I think we need to do that before we do some practice runs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - yes, certainly. Ingratis (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A7 Revisit
So take your time in finding 3 or 4 good A7s. Feel free to just link them here if you don't want to tag. In the meantime see if you can figure out why I declined the following A7s: Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Treasure (South Korean band)
 * I don't think I see this. The TV programme that spawned them doesn't seem notable. There will have been some S Korean press coverage around their failure to launch, but that scarcely seems enough either. The only thing I can think of is that they have a CCS because they belong to YG Entertainment. Ingratis (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a valid redirect target which would render the A7 unneeded. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dennis Shanahan
 * Being a political correspondent for major English-language newspapers would be a CCS. Google shows that there are many more sources available and that the article as it is doesn't do him justice. Ingratis (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He's technically an editor not a correspondent but yes right CCS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Azad singh rathore
 * He's a politician in an Indian state legislature, which would be enough. His book apparently has a high profile, and he was a party in a lawsuit connected with the cricket club but I don't think those would be enough without his political status. Ingratis (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed some combination of his role in a notable organization and as a politician are clear CCS. What's written about the book is not apparently from that page a CCS but it's good to see you looked and found it to also be a CCS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * John Cauman
 * I don't know. He seems to have a claim to be an expert in Matisse? I'm not sure how to evaluate academic status using citation metrics, but as far as I can tell his major works ("Matisse in 50 Works", "Van Gogh in 50 Works") are more popular than academic. Does this constitute a CCS in connection with Criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC? Ingratis (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes his scholarship and professional work need closer examination of the kind that is better suited to AfD than CSD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * AppValley
 * I generally struggle with IT stuff, but there must be a CCS here from their involvement in sanction-breaking. Ingratis (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As a NPP I will sometimes have to warn people that the article they're seeking about a COI might be something they'd be better off not having at all. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Adodo Eddy Osaman (warning: this is a challenging one)
 * I can't see it so far- is it because there's an assertion of notability on the talk page? I'll look at it further. Ingratis (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * People tend to focus on the first way to find a CCS - it's in the article. But the second way - there's a CCS in the sources - matters too. This is one of those. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did see that a couple of the websites in the refs mention awards of some sort - is that the thing? Ingratis (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

- I've got an A7 question which has cropped up several times to do with redirects. If an otherwise non-notable article is about something located in a specific place - such as a pub or a mosque - is it exempt from an A7 because there is a possible redirect to the place? Ingratis (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * depends on the place. If it's the pub in a little place of a couple hundred it might be worth mentioning in the article about that place and thus worthy of a redirect. If it's a pub in a large city it would never be mentioned and thus can be safely A7'ed. Same idea with a mosque. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. That's really annoying though! Ingratis (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

While I'm waiting to find solid A7s, could you perhaps look at the 4 blue links I've notched up in the meantime? the first one was before the above:
 * Griestal-Strauße - I tagged this at first as a G11, then changed it to an A7. It's a very poor article, but the refs include a review from the Telegraph (travel section, not restaurant review section), which I suppose (in retrospect) is a CCS. This editor creates lots of stubs on barely notable pubs (see Green Man at Inglewhite above), which have always annoyed me, and I lost patience with this one because it includes one of the stupidest mistranslations from German that I've seen on Wikipedia. It would need an AfD, presumably, but it will just get redirected to the village, so I suppose we shall never be rid of it.
 * Heh. When I was clearing out the A7 category last night looking for declines I could use above I saw this one (didn't notice you had done it) and decided to leave it for someone else. It's so painfully clearly not going to be notable. I personally wouldn't press delete on it but I kinda hope someone else does. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hemel Hempstead Theatre Company - I thought I was safe with this one but noticed 1 second too late that of the 3 refs one is a review from the Guardian (they reviewed a random amateur dramatic production, which happened to be this group). I've changed it to an AfD.
 * Being around for nearly a hundred years matters beyond the random Guardian coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a claim of significance?! sometimes Wikipedia perspective is quite odd. Ingratis (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tribal Credit - this has surely got to be OK?
 * I don't think this is an A7. Almost for sure delete at AfC? Yes. But that fundraising round is enough to make me decline the A7. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bartolomeo Campomenoso - this is a non-notable historical figure. The article is written by the same man who wrote the refs cited, and none of the works are specifically about the subject of the article.
 * Effectively he was a 16th century CEO. That's probably enough of a CCS. Conflict of interest aside historical people who've had things written about them are far more likely to be notable than modern people who've had things written about them. There is just so much less coverage of the past. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. My perception of historical subjects is much affected by my job (archivist for a 700-year-old organisation), so I'd do better to avoid them (in this context) from now on as I'm unlikely ever to see them as required! Ingratis (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What's your background? History? Library science? Archives are fun places... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Untypically, my background was languages. As you say, archives can be fun - but they were more fun before digital record-keeping became the norm. Ingratis (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll keep looking. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * are you around? If so I think you could look at Habib Alejalil for something that is A7. Less clear but I'd also delete The African Heart Foundation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for your comments and the new examples. I've looked at both and they're indeed clear - I just need to be waiting at New Pages at the exact moment this sort of thing comes down the pipeline as they'll be snapped up very quickly. I was pleased to see your comment on the German snack bar! I'll try harder. Till tomorrow, Ingratis (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

- A7 update:
 * Hemel Hempstead Theatre Company - this has gone to AfD
 * The definite right outcome for me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tribal Credit - this came up before (see above): it was accepted for deletion.Ingratis (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A great example of the luck of the draw. DGG is pretty strict on A7 on the whole but also detests spam which this wasn't technically but also kind of was and thus a delete. A7 has always been a bit of a crapshoot and since February is even more so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bartolomeo Campomenoso - I think I understand the point about historical bios now: regardless of whether they're significant historically, if someone has researched them and written about them then that is a source, so however unimportant in any real sense, they're notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned: cf Catherine Lynch.
 * Let's not confuse notable and significance. Historical figures are very likely to be significant and more likely, but not definitely so, about being notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * CallMeKevin(YouTuber) - in the mass of text I missed his claim to a million or two subscribers. It's now up as a BLPPROD
 * I hate YouTube subscriber stats. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * EFixindiaStore - gone!
 * As well it should be. A strong A7. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Storyfire - I tagged this (one sentence, no refs) but then discovered that the fellow was nominated for some YouTube award, which I take it counts as a CSS, so sent it off as a draft. The blue link for some reason remains on my CSD log, but the article / redirect is deleted.
 * Well this is a tough one. First if you're moving to draft you should be using the User:Evad37/MoveToDraft script. We haven't talked about WP:DRAFTIFY which is something we need to correct more generally. I think this was a good A7. I would have accepted it had I seen it tagged. I also applaud you Googling to check what you can find. The founder winning an award is a CCS for him not the company. So even from my googling I don't see a CCS and think it was a good A7 no matter how you look at it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not dealing with drafts much presently as the Decline option is too often not available, which is rather frustrating, although I can still accept them.

Back to A7s, to find the above I'm spending hours just sitting on New Pages Feed waiting for A7s, only to be pipped at the post almost always, and can't take that much time any longer, so will it do if I just list the ones I would have tagged, even if someone else has got there first? Ingratis (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like you're on the right track. Let's find a few more but I think you're very close to demonstrating what's necessary as a NPP prequisite. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, but I'm going to list some also-rans as well, if things continue as slow as they have been recently, so that there is something to discuss.Ingratis (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Break

 * as I noted when you first approached me I had been planning to take a break from most of project space after some things were finished on wiki. I have now decided rather than just a break rather than a more limited one. I have really enjoyed our work together and think you are a real asset to Wikipedia. As I have indicated above I think you have most of the skills and knowledge needed to do NPP successfully and so I trust you to have the NPR user group and will be granting it to you for 3 months. Part of the reason I trust you is that I know you will continue to ask questions and get feedback. As I don't know how long my break will be, I am hoping that a former NPPS student of mine, will agree to be imposed on by me so you have a friendly person to ask questions to. If he's too busy (or doesn't want to do it for whatever other reason) WT:NPR is a nice place to turn. I apologize for leaving you in a bit of a lurch and please know how much I have enjoyed working with you as it has truly been great. But most of all please continue to go about doing your positive work here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - You did indeed forewarn me that you were planning a break, and I'm grateful that you were able to get me so far along the NPP path before taking it. I appreciate the vote of confidence and will aim to use the NPR "powers" thoughtfully and responsibly! I shall greatly miss our (cyber-)conversations! I've very much enjoyed your supervision and guidance: it was very good of you to give me so much of your time, and thank you for all your help and patience. It's been really interesting. I hope you get what you need from your break and hope at some point to see you back! Thanks again, and all best wishes in the meantime, Ingratis (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * just a note to say that I would indeed be very happy to offer you any help I can as you start getting into NPP - Barkeep49 has spoken highly of your progress through the NPP school, and if there's ever anything you want to ask, or if you want a second opinion on something, ping me or drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be happy to help out. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  10:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - thanks very much! I hope not to have to trouble you too often but it's great to know that there's someone I can ask for advice if I need to. All best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing to step in while I was away. I have returned and if you have questions  I would be happy to do my best to answer them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - glad to see your return! when you're settled can we continue? Ingratis (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * absolutely. I think we were at you posting a few more solid A7s and you'd also indicated you wanted to post a few marginal A7s for discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

More A7s
(old message) - A7s and COI - I need help with a stubborn editor(s): please see Mohammad Kaamil Pirzada and Shaheen Public Secondary School Handwara. Ingratis (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This has moved on but I'd be grateful for a quick chat about how best to deal with COI.

- Latest A7s:
 * Hussein Dualle Gelle
 * Paul Tyson (DJ)
 * Mohammad Kaamil Pirzada
 * Gautam Rajpurohit

I hope this is enough.

Also some miscellaneous questions:
 * 1) restaurants & pubs - is a Michelin star or an entry in the Good Pub Guide enough for notability?
 * 2) is there a policy / guideline on articles which are entirely copied from an already published source which is out of copyright, like this one? or if not a policy, a standard message for talk pages pointing out that this isn't a good thing to do?
 * 3) I notice that if I review a new article it doesn't appear in my contributions - is there an NPP review log of some sort that I should have activated'
 * 4) have you a rule of thumb on how far to go with content editing on a new article to get it up to standard? I;m finding with some that I'm not only reviewing them but also rewriting them, adding the refs and everything else. Is this just a matter of personal judgment? Ingratis (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about those first two. I thought I'd submitted a response but it seems that I did not.
 * Re:Michelin star There was a conversation about that a few months back. In that case it's an excellent indicator of likely notability. Lesser guides, like the Good Pub Guide, provides lesser assurance of notability.
 * I don't know of a template but you're welcome to point them towards Wikisource.
 * There are actually a couple of review logs. Here is the probably the one you're looking for but there's also this.
 * Improving articles is great. But we're volunteers. You are under no obligation to improve articles just because you stumble across them while doing NPP. Judicious tagging is thus also an appropriate response.
 * As for the Speedies, I note that Cryptic delated Paul Tyson as G11 rather than A7. I think it was a fine A7 as well. I'd probably have deleted Rajpurohit as G11 rather than A7 myself but again nothing wrong with the A7 there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * - thanks very much for the answers. I'm pleased to know where the logs are! The discussion on Michelin stars is extremely useful as it answers a lot of general questions about how notability works.
 * I'm assuming there are other things still to cover before I'm fully signed off? I've just heard that I'm probably coming off furlough in six weeks' time and will then almost certainly be too busy with work backlogs for a while to spend any time on Wikipedia, so would like to get through whatever is outstanding in the next 2-3 weeks. Is that possible? Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats on coming off furlough (assuming congrats are in order). As I noted we were very close to finishing, which is why I felt comfortable granting you the PERM, so I expect we can likely finish in the next week or so. Will post on DRAFTIFY tomorrow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The reverse of congrats, unfortunately :(  (at least for me - it gives me a huge travelling headache, apart from anything else. I'm hoping I'll be able to work from home for a few weeks at least). It's just easier if we can finish off properly before then, while I've still got free time. I'll check in tomorrow! 22:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

DRAFTIFY
First please read WP:DRAFTIFY and let me know any questions you have. Make sure to install User:Evad37/MoveToDraft which makes the whole process really smooth and easy. Moving an article to draft is a form of deletion. It is my experience that new reviewers (including old me) are too reliant on DRAFTIFY when really a different form of action should be done. Often it's done as a way of avoiding a deletion discussion. Don't let this be you. Outside of UPE/COI, draftifications should be rare. Once you've done the reading see if you can find a couple examples of articles that should be draftified. Feel free to either just link them here or to do the actual move - whichever you prefer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * - thanks! I think I've understood it. I've certainly noticed that many other editors resort to drafts very quickly to avoid any kind of difficulty. I will look through but one I can provide straight away for discussion is this one, which I was already working on: Draft:Ghotak Eisa khel. This is a real place but because of its location is unusually difficult, even for a village in the sub-continent, to find English language online refs for that will survive the sort of scrutiny it's going to get. I will get them eventually but I wd have draftified this in order to keep it out of harm's way until I do. I have a bad feeling however that it's been deleted so many times that if it reappears it will be deleted on sight whatever its state.Ingratis (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * and here is one which I don't think should have been draftified - Draft:Rerum Germanicarum libri tres. It was an OK article until some idiot dropped a huge block of translation into it but it should have been reverted, or else tagged and left for cleaning up (I would have commented out the worst additions) - as a draft, no-one will ever see it. Ingratis (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking more closely, I don't think the translation is particularly bad, just very wordy - this really does look like a mistake.Ingratis (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that bad DRAFTIFIES are not too hard to find which is why it's important for us to cover (and why I look forward to good examples). Couple of points on the examples you brought forward. First a reminder that sources do not need to be in English. In fact for topics in non-English countries an attempt to find information in that native language should be part of the WP:BEFORE. So if you think you can find those add them to Ghotak. Second, if you see a bad DRAFTIFY you can move it back to mainspace. So in the case of Rerum you can do exactly the steps you described. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just checking in as I know we're on the clock so to speak. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - Hello! as usual with New Pages, as soon as I started looking for something specific, in this case drafts, the supply seemed to dry up, so still looking. I was tempted to draftify this and this, but the creator is still actively working on related articles. Ingratis (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be very cautious about moving to draft anything that had been accepted at AfC as that acceptance could present issues under standard 3B. The actively being improved means the editor is working on that article not some other - the editor having moved on to another article can be good evidence that it's not being actively improved. I'd love to know more of your thinking about Andrew Rutherford Davidson. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - Sorry - not sure what you mean by Standard 3B? found it! My view is that the article should not have been accepted through AfC to begin with, as the sourcing is deficient: it's a crib by a company employee from the company history. It should sit in draftspace until some independent sources are added. Same for ARD: company employee precis-ing from the company history. Also, I think there are real questions over notability. I see the article has now been listed at AFD. Ingratis (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I admit I didn't look super closely at the editors and so I had not notice that it was a COI. Well that's a whole different kettle of fish. I think that's an action that might provoke discussion but COI is a place where picking your battles can be a good thing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

outdenting: I've draftified Draft:H Stirling Gahan in the hope that more content and refs might be forthcoming. Otherwise I suppose it'll hav to be a redirect to the Edith Cavell article. Ingratis (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * the assumption to make when dratifying is that you are sending it to be deleted in six months. If that's OK with you then you should do it. If you think it might be better as a redirect with possibilities you could do that instead. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * {{re|Barkeep} - OK - understood! Ingratis (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe 1 or 2 other examples and then we move on if we both feel good? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I had Draft:Dr p saeed marakkar - but some admin thought it was promotional so deleted it. (I don't see how, but looking at her track record she seems to see everything as promotional). I was about to draftify Afra Saracoglu when someone stuck a "major edit taking place" tag on it. (I may reconsider, as there is more about her on tr-wiki). There's also this: Ebele Oseye - but the creator's other articles are quite well referenced, so s/he may be about to add to this. That's as much as I want to focus on drafts for now. Can we move on for now and I'll continue to look out for them in the background? Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Markakkar is a marginal G11 but there could be more promotional background we're not aware of (as I mentioned before I grow suspicious when names aren't capitalized and/or have things other than First Name Last Name in the article title). By the time I got to Oseye there were plenty of references so that was indeed improved. Saracoglu is a marginal one as well as there was (at least when I looked at it) some referencing. The two kinds of classic DRAFTIFY are the individual sports season that comes straight out of a sports almanac with nothing but basic information (little or no prose) and little or no sourcing and UPE/COI. Let those guide your work with that tool. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Flow chart
I need to do a look over the areas I identified that should be covered in NPP School but the last area worth some attention is the. This really is an invaluable flowchart for beginning reviewers. Have you been using it while doing NPP? You can access it right from superlinks which is handy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - Yes, I've looked at it quite a lot, but am not presently using it methodically to assess articles.Ingratis (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So what is your workflow on a page? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So far I've been reviewing pages where the issues are clear to me. If/when I tackle a wider range of pages I will certainly use the work flow diagram to make sure I don't miss something.Ingratis (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It might be worth doing a couple pages with the flowchart in case you have questions. The only other piece of the NPPS curriculum we haven't covered are the auxiliary responsibilities that come with NPP namely stub sorting, categorization, and writing short descriptions. Let me now if you'd like to go into any of those areas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I must admit I've played it fairly safe up to now but will tackle some less obvious ones with the help of the flowchart as you suggest. Yes, let's crack on with the auxiliaries - I've been doing all these in any case as part of content editing as well, but it would be good to cover them now, to spot anything I've misunderstood. Ingratis (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Related tasks
Categories are navigational aides for our readers. While there is an uncategorized tag you can use, you're also encouraged to categorize yourself where possible. One kind of category are stubs which are generally too short to be truly useful encyclopedia articles. Stubs have their own set of categories for tagging. Finally there are short descriptions to help a reader to identify which search result is most likely to suit their needs. Most mainspace pages should have a description, preferably no longer than 40 characters. All of these are fairly straight forward but never-the-less you should read: \ Scripts/tools that can be helpful for you with these areas are:
 * Categorization
 * Short description
 * WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types
 * HotCat (see How to enable/disable HotCat). The tool lists and proposes existing categories for auto-completion.
 * StubSorter user script. The script is for adding/removing stub tags.
 * Please install Rater user script. The scripts provides a dialog interface to add, remove, or modify WikiProject banners, including class and importance assessment. Accessible from either the page itself or its talk page. after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Bypass your cache.
 * User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper gadget for editing, adding, and importing short descriptions.

I would welcome you to practice these if you want but I consider it optional for you given your overall skills/background. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't know most of these scripts (I already had HotCat and Shortdesc helper but not the others) so have already gained a lot here! Ingratis (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you advise? Ingratis (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC) The penny has just dropped that you've already told me! Sorry! Ingratis (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

- Sorry - have we finished without my realising? Even if so, I've still got one or two things to ask you in your admin capacity. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no new content for you. I think it would be a good idea to do a few patrols "together" but if I didn't trust you with the permission on your own I wouldn't have granted it (I'd have asked Girth to finish the course). But lay your questions on me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - I'd certainly like to do some "joint" patrols. I'm at liberty for a couple of weeks yet, so just let me know when. I'll post the questions separately, but among them I was going to ask if I could have page mover rights as well. This is because I tend to re-visit my edits and make small changes after the event, so often end up - as with Ghotak Eisa khel, which would be better at Ghotak Eisa Khel, blocked by a redirect - with an uncontroversial move that I can't do. RM takes for ever these days, so it would be much easier if I could do this sort of thing myself. Others to follow. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So out of the rights that can be requested via PERM, I think page mover and template editor have the highest level of trust attached to them (autoptarol and NPR are trust of a different nature). I don't see any red flags but go ahead and request it formally at WP:PERM/PM. Assuming someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll give you a temporary grant. As for joint patrols I think it best if you choose the articles and then I come in behind you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Specimen Patrol I
- I took the top of the NPP list as at 12.55, 3 July 2020 Ingratis (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yarada Hills - needs copyediting, and the refs need re-writing, but there's enough for notability IMO
 * 1) - done
 * Top notch patrolling. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Brenda Cleniuk - CCS, so not an A7, but prob for AFD - I certainly wouldn't pass this
 * I don't blame you for not A7'ing it but if I saw it tagged as such I'd probably accept. My BEFORE didn't indicate anything of note so AfD is a reasonable course. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Svetlana Loboda discography - OK - SL is a notable artist (in Ukraine, anyway)
 * There's enough substance to suggest a discography article is appropriate (namely a whole bunch of singles that have charted). Easy yes for me. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Emmanuel Asamoah Owusu-Ansah - OK - national MP
 * Another easy yes.
 * Robinson and Sons - there's a steady stream of UK business articles presently, based on gracesguide.co.uk, which is copyright free. I dislike them (I don't like articles that are all or mostly text copied from elsewhere and I don't have much patience with local history below a certain threshold), so won't action this, but the creator's edit history is solidly in English local history articles, so I don't think this is a paid article either. I'd just leave it for someone else
 * 1) - now reviewed by someone - doubtless rightly but does nothing for me
 * You bring up some good points but I have no issue with this being reviewed. Not the strongest article, and I can imagine a scenario where it gets deleted at afd, but it's a reasonably written article and the longevity of the firm does give a strong hint of notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Walther automatic shotgun - guns are notable apparently, but no sources - I'd tag it for that and leave it
 * 1) - as above
 * I find really poor sourcing suggesting that it exists so the tag and approve feels like a reasonable outcome. Given the editor who created a personalized note about that would also be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Godwin Olofua - sportsman at national level - OK (seems to meet the badminton standards in WP:NSPORT but in any case has represented his country)
 * Just noting that I had to look up the criteria for badminton - always a good idea to double check that your understanding is correct than to proceed on a incorrect basis. It's interesting that merely being an Olympian isn't enough to qualify for notability there but is under NOLYMPICS. But I agree Olofua qualifies even under badminton's SNG for the Africa Championships play. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Bao Tieu - I'd have picked this up for deletion if only because of the deletion history, and agree that it's not appropriate for a speedy because there are CCSs but would have used AfD rather than PROD
 * Yeah not an A7. And yes I find PROD a waste of time when it comes to NPP. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Michael Petros - sports, with claim of notability, but only one source in a language I can't read: I wdn't take it on trust and am not interested enough to spend more time on it so wd leave it
 * 1) - now at AfD, where most editors who have commented seem not to realise the difference between football and futsal
 * The nomination didn't really distinguish this but the first !vote did. And I too would leave it. I'll patrol most of NSPORT and will take FOOTY articles others won't but there are limits to what I patrol (I'm talking about you handball). We haven't talked about the difference between FOOTYN and NFOOTY. FOOTYN is something people try to pass off as a guideline. It's not my favorite thing. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2000 NatWest Triangular Series - sourced international sports event, so OK, I expect
 * I mean any international event that involves England in Cricket is likely notable (there are other countries like India for whom this would also be true). So yes to that being notable and reasonably enough developed - that's the thing to really look at with things like this, "Is it a reasonably complete article or is it a glorified draft?" If it's a glorified draft DRAFTIFY gets put on the table. But this is nowhere close to that for me. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sport climbing at the 2005 World Games – Women's lead - sports: OK? not sure about the World Games, (forget that - I checked the World Games further) OK probably but needs more sources
 * I think individual articles for every event at a wide range of sporting contests is excessive and promotes pages no one watches which carries danger. But unless I'm feeling particularly grumpy I mark it reviewed and if I'm feeling grumpy I just skip it and let someone else mark it reviewed. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sport climbing at the 2005 World Games – Men's lead - sports: OK? not sure about the World Games, (forget that - I checked the World Games further) OK probably but needs more sources
 * Same as previous. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Gualtiero Galmanini - I don't think this should be at AfD. I wd have passed this, adding a tag for footnotes - there are sources, and he seems to have done enough for notability. Also, he has articles on 20 other wikis: that's obvs not conclusive but it does indicate that he's accepted elsewhere as notable.
 * Or else he's got a really dedicated editor/promotionalist behind him. This is a real thing and danger to look at. The Italian wiki version has more info which I find completely uninspiring in terms of notability - like there's no major building that goes "yeah this guy did substantial work". Architects are tricky when it comes to assessing and so I would likely skip one that isn't clearly notable for whom the sources such as they exist will be in a different language. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reach for the Stars (Richard Harvey song) - looks if it might be notable but no sources. I'd be inclined to merge/redirect to the artist's article for now
 * 1) - I see this has been passed even without any sources
 * Assuming it can be verified does pass NSONG. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Samuel Evans Ashong Narh - OK - national MP, but the sources are thin
 * So what, if anything, would you tag it with? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Kimiya Yazdian Tehrani - sports: OK - well enough sourced
 * 1) - I've now checked WP:NSPORT for basketball and the criteria are ludicrously Western-centric. I'm inclined to pass this anyway, given the international standing of FIBA
 * If she's played on the for the national 5 person team in an international competition I'm inclined to agree I mark it notable. 3x3 is a little more niche. Like futsal. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Angeldressed Demon (TV Series) - don't know - I struggle with non-UK TV series. Draftify for more sources? I don't believe the title either - needs a different translation.
 * I think draftify is a reasonable option and where I landed without even seeing you'd suggested it. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Padmini Dian - politician at state level, so OK - sources a bit thin
 * 1) - done
 * Sources are frequently thin with these kinds of articles. But the amount of information tends to be similarly thin so it balances out. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * List of Hello Jadoo episodes - the series itself has an article / seems notable - so I suppose a list of its episodes is OK, although the sources should prob be repeated here
 * I mean it's not clear to me why the episodes need their own pages. It got draftified which I don't think is optimal. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Abdullapur Meerut - I was going to make a sniffy comment about lack of WP:BEFORE before PRODding but have checked it out further and this is a tricky one to get at. Nevertheless only one source seems to be required for a populated place (WP:NPLACE) and I'll go back later with something and de-PROD then
 * 1) - done, but not easy - it looks like a suburb that didn't took off, on an older site
 * I think marking it reviewed is the right ending place. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Poverty in Bulgaria - part of a series on poverty in Europe so I suppose it's OK - needs more sources
 * 1) - I've created and added a cat
 * Good call. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Tiaan Tauakipulu - OK if the team is OK - which it is
 * Yep.

your assessment seems dead-on throughout. Nicely done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

- thanks! although I'm aware that it was an easy batch - no animes, Indian films or film people, entrepreneurs or youtubers. Shall I do another lot?
 * regarding Page Mover, I realise that I don't need it enough yet to justify asking for it - but if you could swap round Ghotak Eisa Khel and Ghotak Eisa khel for me, it would be very kind!
 * as for other questions, I think I already know the answers to most of them but it would be reassuring to have confirmation:

Thanks! Ingratis (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Species articles - these have an elaborate system of taxoboxes - is it part of NPP to fix them if the articles have the wrong ones (e.g the old "taxobox" instead of the new "speciesbox")?
 * 2) Is there a guideline on the notability of US sheriffs? I couldn't find anything. They're surely fairly low in the hierarchy, and very common, but there's an awful lot of sheriff articles. Also, same question for the notability of elections? is every election of every notable local govt authority also notable?
 * 3) Is deleting things a prerequisite of NPP? for example, would I lose the permission if I never sent anything to AfD?
 * 4) What is a useful reviewing target figure, or range? I've been used to working in minute detail on very few articles at a time, but that probably isn't so useful at NPP. What should I be aiming for?
 * You asked above about tagging Samuel Evans Ashong Narh - I wdn't tag it with anything. It's a stub and all the facts are sourced. If it were taken from a longer article on another Wikipedia I would prob tag it to expand, but that's not the case here.Ingratis (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about Narh. In terms of your questions the basic answer to several of them is you're a volunteer and so you should do what interests you. NPP should be doing forms of article improvement when they can. But how much is up to each reviewer. So if you want to change the old template to the new one, great. If you want to leave a comment about that, well that's fine too. How much should you do? Well again that's up to you and there's no right answer. Balancing accuracy and speed is normally the NPP mantra but you can also layer on top of that interest. So if some article interests you and you decide to patrol and improvement well Wikipedia is better off for it. So strike whatever balance you want and makes you happy. Wikipedia should not be a burden but a source of pleasure and if doing NPP brings you that satisfaction great. And if not, well that's fine too. This even extends to whether or not to AfD. There are some NPP who don't ever nominate for deletion. They are patrollers in good standing. I raise my eyebrow at them, and think that they place an unfair burden on other reviewers because nominating for deletion is time consuming and hard, but it is not, strictly required that you nominate something for deletion, only that you don't review something that ought to be deleted.In terms of your other questions, many sheriffs are going to be notable. They are the equivalent, more or less, of a Chief constable and are in most, though not all cases, going to be notable. As for elections the standard is pretty loose. The easiest are if the holder of the office would be presumed notable their election will be notable. However, the number of elections that are OK is broader than just NPOL. Some other group elections, e.g. municipal elections for a larger city, will also be notable in the aggregate though each seat may not be notable. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - that's very helpful - thank you! In terms of targets and what to be doing, I have in mind that I'm about to be very busy away from Wikipedia for several weeks away from Wikipedia and that my NPP permission is temporary, and expires in September: I'd not want to lose it because I haven't been doing enough of the expected. I note that (US) sheriffs are not automatically notable.
 * As above, I had an easy group of reviews before, so will do some more, looking out especially this time for the trickier types, if you'd be so kind as to take a look afterwards. Thanks and best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Specimen Patrol II
- another list. I went through the NPP feed just before 6.00 and tried to pick some trickier ones: but there's still a lack of entrepreneurs and companies. Ingratis (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Chocolate and Love - I note the awards, so not A7, but could well be G11: I'd think about AfD-ing it nevertheless, in case someone else cd make a case for it
 * 1)  deleted on an A7/G11 (not mine).
 * As you see here sometimes g11 is used an alternative where A7 seems appropriate but doesn't quite apply. I will also note that at least one of the awards failed verification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mark Sheldon - mayor of Panama City Beach, which has far fewer than 20,000 inhabitants: A7, unless being a mayor of anywhere is a CCS, in which case AfD
 * 1) - sent to AfD
 * Attracted quite the attention. Good AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sreethu Krishnan - I'd review this, as she's had several significant roles in notable TV series, + tag to improve refs
 * 1) - done
 * Reasonable enough. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Somdejphrajaotaksin Maharaj Hospital - I think of hospitals almost as geographical features and assume they're always notable with a couple of sources (probably wrongly but I don't see how it's realistically possible to distinguish a "notable" hospital, especially outside the First World)
 * 1) - done (not by me)
 * By spirit hospitals are probably closer to ORGS than GEO. But I think your intuition that truly established hospitals are notable is a good one. That first reference would have been more than enough for me to feel comfortable marking it reviewed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Bin Swelah - reasonable refs, particularly given his age, and BEFORE supports notability - I'd review it, tagged for improved refs
 * 1) - done (not by me)
 * I haven't done the double checking here so no real comment and trust that your BEFORE does what you say. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pierre Ménès - no problem: BEFORE brings up lots more to add to the existing refs, and the French article has a lot more content - I'd review it + tag to expand from fr-Wiki
 * 1) - done
 * Definite yes for me as well. Good tag. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Udayapur Cement Industries Limited - BEFORE shows that it's a substantial concern, and in any case it's state-owned - I'd review it, + work on layout and cats
 * 1) - done (not by me))
 * And brought to Afd where early participants are inclined to agree with you. Substantial concern is going to be relative by country but that is an appropriate question to ask. This does seem to pass. Good Review and appropriate tags. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * DottsMediahouse - I suspect the award makes it notable, and I'd consider reviewing it; the refs need to be trimmed as they have many reporting the same thing, but at least there are some
 * I suspect this company is at best marginally notable. Awards come cheap (sometimes literally). In this case, in a country whose official language is English you don't have an article about either granting organization let alone the award. My rule of thumb is that if the award doesn't have a Wikipedia article to be very skeptical of its ability to grant notability. We have some good Nigerian sources but their only coverage are these kinds of PR inspired, if not outright churnalism, pieces. Nothing big picture on who this company is or their importance. I am not sure I would nominate for deletion but I would definitely not marked as reviewed. Further the editor who created screams UPE - all their edits are minor edits and then all of a sudden they are able to seamlessly write a 4,000 byte article? Suspicious to say the least. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A Knife in the Heart - despite the lack of readable sources, the awards prob make it notable and the director is a big deal in Burmese cinema - I cdn't get any usable Eng lang hits at all, however, and am not up to attempting a search in Burmese, so wd feel more comfortable leaving it, but if I had to make a decision I would review it, based on the director and the awards - tagged for more sources
 * 1) - done (on the basis of the awards and the standing of the director; still needs more refs)
 * This is the award note from above but in reverse. In this case I agree with you that it and its director make it a good review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ceccy Twum - despite the lack of chart links the refs support notability, and I'd feel inclined to review it, subject to better information on the claimed hits
 * This editing history is the kind I expect from a real editor. I agree that the refs support notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Gladiolas (play) - winner of notable literary award but poor refs. I'd review it but tag for refimprove - if none turn up - a BEFORE didn't look promising - it might have to be redirected to the author's article, although he looks as though he maybe in the class of authors all of whose works are notable
 * 1) - done
 * So I don't just check to see if it has an award. I check what the award says and what the refs for the award say. This award has some strong claims which are reasonably backed by the cites. As such I would mark as reviewed despite the other issues you identified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Video imprint (computer vision) - it looks OK, in that it has some apparently solid refs and is comprehensibly written, but I tend to leave IT articles alone because I'm badly informed about the whole subject
 * What about the refs seem solid to you? I don't know enough about CS but their citation numbers are all very low (single digits). I would leave this alone myself just because I don't really care about terms and if it's kept no real harm done. I did check to make sure this didn't like like UPE for Gao. It doesn't but if it had that would have changed my ambivalence a good deal. best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Stephen A. Chang - I'm not sure - the Youtube series seems to be a big deal but most of his parts although in big productions are only minor parts and no awards. BEFORE didn't really help. I wd prob leave it for now
 * I haven't done a full before but if I did I'd expect to end up at AfD based on what's here. A whole bunch of bit parts and then one more meaty part in a YouTube series. The YouTube series does qualify under NACTOR but I'd want to see several such roles or one more substantial role. Cadet Officer and parts in TV and Short film say struggling not yet notable actor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * TVRI Bali - part of a series on regional stations of TVRI; the region = the whole of Bali. Low on refs but difficult to see why it would not be reviewed
 * Yeah I agree it's likely notable despite the issues. Would tag and mark reviewed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Carbon dioxide (film) - same director as A Knife in the Heart above but apparently no awards and I didn't find anything useful on BEFORE; the director may be big enough for all his films, good and bad, to be notable, but in the absence of sources wd leave this one alone
 * I leave this one alone too for largely the same reasons as you. Push come to shove I probably mark reviewed but you'd have to shove me pretty hard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

- thanks for that. I think my NPP permission expires in September - do I need to wait until then to ask for it to be extended, or is this something to deal with now? I'd prefer the latter as I'm about to be away from Wikipedia for some weeks for work reasons (as already explained) and I'd not want to find the extension of the permission refused just because I'd not been doing much or any patrolling in the preceding weeks. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) - I did another list (above) but mostly now overtaken by events
 * - thanks for your helpful comments. I particularly note what you say about awards (I did check out the Philippine literary award carefully before reviewing that article) and the Nigerian one which is probable paid editing, where my antennae are still not very tuned in. I'm somewhat irritated by the AfD of the Nepalese company, where "the rules" have apparently swamped somebody's common sense - seems to happen a lot.
 * 1) - general copyright question (arising from Aleksandr Baltiysky: (a) it's fine to translate an article from a Wiki in another language; (b) an article translated from a foreign-language source is still a copyvio if the foreign-language source is in copyright (in other words, the act of translation doesn't wipe the copyright status [I've seen it argued that it did and that translation is an act of creation]). The question: is there an obligation when translating from another Wiki to check whether the foreign-language Wiki article itself is a copyvio? (BTW, although Earwig does operate in other languages it doesn't pick up the original that may be the problem for the Baltiysky article). Ingratis (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen that argument too. If the translation is just a machine translation it's definitely not transformative. If it's a true translation it might be transformative enough. Or it might just have become closely paraphrased which is still a copyright violation. As for whether you have an obligation no, but as always if you're willing to be thorough that's not a bad thing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I reported it at the apropriate copyright notice board, and will watch for anything to happen.
 * 1) - Varma (given name) - this is a long complicated story for a very short article. The name Varma is both an Indian surname and also a Finnish forename. The Varma (surname) page is a constant battlefield of factions, and the Finnish name was repeatedly pushed off it, so was set up as a separate name page, Varma (given name), which was shortly deleted for not containing a list of notable Varmas. I created three Varma articles from the Finnish Wikipedia, re-created the page and added them. An admin - TomStar81 - deleted the page again as a recreation of a deleted page, even though I had remedied the cause of the deletion. The admin did afterwards acknowledge that s/he hadn't checked the page but then overlooked a request for a refund of the content (which includes a Finnish ref or refs which I don't know). The questions: (a) Could you retrieve the content for me, and (b) what do I do to reinstate the article? there is no reason why it shouldn't exist.Ingratis (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Where'd the discussion happen? I would need to see more to make sure I'm not wheel warring. Otherwise DRV could be an option. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - here and here. There's no point re-adding the Finnish stuff to the Indian surname article - it wouldn't last five minutes. Thanks, Ingratis (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)s|Ingratis]] (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So in theory I could just do this. But I tend to be conservative in my use of tools. I think you should make one more attempt to talk to TomStar about it and failing that go to WP:DRV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So in theory I could just do this. But I tend to be conservative in my use of tools. I think you should make one more attempt to talk to TomStar about it and failing that go to WP:DRV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and made them permanent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Thank you very much! and thank you for all your time and help over the last few weeks. I learnt an enormous amount. The biggest thing that sticks in my mind however is your comment that Wikipedia should be a pleasure - I need to keep an eye on that. Thanks again and all best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)