User:Weirdoactor/Questions For Mentors

= Questions for mentors =

Explanation of this page
See discussions here and here. NOTE: from here on, I will post new questions directly below this line, and not at the bottom of the page.

The fallacy of WP:RS vs WP:OR on a user edited site such as Wikipedia.
As with the question of whether of not a freckles fetish exists, and other such deserving subjects (for example)...how does one create/defend an article/edit for which they have no "reliable third party" source/citation, if such an animal actually exists? I know that Wikipedia is more concerned with "verifiability" over "facts. But for some subjects, you just KNOW something, and others KNOW that thing. The article on the Sun was edited and written by people who have never visited the Sun...how can we verify their information? Do we simply take on faith that they know that everything in the article is verifiably true? This is an extreme example, but one that points to an unfortunate fact of life on Wikipedia; that deletionists will always have more power. I am no inclusionist either; I'm more for pruning and perfecting. But in a system where "article murder" is more likely to be backed by policy than simple common knowledge, there can be no real truth. How many people use Wikipedia as their primary research site? Who is watching the watchers? -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel weird replying on your questions for mentors page, as I hardly consider myself qualified for that role. However, on this subject I do have some experience.
 * I think it is possible to create such an article, and the answer to "how?" is "very carefully." If you just know something about something, and that something can be shown through a bit of googling to be encyclopedic, and your facts are more or less accurate, go ahead and create it. RS and OR questions only really come into play if someone challenges the article or the content you have provided.
 * My own experience for this comes from the work I have done on various articles related to Paralympic sports. In my real-world life, I am a very active volunteer in international sport for athletes with a disability. My particular focus is the sport of wheelchair rugby. That article is about 95% my creation, and about 90% of that was done quite literally off the top of my head from things I "just know". The references are links to sites and documents that I know would provide more or less the same information. Other articles I have worked on - boccia, say, or International Paralympic Committee - were done in a similar fashion, although I had to dig a bit more into the references.
 * I felt confident forging ahead on the wheelchair rugby article because, as a Paralympic games sport that was the subject of an Oscar-nominated documentary, I was confident that it was encyclopedic. There are other articles I haven't created yet though, as I can't be that confident. I know five or ten Paralympic athletes that certainly should be considered notable - but, per WP:BIO, they aren't yet. I could write the article on Garett Hickling off the top of my head - but it would be speedied or AFD'd in a hurry, and rightly so.
 * As to things that everyone "knows" to be true, I'd put them in and not worry. If everyone knows it to be true, no one will challenge you. But if they are challenged, then you'll need to do the leg work to prove them - which should be easy, as long as they really are true.
 * Don't know if this is what you are looking for or not, but I hope it is helpful. - Eron Talk 02:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points by Eron. Basically if something is an obvious uncontroversial truth e.g. snow is white, then no need for citation. If likely to be controversial or an opinion or is research then must have a citation. Also good rule of thumb - only put information in that you are sure there would be a citation for if only you searched hard enough, 'cos at the end of the day all information (no matter how trivial) should be verifiable by some way. Cheers Lethaniol 13:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I thank you both for your comments. I guess I'm just feeling more than a little disheartened about how the "process" can be used to push agendas and POVs. I suppose it works most of the time, but that small percentage of time when people "game the system" to kill or keep articles is rather sickening to me. I don't quite know how to reconcile that. I guess either I will or I won't. I know this; when I recognize such a thing happening, I don't think I'll fight it like I have with W00t and Santorum (sexual slang). It was odd that two of my favorite articles were AfD'd at the same time. One was deleted, one was re-directed, which I suppose I should look at as a "victory". I don't know why I can't. Maybe it's because I let myself get so swept up in "the battle", and maybe I'm a little scared of that happening again. I got away from the center I need to keep while editing, to not take things personally, to concentrate on making Wikipedia better, to try and see other POVs. Maybe I should try to look at that lesson, rather than dwelling on feeling powerless. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 15:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to nominate a page for deletion/AfD.
Please walk me through the process. Explain it as though you were speaking to a small, mentally challenged child. Thanks! -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 16:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay there are three ways of doing this for Article pages (other types of pages can have different processes).


 * 1) CSD (Candidates for Speedy Deletion) for use in obvious cases where the article subject is not suitable for an encyclopaedia (see WP:CSD).
 * 2) PROD (Proposed Deletion) for use when an article is not suitable for CSD. For example a List which though potentially notable has had no meaningful input and is in a real mess. By using the WP:PROD process, other users have 5 days or so, to disagree with the Proposed Deletion, if not an Admin will come along and delete it. If the PROD template is removed, then normally the case is taken to AFD (see below). To put an article up for PROD add to the article page, at the top. Also think about adding  to the user's talkpage who created or was main contributor to the article.
 * 3) AFD (Article for Deletion) for use when an article is not suitable for CSD/PROD. WP:AFD is used when a discussion is needed to reach consensus whether the article should be deleted or not (other possibilities are possible e.g. merging). By using the AFD process other users get involved, and normally when a consensus is reached an Admin comes along and enacts upon the result. The AFD process is a bit more complicated that PROD or CSD. Process detailed below.

AFD Process

 * 1) Add the AFD template to the Article page in question, at the top, using, and save page.
 * 2) Follow the red link in the new template and add to the page ~, save page.
 * 3) Then add to the bottom of today's AFD log e.g. today's,.

Job done - might want to again warn the user who created the page or had major input, on their talkpage using.

I hope that all makes sense. If not say so. Also if you put an article up for AFD give us a shout and we can check if you did it right or point out what went wrong. Lethaniol 17:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another description I kifed off of someone's (?) talk page
As a quicker way of PROposing an article for Deletion (hence PROD), you can stick a tag on the page as follows.

Do not use the "dated prod" template directly; the above line is generated by reason .

Details at WP:PROD, but basically it gets deleted if tagged for a week. If someone disagrees, they can remove the template. In that case you'd need to open an AFD as you've done.

You can also check the speedy deletion criteria at WP:CSD. They are fairly limited in scope, and it's pretty simple, just add the appropriate db-something template. If you have several reasons, you might use db-reason and list them all, but one is enough. On AFD pages people usually write A1 or G4 rather than "Article lacks context" or "Recreation of previously deleted material".

You also might want to read Introduction to Deletion Process to get an overview of the whole thing. PROD is a good timesaver, but if you're new, it may be worth developing a sense of what deletions are controversial before starting to use it a lot.

I want to create a page.
Please walk me through the process. Explain it as though you were speaking to a terribly intelligent (but still quite stupid by "human" intelligence standards) dog. Thanks! -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 18:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You got to be joking - if not - type in the name of the page you want to create e.g. Very random page name (note only capital is the first one), in the search bar - left click GO. Once there click on the red link there CREATE PAGE. Type away into the edit space your new article - then SAVE it. Hey Presto, one new article, quite likely to be deleted via CSD if not of sensible proportions. Good doggy. Lethaniol 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh. There's more to it than that though. How does one create a solid page (not a stub, a page) that will a) be of good quality (can be built upon, follows policy/guidlines, is NPOV, etc.), b) resist most "deletion abuse" and c) I don't have a "c", but I like things in threes. Your thoughts? -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 18:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay - try here first Article development, it should give you a good idea on how to write a new article. Also find some elbow grease - it requires lots of hard work. Furthermore check out the WP:Wikiproject that may cover the article you want to write - they often have useful templates to use for new articles. Finally - if you have an example I am happy to look over it and give you some suggestions. If you follow the above and pick a sensible article topic that merits encyclopaedia inclusion then it will meet a and b and even c. Lethaniol 18:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Great; thanks for this, and for the advice above re: deletion. I thought that would be a good place to start, creation and deletion. Cheers! -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 18:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)