Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gladys j cortez/Q 10 Answers

Example One

 * Article Name: John Davis
 * John Davis is teh BiGGesT fag in teh intire world. He sucks HUGE Coack.

This falls squarely under the heading of "attack page" and as such should be speedy-deleted. Assuming "John Davis" is a real person--and that's a common enough name that I'm sure there's one out there somewhere!--it's also a BLP violation, even if the author could (and please, please don't ask me how!) provide any kind of WP:V sources.

Result: Speedy delete--G10, Attack page.

Example Two
Article Name: L337 Speak Program
 * The L337 Speak Program is a program designed to let players speak with other players. It is notable because lots of people use it.

It doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion, and it asserts notability. However, as things stand right now there's no possible way it meets our ACTUAL criteria for notability--no published independent coverage in a reliable source--so if I were the one who came across it initially, I would place a PROD tag on it, thus proposing it for an uncontroversial deletion. However, assuming that tag was contested and this article actually ended up at AfD, I would have to fall back on the "does verifiability trump consensus?" question. As far as I'm concerned, and as I understand policy, verifiability is the most important criterion, and in this case I'm pretty sure consensus would agree. (On the off chance that consensus decided this should be kept in its current condition, I'd probably request that another admin take a look at it too--though policy says that an article THIS unverifiable and THIS unsalvageably-unencyclopedic should be deleted, at least til I get my "admin legs" I'd be nervous going dead against consensus with no backup.)

Result: Delete per WP:N and WP:VER

Example Three
Article Name: Notable Company
 * Notable Company, based in New York City, is a large Investment Bank. They employ over 5,000 employies, and recorded 5.3 billion in revenue last year[1]. Notable Company also has a large consumer banking branch, and has 1.3 trillion in deposts[2].
 * 1.	^ Wall Street Journal
 * 2.	^ Insurence Weekly

This article, cleaned up, would make a fairly-decent stub, and could easily be expanded upon. My first question would be, if this company is so notable and lucrative, do we already have another article about them? If so, I'd recommend a merge--any new, verifiably-sourced content mentioned here could be added to the existing Notable Company article. If by some chance we did NOT have an article on this company, I'd have to verify and expand upon the given info--my concern being that the numbers could be blatant misinformation, as the sourcing provided is poorly-done--but the publications cited in the sources are certainly mainstream and reliable. Assuming the sources say what the author claims they say, and assuming they can be cleaned up (along with the rest of the article--it's currently a nest of typos and grammatical errors!), and barring any huge red flags brought up in the AfD discussion, I would expect this article to be KEPT by consensus; however, as above, on the off chance it wasn't, til I had a little more experience flying solo, I'd ask another admin to confirm my decision, which would be KEEP despite consensus.

Result: KEEP, provided sourcing pans out.