User:Yunshui/CSD test

This is a simple examination designed to test your understanding of the deletion process, specifically the use of speedy deletion tags. Thanks to Worm That Turned for constructing some of the pages linked to.

Below are a number of articles which may meet one or more of the speedy deletion criteria. For each example, say whether the article is an appropriate candidiate for speedy deletion, and which criterion it should be deleted under (some may be eligible under more than one). If you don't think it should be speedily deleted, say what you would do instead (if anything).

Assume unless otherwise stated that all of these are found in article space.

1. Danille Stross A. CSD under A7 : Unremarkable person ✅ With something like this, some administrators would accept G3 (vandalism) as well, but A7 is more clear-cut.

2. Waichi A. CSD under A2 : Foreign language page A2 only applies when the article already exists on another version of Wikipedia. Since this page isn't copied from the Finnish Wikipedia, A2 does not apply. We do, however, have a process for pages like this; what is it? A2. Tagging it with clean up tag and asking it to be moved to relevant language wiki ?
 * ✅ Mostly right. The optimum course of action would be to tag it with and list it at WP:Pages needing translation. Another approach would be to plug the text into Google Translate to see what it's actually about (in this case, it's a translated copy of the Sugiyama Waichi article, so you could then legitimately tag it with A10: Article already exists). You don't need to request that it be moved to another wiki. As a rule of thumb, if you see an article in a foreign language, let someone who speaks that language take a look at it before doing anything; they can then make an informed decision on whether to list it for deletion or not - hence WP:Pages needing translation is the best place to go.

3. Zack de Vries A. CSD under G11 or maintenance tag This page is by no means unambiguously promotional. G11 is reserved for articles which clearly advertise their subject - this presents information, but the tone and content are not advertising. is an appropriate tag, but since it's apparently a biography of a living person, sources are compulsory - a more appropriate tag exists, which is...? A2. Tagging it with as there are no references for the BLP?
 * ✅ Bingo. If you can establish that the person is alive and there are no reliable sources in the article (Facebook, etc. don't count) then a BLPPROD tag is the best option.

4. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barry Ross This example should be treated as an AfC submission A. CSD under A7: Unremarkable person and also G7 : advertisment A7, as with all the "A" tags, can only be applied in the article namespace. Articles for creation are located in the Talk namespace, so are not articles - you can't tag them with A7 or any other "A" CSD criteria. "G" (general) tags can be applied to Articles for creation, but G7 is the tag for when an author requests deletion - I assume you meant G11, however as with example 3, above, this page is not unambiguous advertising and so should not be deleted under G11. Assuming that the page is not marked as requesting review, what should you do? A2. Moving it to AFD ?
 * Again, AFD is specifically for articles - which this isn't. (You could, potentially, list it at Miscellany for deletion, but it would be very unlikely to get deleted as a result.) The best thing to do here is simply leave it alone - either the creator will come back, improve it and submit it for review, or it will simply languish in AFC forever. As a general rule, the only CSD tags that ever apply to Articles for creation are G12 (copyvio) and G10 (attack page). Most other problems should be dealt with by declining that article.

5. Alfreld Herchkerck A. CSD according to A1, A6, G7 It's a redirect, so A1 doesn't apply - context is established on the target page Alfred Hitchcock. There is no criterion A6. G7 applies only if the author requests deletion, which they haven't. Remember there are more than just A and G tags at WP:CSD. A2. CSD under R3
 * ✅ Yes, exactly. Redirects, files categories, userpages and portals all have their own specific CSD tags.

6. Blgah A.CSD according to A3 There's no context here, true. However, we do have a more appropriate speedy deletion criterion for pages like this. A2. A G6 ? No, in this case G1 would be appropriate. G1 applies to genuine nonsense - strings of gibberish like this, whilst reasonably unusual, are exactly what it's for.

7. Portland Square Bombing A. CSD according to G3 Balant hoax The references confirm that the event happened and that a sculpture was commissioned to commemorate it. It's therefore not a hoax. Remember that there are other deletion processes beyond CSD. A2. An AFD again ? ✅ AFD is a definite possibility. I personally think a PROD on this article would be inappropriate, although I'd have accepted that as an answer. An even better response would have been to look for sources and try to improve the article - just because it's a crummy article now doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

8. User:Chest McFlink This example should be treated as a userpage A. NO CSD as it is a user page ✅ Correct. The best thing to do would be to either leave it alone or raise a concern with the user on their talk page.

9. Tsutomu Yukawa A. not a csd Candidate ✅ Correct. Notability is borderline here, so I'd also have accepted "take to AFD" as an answer.

10. Johnny Awesome A. Is is a CSD candidate according to A7:Unremarkable person A7 applies to potentially eligible subjects; i.e. they could in theory be notable, but the article doesn't demonstrate that they are. There are two CSD tags which would be better; I'll accept either as the correct answer. A2. A G11
 * No, there's no attempt to promote the subject here. This can be seen as either an attack page intended to disparage a living person (WP:A10) or a hoax/vandalism (WP:G3). Either tag would be suitable.