User:Tiddly Tom/Admin coaching/CSD exercise

Okay, here's a little exercise to help you understand the policies of speedy deletion.

The "articles" here are cases that I have encountered. Assume that the title of the page is everything following User:KrakatoaKatie/CSD/.

You are not allowed to use Wikipedia to help you:


 * you cannot nose around to see if the page exists on Wikipedia, including any use of the 'search' box
 * you cannot go through my deletion logs (or anyone else's log) to see if the articles was deleted
 * you cannot go through categories to look at articles similar to or about the subject

If you use Google to assess notability, you must include the phrase '-wikipedia' in your search, which will eliminate most Wikipedia mirrors and forks (it's a good way to do your searches anyway). Google may or may not have cached content on an "article", but that doesn't necessarily mean we have a real article about that subject or person.

Of course, you may use the list of criteria at WP:CSD, and I suggest you keep a browser tab or window open to that page while you work. (I still do sometimes.) You don't have to be able to quote the CSD hierarchy from memory to be an admin, but you do have to know what the criteria are, what each means, and to what type of articles each applies.

So, assume for this exercise that you are an administrator. View the "article" page, but do not edit it (I want to use them for other coachees). Don't make assumptions about the article based on the absence or presence of any CSD tag.

When you're ready to give your answer, return here, to this page, and comment on each entry in question. State whether you would delete the page or not:


 * If you would, cite the specific criteria at WP:CSD that you would use to delete it (such as A6, G1, G12, etc.) and why.
 * If you would not delete it, state why, and state what you would do to the page (simply remove the tag, redirect it somewhere else, keep it but remove certain information from it, etc.).

In real cases, you should ALWAYS check the page history before making a decision. Sometimes the page is a legitimate article that got vandalized, or page moved, etc. In these cases, the page history won't tell you anything, but remember that in real cases the page history is very important. Normally, you should also check 'What links here', because the deleting admin is responsible for cleaning up the redlinks that remain _and_ because an article with many links may be more notable than originally meets the eye (or not). In this exercise, the articles won't link to anything of consequence.


 * Shoot magazine
 * As it is a magazine, it is not a simple A7. Maybe A1? If I was an admin right now, and came across this article, I would move on until I had gained some more experience. If I was forced to do something - it would be a prod, if I had to CSD it I would A1 it, although as I said I would leave it and see what a more experienced admin did.


 * Good – this one's tricky, because some admins will take a claim of publishing 46 years as notability. I'm not one of them, but I would still decline and ask them to take it to prod (when I decline a CSD, I don't do the prod or AFD nomination for them, and neither should you).


 * Dante Jones
 * Stick an appropriate stub tag on it, and leave it. Meets WP:BIO.
 * Why does he meet WP:BIO? Be specific...
 * Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league - The NFL appears to be profesional, and he plays in it ;)


 * Luper
 * Does not appear to exist. Not blatant hoax, could be a fictional city so WP:Afd me thinks.
 * Unless there's something in there about a fictional universe, it's a hoax. Trust me, Minneapolis/St. Paul is the only place in Minnesota with high-rise buildings. The point with this one is that A7 doesn't apply, because A7 is only for people, companies/organizations, web content, and bands. Every day I see a CSD nomination of a piece of software, or a gadget, or a sport, with A7 as the rationale. A7 is specific, and it doesn't apply here.


 * Keagan
 * This appears to be a joke, cant find stuff on the Internet, article written like is was written for a giggle ;) I would not delete it as tagged but as G3 instead.
 * G3 is good, as is A7. Since there's an attack (rape in Detroit) you could also use G10, _if_ there's no version without the rape claim. That's where looking at the article's history comes in.


 * SF Electronics
 * If it were not for the Engadget links, It would be A7/G11. After looking at their website, I presume they have a wikipedia article, although I can not be sure, I have not checked. By what they say, it looks like there may well be a Conflict Of Interest although this is not a reason for deletion. I think I would Prod it, if it was contested, AfD.


 * I actually did this one a few days ago. I deleted it as G11 because it's clearly for advertising, plus it was created by User:SparkFun. It's borderline A7 – there are some pages online about what they sell, but not about the company itself. The MAKE article just lists some items they're selling.
 * In other words, Amazon.com has a history that's documented well in the press, and they get coverage about their business. This company claims it 'pioneered' a process, but where are the references? See the difference? Self-published content, like the ELs to their own site, doesn't count.
 * Then there's our friend Google: a search for "spark fun electronics" -wikipedia -sparkfun.com" says at the top it returns about 35,000 English pages. Taking out their own site, with "spark fun electronics -wikipedia -sparkfun.com" returns about 6,000 pages – _but_, if you go to the bottom and keep clicking the number for the last Google page until you get there, in this case the 26th page, you'll see it only returns 471 hits, and many of those are directory-type things, like Citysearch, or trivial mentions. It's a judgment call, but we are just getting hammered, every day, with stuff like this and we've got to draw our line in the sand.


 * I knew I was right about this when I got a talk page message – two identical ones, in fact – about how the article was supposed to "spark discussion and show how a small business can help people create", and how altruistic they are, and that I should go to the site so I could be enlightened, and on and on. He didn't ask for it to be recreated, just that it should be in the wiki because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I. Hate. Spam.


 * University of Medicine Magway
 * A3.
 * Yup - all ELs.


 * Nathaniel Bar-Jonah
 * One of the most surprising, yet disturbing articles I have seen. I would add tags, and a stub notice, remove the last sentence and the CSD tag.


 * Well, there are no references, which is a problem, so it could be deleted under G10 or G3, and there are many editors who would either tag it like that or delete it. This a real guy and the description, while crude, is basically what happened. The admin who got this one declined CSD, added references and expanded the article. Google is our friend again. You get really good at massaging Google if you spend any time at all trying to ascertain notability.


 * After you get the delete button, you can go ahead and delete pages without tagging them first. Sometimes, if I'm waffling back and forth and I want another admin's opinion, I'll just tag it and let someone else do the work.


 * Just to clarify, by Tag, I meant article issue tags (eg the noteability, expand, references ones).


 * Lillis Family Coat of Arms
 * I found some sources on the Internet. I would edit the page my self to make it into a stub with a few sources, and of course remove the CSD tag.
 * I don't think there's context here, so I would go ahead and delete it under A1. It's okay if you want to develop it because I've done that with several articles, but on its own there's not enough to stand.


 * Kyle Mertins
 * Delete at tagged.
 * Why isn't he notable? Be specific...
 * High School teams are not notable, only professional national league.

Do it on your own, take your time, and don't feel like you have to answer them all in one editing session. CSD isn't a race, although some new page patrollers seem to think it is. We can do as many of these as we need to do, so don't feel pressured. Good luck! :-D - Krakatoa  Katie  07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making them up - it was good experience. I'm egure to find out how I did ;) When I get the mop I intend on starting off with obvious deletes and building up as I gain experience. Tiddly  -  Tom  19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job! I think you've got a pretty good grasp of it. As long as we take time to look into each case without prejudice or personal involvement, everything will be fine. Onward we go... - Krakatoa  Katie  01:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)