User:Pichemist/Benjamin Borg NPPSCHOOL

Hello, welcome to your New Page Patrol School page! Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your NPP School page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working).

Make sure you read through Notability as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

This page will be built up over your time in the School, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.
 * How to use this page

If both the instructor and student make completing the course curriculum a top priority, it will generally take around a month to go through the entirety of the curriculum. This pace is not required or necessarily expected, but rather is provided in order to give participants an idea of what to expect.

Notability
 PART 1 

Questions
In your own words, how is notability defined on Wikipedia?
 * Question 1

Notability is basically a test that is preformed by an editor. This "Test" involves the editor deciding if a topic requires an article.
 * What should an editor consider when determining if a topic merits an article? signed,Rosguill talk 18:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They should consider if " a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * ❌ those aren't your own words. signed,Rosguill talk 15:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose not, basically: You should consider if the object you are going to write about has had coverage outside of Wikipedia, this coverage needs to be reliable and independent
 * Correct. Why do we need that kind of coverage to be available before writing an article? signed,Rosguill talk 16:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't have that have that coverage, your articles will have no sources. Without sources, you could just be making stuff up, with no way to check.
 * You're on the right track, but what about subjects that have exactly 1 good source, or multiple non-independent sources? These still fall short of notability guidelines, but you wouldn't quite be making stuff up. signed,Rosguill talk 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose not, but I belive it depends on the subject.
 * Could you explain what you mean by that? In your opinion, what would make it permissible for one subject and not another? You also haven't really answered the prior question, which is to provide a general answer of why articles that have some sources but fall short of notability guidelines don't make the cut. signed,Rosguill talk 16:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be frank, is it okay to just "give up" on this one?
 * The reason why notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is that only by having such coverage can we be reasonably confident that we can cover a topic neutrally and give due weight to its various aspects. Without multiple sources, we're much more likely to end up with a biased article with no way to verify the balance of emphasis within the article. signed,Rosguill talk 17:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Would step by step instructions on "How to change a car tire" be considered a notable topic in Wikipedia? Why or why not?
 * Question 2

It could, since there is not much context and it could have been useful. It could also be considered wrong to create an article since there are many sources outside of Wikipedia that show people how to do this.
 * ❌, this is unambiguously not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, as it falls under WP:NOTHOWTO. signed,Rosguill talk 18:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. How about: No, since "How to change a car tire" would not be in any Encyclopedia, online or not.

What are the differences between the WP:GNG and the subject-specific notability guidelines? How do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article?
 * Question 3

While General notability guideline is used for almost all articles, the subject-specific notability guidelines focus on a certain subject. You can use subject-specific notability guidelines when the article you are reviewing is A. particular to that subject and/or the general guidelines don't fully apply or B. that subject does not have any subject-specific notability guidelines.
 * ❌ this response is incorrect, and criteria B is self-contradictory, as you've stated that you can use an SNG when there are no SNGs for a subject. signed,Rosguill talk 18:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's so, is it alright if I just go with the first option?
 * ❌, A is still incorrect. signed,Rosguill talk 15:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me use an example: this basketball tournament, you can probably use both in this case since you can use the generic guidelines for almost all articles. In this case, you can also use the SNG for sports.
 * What does it mean in practice when you say that we can use both? signed,Rosguill talk 16:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that it means that you preform the "test" two times to see if the topic passes or not.
 * You're on the right track. We'll come back to this later. signed,Rosguill talk 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright.


 * These are my responses so far.
 * , these weren't quite the answers I was looking for, please try again. signed,Rosguill talk 18:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I know that what I am going to say may appear as if I am quitting, but I am not. I may have been short-sighted and sign up in this course is not what I should have done since I believe I need to focus more on my studies. I am still going to continue this course, but slower. I hope you understand. Signed,Benjamin Borg (Talk) 14:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , honestly I'd recommend that you focus on your studies, but also get some more experience on Wikipedia editing before coming back to this course. New page reviewing is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and in some respects requires more knowledge than even becoming an admin. I think you'll be able to contribute more to the project by focusing on easier stuff first, and coming back to this when you're a more experienced editor. 590 edits may seem like a lot, and it's far more than most people will ever do, but in terms of Wikipedia editing it's still just scratching the surface of this project. signed,Rosguill talk 15:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have tried my best to re-try my wrong answers. Signed,Benjamin Borg (Talk) 16:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have just completed the new questions. Signed,Benjamin Borg (Talk) 16:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Subject-specific notability guidelines
1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines) into the following three categories

Primarily additional criteria that are likely to indicate notability
 * Astronomical objects
 * Books
 * Geographical Features
 * Organisations & Comapnies ❌, NCORP is the strictest SNG and pretty much solely imposes restrictions on sourcing
 * Poeple

Primarily additional considerations that define or restrict the nature of coverage or sources required
 * Academics ❌, NACADEMIC carves out huge exceptions that allow for the establishment of notability despite a lack of sourcing
 * Music I'd call this a type 3: MUSICBIO primarily restrictions, but NALBUM and NSONG both include many additional criteria
 * Web ❌, this guideline includes the criteria of being award winning as possibly conferring notability, making it type 1. The rest of the criteria are fully redundant with GNG.

Even mix of the previous two categories
 * Events ❌, primarily restrictive criteria, type 2
 * Films
 * Numbers
 * Sports ❌ Entirely additional criteria, type 1

2. Virtually all SNGs that provide additional notability criteria specify that these criteria may indicate that the subject meets notability guidelines. How would you interpret this caveat as a new page reviewer?

Not all articles that pass the "test" that is preformed using the main GNG may be considered notable. This is due to said article failing to meet particular SNG.
 * ❌ Any subject that meets GNG is notable. While some SNGs impose additional restrictions, these are restrictions on what sources can count towards GNG. For example, an organization that falls short of WP:ORGCRITE has failed GNG; it does not pass GNG and then fail the SNG. The caveat is that simply passing an SNG does not guarantee notability; SNGs can be understood as shortcuts that suggest that a subject is extremely likely to pass GNG, but does not guarantee it. You should interpret passing an SNG as a very strong signal towards establishing notability, to be taken into account alongside the quality of sourcing. An example of a situation where you might decide that a subject is not notable despite meeting an SNG would be an article about a song that charted recently on a relatively obscure chart (meeting NSONG), but for which no secondary sources are available online. signed,Rosguill talk 16:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Scenarios
For scenarios 1-6 review just based on "subject notability guidelines" (SNG) "alone" for sake of the exercise. Do not consider any sources or other policies. Please answer if the subject meets the SNG guidelines based on the given content below, and specify which notability criteria they meet or fail.

For scenarios 7-11 specify which SNGs would establish the subject's notability.

An editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2020 without providing any sources - Doesn't meet any criteria for any GNG, SNG or not.
 * Scenario 1

A New York city based 2020 start up software company, specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund. - It would depend if it has received reliable coverage. If it did, it would be considered notable and it would meet most of the criteria presented in Notability (organizations and companies).
 * Scenario 2

Movsar Evloev who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 12-0. - I believe that yes, this would be considered notable due to having multiple reliable sources. It also meets all SNGs for Sports and Poeple.
 * Scenario 3

An upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, which will be in production in January 2021 and to be released on August 2021 in the cinemas. - I'm guessing yes again? There would be alot of sources which detail this film, thus passing criteria for films.
 * Scenario 4

A political candidates, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2020 election for a Senator position in United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy. - Wouldn't be considered notable due to them not being in any previous or current political position.
 * Scenario 5

A singer who self produced his first album in May 2019 and his songs are listed in Spotify. - I doubt it, since there wouldn't be alot of covereage. I'm at a loss for this one.
 * Scenario 6

On hold
I'm sorry, but I think that we need to end these lessons. I think that there's a fair amount of learning about how Wikipedia works that you can do on your own just by editing and participating in discussions before teaching you how to do new page reviews is appropriate. In your permissions request, you made some statement to the effect that you considered yourself an extremely active editor. At 600 or so edits, you've barely scratched the surface of editing Wikipedia. To get a sense of how big this website is, here's a sense of what the English Wikipedia community considers an active editor to be. It's a community principle that edit counts don't really matter. But new page reviewing quite honestly requires a better knowledge of Wikipedia's various rules than passing a request for adminship. You should get more experience before trying your hand at it, and I don't think that taking this course is a productive use of your Wikipedia time right now.

As far as this page is concerned, I can leave it up if you prefer to have it as a reference, I can move it to a subpage of your user page if you like, or I can delete it. signed,Rosguill talk 07:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I guess. If you can, please put it to a supage of my user. Signed,Benjamin Borg (Talk) 12:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)