User talk:Zappa.jake/admin coaching/db excersise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, this is a test to make sure you understand the policies of speedy deletion. The following are actual cases that I have come across while clearing out CAT:CSD. Assume that the title of the page is everything following User:EWS23/CSD/. You are allowed to use any technique that you might usually use to assert notability (e.g.- Google), but you are not allowed to use Wikipedia in any way (you cannot see if the page still exists on Wikipedia, go through my deletion log to see if I deleted it, and any Google searches you do should use "Subject -Wikipedia" which is a good tool anyway to help eliminate Wikipedia mirrors).

Assume for this exercise that you are an administrator. View the page, but do not edit it (I plan on using these for multiple coachees). Then, return here and comment below the entry in question. Write whether you would delete the page or not. If you would, cite the specific criteria at WP:CSD that you would use to delete it. If you would not delete it, state why, and state what you would do to the page (simply remove the tag, redirect it somewhere else, keep it but remove certain information from it, etc.). Good luck! EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.- In real cases, you should ALWAYS check the page history before making a decision. Sometimes the page is a legitimate article that got vandalized, or page moved, etc. In this case, the page history won't tell you anything (I'm the only contributor), but remember that in real cases the page history is important. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Halo 3 trailier
  • I would take the content of the article and merge it into Halo 3's main article, under a new heading, then make the page a redirect. One could defend doing this by the very-short-article criterium.
    • Good, however there's not much to merge. I guess the redirect would be fine, though I wouldn't be surprised if someone deleted it- "trailier" is a relatively implausable typo. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Didn't catch the trailier typo. -zappa.jake (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Union Millwright
  • Delete - consists of only external links, which is CSD.
    • Good. I was hoping you would cite the specific CSD criteria (e.g.- A3), though that's not necessarily necessary, as long as you know what is and what is not speedyable. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Webs
  • Delete, patent nonsense and bio-not-asserting-importance. It was extremely hard for me to read this article (nonsense), and from what I got out of it, there was no assertion of importance about this guy (bio).
    • Good, I also deleted this as G1, patent nonsense. After that, however, I made it a redirect to Web; someone typing "Webs" into the search bar is more likely than most redirects. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neil Haverton Smith
  • Delete - obviously an attack page, CSD.
    • Good. This is actually one of the more subtle attack pages I've deleted, but it's there if you bother to read through it. (By the way, the text is from an actual page of I deleted, but I changed the name to protect the person who it is attacking a bit.) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • After checking out the external links, it wasn't too hard to assume this was vandalism. My mom's cool with Wikipedia and everything, but if she had been around when I was going through this page, she probably would have blown up or the like. For future coaching, I would remove that/those links - although I'm not offended (I rarely ever get offended by anything), there are some people who would freak out. -zappa.jake (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I apologize, I honestly had not checked out the external links- I had just looked at the text here on Wikipedia, and deleted as an attack page. (I had noted that because the pages were simple .com's, they were not likely "references," but I didn't bother to check them out past that.) Apologies again, and I will remove them for future coaching. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fall Out Boy
  • Keep - article asserts importance. I've heard of them and heard their music multiple times before, they are relatively famous. It is a well-developed article, not on its first or second edit. There are (I'm pretty sure) many articles linking here.
    • Very good, though you won't necessarily have heard of all bands that are notable, and I've seen some pretty well developed pages for non-notable bands. A Google test is good for this kind of thing. (Yes, someone actually did tag Fall Out Boy with a speedy deletion tag, and I removed it.} EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Nathaniel Bar-Jonah
  • I would leave a message on the user's talk page asking him for a source and informing him of the NPOV policy. If the article was not cleaned up and sourced within a short time, I would delete it. Criminals of that caliber usually merit articles - they recieve quite a bit of fame locally.
    • Very good! Many people would delete this as nonsense or attack, etc., and not bother to deal with it. After a Google search revealed that there were a couple good sources out there, I actually took it upon myself to expand this one. You can see the version now at Nathaniel Bar-Jonah. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You did very well! Of course, I expected you would, considering your experience with new page patrolling. However, not all coachees have that much experience. What did you think of the exercise as a whole? Was it helpful, not helpful? Do you wish there were more pages, less pages, harder pages, etc.? (I'm trying to improve as a coach as well.) Let me know what you thought, and if you'd like an extension of this exercise, perhaps in another topic related to policy. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC) P.S.- Feel free to continue the line of comments under any of the cases above. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The excercise was helpful, and a nice way to get people thinking. It was pretty easy as a whole - maybe thats just me, being a newpage patroller. I wouldn't mind a second round of harder pages. The hardest pages were Fall Out Boy and Nathaniel Bar-Jonah. FOB wasn't hard per se, but it was difficult thinking of why this is different from other nn-band articles. Overall, a very good idea, great idea for admin coaching. Later, zappa.jake (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just dropping by- I think both of you have done very well here: EWS: Great idea setting up some real examples rather than just using slightly artificial scenarios. I'll probably nick them use them under GFDL for some of my future coaching. And yeah, good answers Zappa.jake, especially on ones like Nathaniel Bar-Jonah, which would be extremely easy to delete as an attack if you hadn't heard of the subject before. Petros471 11:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)