User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes

Of all the criteria for speedy deletion, A7 (and by extension A9 and A11) is probably the one that gets misapplied the most. This page serves to outline common mistakes and strives to provide a list of claims that make an article's subject important or significant enough to fail speedy deletion.

The big mistakes
The following criteria are often, mistakenly, used when applying A7:
 * "Subject is not notable": A7 is not about notability. The wording clearly states that the standard for A7 is lower than that, using "important or significant" instead.
 * "No sources" / "No references": A7 is not about whether the indications of "importance or significance" can be verified. An article does not have to have inline citations or sources, let alone reliable sources to fail A7. Those are concerns for an articles for deletion discussion.
 * Limited scope: A7 only applies to real people, individual animals (not species), organisations, individual events and web content. It does not apply to books, films, albums (see A9 for that), fictional characters, locations (considered inherently notable anyway), buildings, games, software, products or anything else.
 * Retagging declined speedies: This is a mistake people make with every criterion. Admins are allowed to decline deleting a page even if the tagging was correct. This is a binding decision for everyone involved and it should not be retagged for the same reason and, as one can assume that admins consider all applicable criteria, none other (except valid G10 and G12 taggings). If an admin decided that a page should not be speedy deleted, do not retag it for speedy deletion but rather choose alternative venues like WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Retagging may be viewed as attempted admin shopping. Of course, this does not apply if circumstances change after the declined tagging or if new circumstances become known that the first admin declining the tag could not consider. For example, re-tagging as G7 when the user requests deletion after the declining or as G3 if it turns out that the page was created for vandalism-purposes.

Common indications of importance or significance

 * → This list can now be found at Common claims of significance or importance

The following lists common claims in articles incorrectly tagged with A7. If the article makes any of these claims, it almost certainly does not meet A7.

All subjects

 * Has received coverage of any kind in possibly reliable sources
 * Has multiple Google News hits that cover this subject explicitly
 * Claims winning one or multiple potentially notable awards or participated in a competition in a noteworthy way

People

 * Actors
 * Played a part in a notable film (not as an extra)
 * Was on a notable TV series (not as an extra)
 * Journalists
 * Wrote for notable magazines/newspapers
 * Hosted/presented notable shows
 * Athletes
 * Played for a notable team, even if only on minor or amateur level
 * Has won a championship or taken part in a notable championship
 * Musicians
 * Is or was part of a notable band
 * Is or was associated with a notable musician
 * Is or was signed to a label with a Wikipedia entry or to a label that is part of such a label
 * Claims to have charted in national charts, no matter which country
 * Has received airplay on larger radio stations
 * Business
 * Is CEO or another high ranking employee of a notable company
 * Founded or otherwise helped start a notable company
 * Invented or pioneered a notable product / method
 * Politicians
 * Major party candidate for any (possibly) notable office
 * Holds (possibly) notable office and/or position
 * Computers and Websites
 * Created notable webpage
 * Created notable webcomic
 * Develops or has developed notable software
 * Artists
 * Created notable work of art
 * Academics
 * Is a teacher at a notable university
 * Has published something in a notable journal
 * Claims to be an expert in a particular field of study

Organisations

 * Bands
 * Has a notable band member
 * Is support band for a notable musician or otherwise associated with them
 * Is signed to a label with a Wikipedia entry or to a label that is part of such a label
 * Claims to have charted in national charts, no matter which country
 * Has received airplay on larger radio stations
 * Has or claims to have won notable awards
 * Companies
 * Has a notable founder or CEO
 * Claims to be major company in its line of products/work
 * Produces one or more notable product(s)
 * Is subsidiary or other child/family company to a notable company
 * Other organisations
 * Is part of a nation's government
 * Is part of a notable organisation
 * Has a notable founder or president
 * Has multiple notable members

Web content

 * Created by notable person or company
 * Claims to have won notable awards

Events

 * Attended by multiple notable people, groups, bands etc.
 * Created by notable organization or company
 * Hosted by notable person

Handling articles about potentially significant or important subjects
The aforementioned section mentions a lot of common indicators why A7 should not be applied to the subject in question. Those are, however, not reasons why the article should be kept. If you encounter an article about a subject that is potentially significant or important according to these indicators, check whether it also is notable enough for a stand-alone article. If it isn't, remember the alternatives. If significance or importance is indicated because of an association with a notable subject, consider merging and/or redirecting to the subject's article. Otherwise, see if there are suitable lists or other entries that can benefit from the inclusion of this information. In most cases, any article about a subject that meets one of the aforementioned indicators will not have to be deleted, even if the subject does not merit its own article.