User talk:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes

suggested changes. I recognize non-trivial is an elastic concept, but it does cover a good many really situations. What I suggest matches my own practice, and I am probably one of the most likely admins here to decline an A7 AfD.

3.2
 * Has multiple Google News hits from sources possibly considered reliable that cover this subject explicitely[3]


 * Played a non-trivial part in a notable film.
 * Was on a notable TV series in a non-trivial role


 * Is or was associated with a notable musician in a non-trivial manner.


 * is CEO or another similarly high ranking employee of a notable company


 * is a teacher of at least assistant professor rank at a notable university

3.3
 * Claims in some reasonable way to be major company in its line of products/work


 * Is subsidiary or other child/family company to a notable company (except for sub-national level branches)


 * Is part of a nation's government in any way that might possibly be notable
 * Is part of a notable organisation (except for sub-national level branches)

Note 3
 * a person with multiple substantial news items about it in RSs not only passes the wording or A7, but is normally considered to meet the GNG.


 * I don't think words like "non-trivial" and "cover...explicitly" are useful in this context. If a reliable source mentions a subject in passing only, it's not enough to satisfy WP:N but it's imho enough to make it pass A7, because the fact that someone took the time to explicitly name the subject makes them more significant than those not named. Same for non-trivial role, part, manner etc. Whether a part, a role or an association is trivial or not is too vague to be decided by a single admin. If the subject took part in something notable, no matter how, they are more significant than those who didn't. Whether their involvement was non-trivial enough to make them notable is for AFD to decide. Same with "assistant professor rank": Such ranks are not the same in each country (we don't have assistant professors at my university for example), so it would be wrong to tell people reading the essay to require this. If you are teaching at a university, there is a 99% chance that you have done something that elevates you above the rest.
 * I can agree with the rest of the changes, although I would change "notable" to "significant or important" Regards  So  Why  17:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about "Retagging declined speedies"
A quick glace over and the section about "Retagging declined speedies" is a bit misleading as currently worded. If it *only* applies to A7 it is one thing, but your wording says "This is a mistake people make with every criterion." and further say "it should not be retagged for the same reason" nor "none other". That seems to go against what happens a lot of times. However if you are *only* discussing articles in mainspcae just skip the two examples that follow.

First example: There is an file tagged as Fair use but it is not used - so it is tagged with F5. Before it is deleted it is added to an article, so the F5 becomes invalid and is declined. Based on what you say above that file can never be retagged again for a speedy. In reality that doesn't happen. The image may be found to have a faulty FUR so it might be retagged f7. At some point perhaps the article it is used in is deleted or uses another image thus orphaning it - there would be no valid reason for not tagging it F5 again.

Second example: There is a file with no source listed. It is tagged with the semi-speedy di-no source. The tag is explicit that a source needs to be given so "copyright status can be verified by others." A source is added, so the tag is declined. The source turns out to be either a copyvio or a source with a non compatible license. Either F3 or F9 would apply.

I guess I am feeling the wording is much too broad. I agree that there have been many discussions about A7 vs, say, A1 and that anyone could feel that an article that says "Bob drives a car" not only has no context but really does not appear to "not indicate why its subject is important or significant". My reading would be that either criteria would apply, whereas if it said "Bob drives a really expensive and very rare car" it would most likely fail an A7 CSD because "really expensive and very rare" does imply that "Bob" is "is important or significant" because of that fact. It also has to do with context, certainly if it said "Bob drives a car. He has no arms or legs and is legally blind" the context would change and neither A7 or A3 would apply and, based on those criteria alone, a speedy be declined. However I don't feel that declining an A7 would be a reason to decline a later valid tag of G7 or, if more information came to light about "Bob" or the relation of the article to the creator of the article, a G4 or G3 or even G11. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you are correct. The point I tried to make with that is that: "If your tagging was declined, don't re-tag it with another tag unless things have changed." If you tag something as A3 in your example and it's declined, the declining admin has in 99.99% of all cases considered all other possible tags as well, thus rendering a new tagging e.g. as A1 or A7 a kind of forum-shopping, i.e. trying to get another admin to delete what the first admin did decline to delete. If the creator later requests deletion or if it later turns out that the article is vandalism etc., then it's okay to re-tag, since those are circumstances the first admin could not consider. The same applies to the files-examples you made. I will clarify it in the essay. Regards  So Why  18:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Signed to label
Since your essay is being cited by other editors I'd like you to reconsider your assertion that "Is or was signed to a label with a Wikipedia entry or to a label that is part of such a label" is an indicator.

The edge case which troubles me arises from The X Factor and similar shows. Without knowing the exact details of Syco's business practices, none of the contestants, not even the worst auditionees, are going to appear on screen without signing some kind of release in favour of Syco, and no act is going to progress far without Syco being 100% sure that they're not unwittingly promoting another label's artist. This implies they're signing a large number of insignificant artists.

Regards, Bazj (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"notable university"
Hello, SoWhy! Thanks for your work trying to clarify the CSD criteria. This is the first time I have seen this essay. It's very helpful, but I do question your inclusion of "Is a teacher at a notable university" as a credible indication of significance for a person. What is that based on? Does it come from some discussion or policy at Wikipedia, or was it your own interpretation? I object because the word "teacher" is way too broad. It can include anything at all, including part-time instructors, or even graduate students who teach a few classes as part of their grad student work. I suggest replacing "teacher" with something more substantial, such as "professor" (which could include assistant professors, associate professors, etc.) - or some other wording which would suggest permanence, status, or tenure-track. I realize this could be tricky because of national differences; for example "Lecturer" is an important position at British universities but a minor one at U.S. universities. What do you think? Can we find some better word than "teacher" to designate potentially significant positions - for example, tenured positions - at universities? --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you seen Common claims of significance or importance? I think this is intended to adress issues like this once and for all, and it has already been elaborated on there. You may also want to look at the discussion on SoWhy's talk page. Adam9007 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)