User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Bishal Shrestha

Graduation requirements

The successful NPP School Graduate will be able to:

Successfully use the NPP flowchart, or other system, to arrive at a correct reviewing outcome 90% or more of the time

Accurately identify when an article has satisfied GNG

Accurately identify appropriate SNG claims an article

Accurately evaluate articles against specific SNG criteria

Find and accurately apply common Wikipedia practices when evaluating notability

Differentiate between spam, vandalism, nonsense, and foreign language articles

Identify and appropriately remedy copyright issues in at least 90% of instances

Understand, explain, and apply appropriate Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines including, but not limited to, BLP and COI

Engage in appropriate and useful conversations with other editors about NPP

Appropriately apply warning templates to users

Know when to appropriately nominate an article for deletion, including how to have done a BEFORE search

Know when and how to use PROD and BLPPROD

Know when and how to soft delete an article

Use the Speedy Deletion criteria with at least 90% accuracy

Apply appropriate tags to article with at least 90% accuracy

Bishal Shrestha this will be our workspace as we go our work with NPP. I would recommend watchlisting it (I have already done this). After having read WP:NPP what are the two or three parts of that where you feel your skills are the strongest and what are the two or three where you could still grow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thanks for creating the workspace. From what is mentioned in WP:NPP, I have a pretty good knowledge of GNG criteria, investigating and responding to WP:COPYVIO and WP:COI. I am going through the reviewing checklist and reviewing articles at the moment. But something I would like to grow more on is the deletion space. Would like to grow on CSD, AfD and PROD (and BPLPROD). Bishal Shrestha (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the work I've done with any other people? If you have that's fine but if you haven't please don't as that way I can reuse some materials. Let me know. I'll get us going with an introduction to deletion in the next day or so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have had a brief look when you started out with Usedtobecool as I was checking if you were busy with somebody else. Haven't gone through in detail though. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That's helpful to know - thanks. One thing I'd like to strongly suggest while doing NPP - use edit summaries. Again we'll start with a look at deletion soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

Our next area of work will be deletion. There are several different types of deletion processes:

Speedy - For major problems not worth community discussion. The scope of these kinds of deletions are intentionally limited and are the most controversial.
PROD and BLPPROD - While BLPPROD has a useful function in NPP, I have found PROD to generally be less useful. Sometimes when patrolling from the back end of the queue (e.g. drafts that are 45 - 60 days old at the moment) you could successfully PROD something but in general these tend to get declined and end up at AfD anyway. PROD is much more useful outside of NPP in removing uncontroversial non-notable stuff. Unlike other tags, obviously it's ok for anyone, including the page's author, to remove. For BLPPROD there are also limited circumstances you can apply it - a biography with no references (including something like an external link that could be a reference) but in order to remove it a reliable source must then be added.
Soft redirects - This isn't really addressed directly in the NPP tutorial but is a real thing which has more limited oversight than other forms of deletion, and speedy deletion, and so needs to be used responsibly. This lack of oversight also makes it controversial among many in the community. An example when you would do this is in the clear case of an SNG. Like if a notable musician has an article made about a new album that's not yet shown as notable by NALBUM or a song from a notable album that doesn't yet qualify for NSONG. If this gets reverted, out of respect for the community's unease with this, I tend to let another reviewer decide whether or not to restore the redirect (though I will "tag team" in some clear cases). The other time to do this is when an AfD had come to that consensus and the recreated page (normally available by the history) is substantially identical. In this case if I'm reverted I will restore the redirect myself. One option when you think a redirect is the right outcome but have been reverted is to go to AfD. There's a misconception, even among some sysops, that you can't do this. They're wrong. It's definitely OK and normal to nominate an article at AfD that you think should be redirected. If you ever run into this feel free to leave me a message and I'll layout evidence of why it's OK.
AfD - Our formal method for deletion which normally deletes non-notable entries though in rarer circumstances will delete notable entries with other substantial issues. Before nominating for AfD it's important you do a WP:BEFORE search. If you haven't read that essay yet please do that now.

We'll practice all of these for sure except PROD/BLPPROD which we might or might not see a candidate for while doing our work. To start let's begin with formal AfD discussions. For your next work find 5 articles from the NPP Queue that you think lack notability - both GNG and SNG - and could be deleted. Post those articles here and I will give my feedback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

AfD Set 1

Draft:Dave Poensgen doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. No reliable sources (both on Wikipedia and Google) having a significant coverage of him or his work. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Hebert Neri doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST, WP:SINGER or WP:AUTHOR. All the refs to support WP:SINGER comes from [1] [2] which is a bulk release through MF Press Global, some other youtube links and refs without any mention about him (like [3] and [4]). Same goes for WP:JOURNALIST too. There is no significant coverage on Google regarding him. All the citations in the article are from his own articles (like this [5] and [6]). Also another article by the same author was deleted after AfD discussion [here] for the same notability issue. This seems to be a clear case of WP:PROMO. (Too early to say but the last two alphabets of the author of this page (Jsmithn22) - hn might refer to Herbert Neri, and j might refer to Jennifer, who seems to be related to the author based on the discussion [here]). Would recommend a WP:SOCK investigation on top of AfD. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bishal Shrestha: Haven't looked at this but make sure you have the queue set for New Page Patrol. You have it set for Articles for Creation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thanks for the reminder mate. Since you mentioned regarding drafts earlier in PROD section, I might have assumed it to be that way. Will work on the articles now. I am just striking the section above as I want your opinion on those as well. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Here's my 5 AfD Submissions:

Syed Samsuddin Ahmed per WP:NACADEMIC. (The only thing that could have passed special criteria for WP:NACADEMIC was him being a Vice-chancellor to a university. However, Chancellor is the top academic post in that university.) So Delete and redirect to Bangamata Sheikh Fojilatunnesa Mujib Science & Technology University.

I agree his being chancellor doesn't meet NACADEMIC. As I find doing a citation review hard given how little access I have to the best measures I tend to only mark NACADEMIC as notable and not nominate for deletion. As such I can't comment completely on that element. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

John B. Hynes, III per WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Only mentions about him are regarding the Seaport land deal.

I haven't done a full BEFORE but my initial search suggests you're likely correct. Importantly, why would a bold redirect (to either his dad or the deal) not be appropriate in this instance? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I believe delete and redirect to his dad would be the best option. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It might not be worth taking to AfD to get the delete first but yes I'm of the opinion that a redirect attempt would have been a good first step. I'm still not interested in doing a full BEFORE but I think this might have been incorrectly marked as reviewed. Barkeep49 (talk)

Rachel Brookes per WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. No significant coverage about the subject, or works of the subject of the article.

I find journalists normally end up having ot meet GNG or some other SNG as NJOURNALIST rarely provides much of a shortcut. What indications do you have that the current sourcing (and other sourcing I found when searching her name ex) don't meet GNG? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Regarding the reference you've provided, it has a coverage of her biography (based on Wiki) and her roles and her salary (which doesn't support her to be notable). The Wikipedia article was published in May, with this news being covered in August 2019. This, with the title and content of the news, leads to believe that the Wiki article influenced the whole news coverage. Nonetheless, considering the source is reliable, it fails to pass the WP:GNG due to lack of multiple sources as such. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes the source I provided was not very high quality and not RS. Being able to explain why available sources don't establish notability is important for both new editors and at AfD. Barkeep49 (talk)

Amulet (film) Future movie set to release in 2020 without any significant coverage of filming. Delete per WP:NFF.

You're correct that it fails NFF. However, it is my experience that films noted by major publications like Dateline as filming don't follow the spirit, if not the letter, of that. If it hadn't been PROD'd, draftify could be an option, but that's not appropriate in this case. Predicting how this would do at AfD is difficult. Some patrollers would indeed take it there while others would mark it as reviewed. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Entropia Global per WP:PROMO. Doesn't have any independent citations. Most of the rewards are non-notable. (Can even be CSD tagged for WP:G11) Bishal Shrestha (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

NCORP tends to be pretty strictly applied and the current sourcing doesn't cut it. I would make some attempt to look for sources in Malay before nominating it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

AfD Set 2

@Bishal Shrestha: Let's do another round of 5 as I think the first set allowed us to touch on several important ideas. Thanks again for your patience with this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Satans Black Wedding (2019): Per WP:NFF. Not confirmed of filming or even existence by any RS. Possible COI too as the author is listed as cast and creating article on his own name (Draft:Gabriel Finch)

Khuraira Musa: Per WP:GNG. Claims to be an international renowned make-up entrepreneur, but no WP:RS covering her can be found. The refs mentioned in article either has a close connection to the subject of article, or doesn't exist. Found few refs like this which is more sort of an article from a fan, and isn't neutral, and this which passes very brief coverage.

Michael Patrick: Per WP:BASIC. Not a new article, but this has been marked reviewed long time back. All the mentions about him are just trivial mentions where many a lot of other names are also mentioned. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This might survive AfD but I am also not finding a whole lot and there are promotional elements to how it's written here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

If you believe this might survive AfD, do you believe PRoDing is the best option? Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

PROD is the right option when you think it will be uncontroversial/low interest. I find that New Pages are rarely successfully PRODed, but as this is not recent it could be PRODed. But - importantly - if you believe it's controversial you are supposed to, by policy, not PROD it. If something survives at AfD, it survives at AfD and means there's consensus it should stick around. Especially in the case of older articles this isn't a bad thing in my mind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Muslima.com: Fails WP:GNG. No WP:RS from WP:MULTSOURCES could be found. Most of the citations provided are reviews, some case studies and Alexa stats. The other [link] is about a report on one data breach which doesn't fully justify why the article on the company should exist.

I would suggest a bold redirect to Cupid Media before an AfD. It's a clear alternative to deletion redirect target. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Conceptmart: Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

- I see you went ahead and nominated this one for deletion. Barkeep49 (talk)

Soft Deletion

It seems like we can move on from AfD - but feel free to ask any questions you have as you come across articles. For our next set find 5 articles from the NPP queue which you believe should be soft deleted as defined above. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Gravity (Gryffin album): A non-notable album without any coverage scheduled to be released in future date. Recommending soft delete as it doesn't have any copyvio and could be notable in future. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Barkeep49 The soft deletion criteria (WP:NOQUORUM) says that the article be discussed for deletion at AfD with few or no one opposing the deletion. Do I consider that as a primary criterion in determining if the article needs to be soft deleted? If so, how does this help as the article would already have been reviewed by a reviewer and tagged for deletion? Does this fall under the task of reviewer or administrator? Am kind of lost in here. Could you please elaborate a little bit more? Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOQUORUM is a deletion policy - that's not what we are focusing on. Soft deletion is a term that also applies to a variety of actions that end up being similar to deletion. The two main ones are draftifying - that is moving something out of mainspace and into draftspace - and redirecting an article. Does that answer your question? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thanks for clearing up the confusion. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)