User:Od Mishehu/StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises

Based on this revision:


 * 1) This is clearly not an R3 case, as t was created 2 years ago. Good chance it's a G10 (attack page); however, I would need to google the quote "A tory liar" along with "Jeffrey Archer" to be sure
 * 2) Not an A7 (schools aren't covered by it); however, this is a good candidate for AfD.
 * 3) Tagged correctly; however, if an admin is in doubt about that, it can also be deleted as A7.
 * 4) Not a G3 - I would delete it as a G2.
 * 5) Borderline notability - probably not an A7, but I doubt it would survive an AfD.
 * 6) A7 is technicly correct; however, a better course would be to move this to User:Arty101099, and notify the user of this.
 * 7) Unless an article about "Acme Engineering Pacific Corp" has already existed (I would check various pssible names here), A7 is probably correct. Additionally, I would consider blocking the account as a spamusername.

Comments by User:StephenBuxton below:


 * 1) Spot on.  Whilst ex-Tory Party Chairman Jeffrey Archer was imprisoned for perjury (making the redirect technically correct), this redirect does nothing but disparage the person.  At the very least, the redirect is POV pushing, neither of which are tolerated on Wikipedia.  The username makes their opinion VERY clear.  So delete as G10, and if you were worried, mention it on WP:AN.
 * 2) That's what I would do.
 * 3) It does read as an attack page (not negative BLP as the chap appears to be dead), so I don't think anyone would have an issue with you deleting as an attack page.
 * 4) Spot on with deletion criteria.  Would you do anything else?
 * 5) The key phrase is "credible assertion of notability".  The article asserts notability and so ceases to be a candidate for speedy.  However, considering it was apparently created half an hour ago, what would you do?
 * 6) Well, A7 is correct, but everything else you typed is wrong.  Have a read through of what is in the article, and look again at the username.  Then re-think what your actions would be.
 * 7) Are you quite sure A7 is correct?  Also, you might want to have a look at all the possible username blocks that are available to you.

Thanks for having a go! Stephen! Coming... 20:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply by Od Mishehu
1) I hadn't even noticed the user name - not that it would have mattered in this case; an account named "Ih8Spitzer", which redirected "Client number 9" to Eliot Spitzer would not be deletable under G10.

2) I actually remember A7ing an article about a school shortly before the "except schools" clause was added. A few days later, I was asked how I could A7 an article about a school.

4) I would direct the user to the sandbox and/or explain to the user how to create his/her own sandbox.

5) I would tell the user (very likely the subject of the article) about various policies, including WP:COI and WP:Verifiability.

6) I have no doubt that this is the user writing about himself. Artie, I believe, is a nickname for Arthur; Athur is a typo for Arthur. A short description of one's self, I believe, is fine for a user page.

7) I did say that I would check if the company he aparently created has an article here; I should probably also check the awards. otherwise, I see no case for notability here. And I think that spamusername is the correct block here, although some may prefer the {tl|softerblock}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Further comments by User:StephenBuxton
1) True. The name is blockable as it is against the username policy, but he is already blocked.

2) Sounds about right!

4) I would also make a comment to the tagging user, and remind them about WP:BITE and appropriate tagging of articles

5) What about tagging for PRODBLP? I did say that the article was created half an hour before you got there.

6) Yes, but look at ALL of the user name. And look at the content.  Even if it wasn't written by "Arthur the Great", there is a lot of personal information there...

7) This falls into the "grey area" of what constitutes notability. I personally give articles the benefit of the doubt (that aren't spammy) that claim any amount of notability, and leave it to the collective minds of those who wander the pages of AFD to decide.  Others would do differently, I'm sure.

The key thing with all the above is that whoever answers these gives full justification to their actions. FWIW, the last exercise is based on a recent article I assessed: Suresh Bapat. If you check the page history on that, you can see what I did. I also used a softerblock on the article creator. Stephen! Coming... 22:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One issue which seems to arise from your last statement: you copied an article from elsewhere on Wikipedia (and changed it), but didn't give proper attribution. I believe that this would make it a copyright violation - because all Wikipedia material is covered by a licencse which requires attribution. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops! You are quite correct. Hopefully this should do it.  I didn't link to the article, as I didn't want people to automatically see whether or not the article existed. Stephen! Coming... 12:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You should give the author's user name, not the article title - once the article is deleted, non-adminjs will be able to see your sample and not the name of the source's author. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Better? Stephen! Coming... 17:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)