Jump to content

User:Barkeep49/NPP/Path slopu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Workspace

[edit]

So this is a nice workspace for us to use. What kind of mentorship are you looking for? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thank you for considering my request and accepting me as your mentee. I'd like to enhance my skills in notability of articles (haven't specific notability guideline especially for some sports, occupations, works, etc), notability of articles without sources (but articles seems notable) draftification, etc. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 14:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Great, Path slopu. How would you like to start? I can think of three options but feel free to suggest something else: We discuss patrols you've done, you suggest articles for us to talk about, or I make-up some scenarios and we use those to start. Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Please see the following articles

Opinion:Draftification

I think if you had draftified that would have ben OK. I strongly suspect it's a COPYVIO - it's clearly been copied from somewhere (the charter of the group and possibly elsewhere) and we have no indication that this copying was done under an appropriate license. It had been tagged for Speedy Deletion under A7 and G11. I think it's a good G11 and a tougher but still probably good A7. I deleted it under G11 since that felt clear to me. The reason I said it was OK to draftify is if you think something is notable but has other issues (lack of source, promotional language) draft space can be an OK place to work out those issues. Barkeep49 (talk)

Opinion:Tag

Which tag would you give it? Also I'm not seeing notability (yet) - no games played for his Liga 1 team. Barkeep49 (talk)
@Barkeep49:I think it is notable because he played for national team --link. I don't know my assumption is correct. Kindly please check. Now there is a source and no need of tagging. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 16:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Youth teams like this U19 are not the same as adult national teams. Youth teams don't convey notability (by themselves) the way adult teams do. Barkeep49 (talk)
I've never seen a WP:DAB like this before. It seems to meet the criteria for DAB - multiple entries (all notable) on a shared topic. I would have marked this reviewed if I'd seen it. However, I understand why it struck you - it's definitely different. Barkeep49 (talk)
@Barkeep49:Thank you for your comments. I've seen several DAB like this with title senator..., representative..., etc before. I became doubtful in such situations. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 15:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Was definitely a good question. Barkeep49 (talk)
History of the Dvaita School of Vedānta and Its Literature appears from academic reviews I've found to be the definitive source about Dvaita and the entry for Yadupati indicates notability. I am having a harder time verifying the other two sources but in general I think people from that long ago who are receiving significant coverage in well respected academic publications are likely to be notable. I would be inclined to mark it as reviewed (perhaps with a tag or two). Barkeep49 (talk)
@Barkeep49:These are some articles with doubts, I've given my opinion. Please check. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 14:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
See my comments above (I know you've seen some already). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the comments and thank you for considering my posts. PATH SLOPU 16:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I think we're closed on these (unless you have further follow-up questions). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Draftify

[edit]

So as you probably saw Path slopu I granted you page mover for six weeks. Please read the guidelines - page mover gets taken away for abuse fairly easily - but I think you'll use it appropriately. In reviewing your suitability I did come across a large concern: it appears you are not nominating anything for deletion. I see no evidence of speedy, PRODs, or AfD. However, I do see that you are regularly draftifying articles. Draftify should not be used as an alternative to deletion. In looking at at your last 10 draftifies I notice:

I agree with you. I didn't use AfD, PROD, etc in past days. But I used CSD in several times (A1, A3, etc). I thought, by dratifying the articles could improved than previous and thereby avoid deletion. I know it is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. But only tried to help the creators to preserve and improve their page until it meets the qualities to dwell in the mainspace (this is only when they meet no CSD criteria). Now I'll surely consider the advices given by you. I only try to move article to draftspace if the article have the quality of wikipedia page. I will consider whether the article is ready for Mainspace but also for draftspace. In some occasions the articles might have notability but the creator cannot show this in the article. This time it'll probably delete through AfD, but if we wait for some time the editor can add reliable sources. My assumptions may wrong. If it so, kindly please forgive to me. Apologies if I made any wrong things. Regards.PATH SLOPU 13:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Draft:AUTOCRYPT/AUTOCRYPT which has been deleted. Obviously you can't see the article now (I'm hopign you remember it because it was only a couple days ago) but I can tell you that should not have been DRAFTIED, it should have been nominated as G11.
I agree with you. That was a G11 candidate. PATH SLOPU 13:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Draft:PhatMojo does not clearly have merit in my opinion and if a BEFORE didn't indicate notability (and mine suggest it doesn't) it should have been sent to AfD.
  • Draft:Tom Thum was already rejected (not just denied). This suggests it doesn't have merit.
  • Draft:Silas Weir Roosevelt is an unsourced biography, but it's not BLP. I'm not sure he's notable. However, I think this was a poor candidate to draftify. If he's not notable the right action would have been to redirect to Cornelius Roosevelt.
  • Draft:Amor Eterno (song) and Draft:Famous (Mason Ramsey EP) also should have been redirected - if there's a notable album redirect songs to the album. If there's a notable artist redirect to them.
  • Draft:Joan Elwes again there's a redirect target. However there are also no BLP issues and some claim to her own notability.
  • Draft:Angela Babicz - do you know she's notable? If so DRAFTIFY is OK. If not you should have tried BLPPROD and then AfD.

It is OK to mark something reviewed which has no sources - if you know that it's notable. It's OK for something to be an unsourced stub and marked as reviewed. It's OK to nominate something for AfD or CSD if it should be deleted. Maybe 1 of those should be draftied. The rest should not have been. As for the other two:

  • Draft:Bordrin - this is a clearly incomplete article that doesn't stand on its own. It's not eligible for G11 but it is a corporation and so it will need high quality sources. Good draftify.
  • Draft:Hila Saada seems like she has a good chance of being notable and given BLP draftify was an appropriate choice.

Let me know if you have questions or need help with deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thank you for considering my request. I answered to some questions asked by you. Kindly please check. Regards.PATH SLOPU 13:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Please check this articles (unsourced) and also please see my comments. Am I right?
  • Chessworld.net-I don't see any serious copyvio (by Earwig's tool). So it should be draftified though there is some external links shows the verifiability.
This has now been deleted A7 which I agree with having looked at it. Barkeep49 (talk)
Advert tag might be appropriate. Not promo enough to be G11 in my opinion. If something is nominated for AfD you may always mark it as reviewed - AfD is doing the review. Barkeep49 (talk)
  • Anna Bansode-Surely notable since an MLA. Tagging with unsourced tag is better.
I agree he's notable. There is a link so it's not completely unsourced. But ref improved, stub, an uncategorized are all appropriate tags. Barkeep49 (talk)
I think you were right to review it. What were your doubts? Barkeep49 (talk)
  • Lee Hye-won-No sources help to pass notability. The person hasn't an independent identity (depend on husband). But it can considered since there is a mention that she is a model. So draftification may be better.
Yes this was a fair draftify target. It was draftified and since been improved Draft:Lee Hye-won Barkeep49 (talk)
A fair enough draftify target. Suppressing the redirect was 100% right. Barkeep49 (talk)
Not G14. There is 1 link but it doesn't end in disambiguation so it doesn't meet either criteria. Barkeep49 (talk)
What did you do to look at notability before you draftified? Barkeep49 (talk)
  • Gerd Uecker-It can be moved since the editor didn't edit although there is a {{in use}}
The further reading would have to be checked - they might really be sources. Barkeep49 (talk)

Please check.PATH SLOPU 14:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Path slopu: I want to acknowledge that I've seen this but I promised myself I would focus on doing some content today so I'm going to do that first and will reply when I'm done with that today or tomorrow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:No problem. It is entirely lies on your time and wish. I'll wait. PATH SLOP<spanabout 4 of th style="color:Darkorange">U 15:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I will come back to your questions after we finish this draftify conversation. You said that you had used A1 and A3 - in looking at your deleted contributions and your CSD log I only see 1 A1 and A3 both for the same article. I do see you've nominated 3 articles for speedy deletion since I wrote my concerns and all three were good nominations. Nicely done. I also see that you draftified 6 articles since I posted my concern. I have concerns about 4 of them and have moved them back to mainspace to get a second opinion from another new page reviewer - one of these even had a list of sources. Your error rate with draftify is too high right now. As such I am asking you to stop draftifying articles for the time being. If you would have draftified an article I would encourage you to instead use a form of deletion so you can get comfortable with them - if you're not sure which is the right one I'd be happy to answer the question. Please confirm for me that you will stop draftifying and focus on other kinds of deletions for right now. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:I've read the your advices. I won't try to draftify articles until I get sufficient experience. I will increase my skills by your training. I'll use the new page mover permission in other scenarios other than draftificaion. And as your suggestion I'll try to use deletion methods insted of draftification if needed. I'll ask advice from you if I come across with any situation needs draftification,. Your advices are so helpful to me. Thank you.PATH SLOPU 14:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I've left comments about the articles you mentioned above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:I've moved a page --Draft:Puthenkulam to draftspace because it needs more improvements. It is notable according to GEOLAND. Please check.PATH SLOPU 14:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I also found an issue. What issue did you find? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:I think it may be the link to the article itself.PATH SLOPU 13:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Path slopu: the issue I found is that Puthenkulam isn't mentioned in the source. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:I agree with you. But this place come under the document(it's about the census which is covered all place in India) even there is no mention. But it is not applicable for Wikipedia. So I removed it. But this is enough for verifiability. But don't know it would help to pass notability. So I am asking your consultation. There is more sources in internet. Thank you so much for the advice. PATH SLOPU 13:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Under WP:GEOLAND I suspect it would be notable. It really does seem to be a village. If it had a reasonable source for its information it would have been OK for mainspace. The only reason I think Draftify was OK here was because there was no source and it was such a short stub. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Hi greetings, I've found a new article from newpage feed Avon Terrace west side walking north from the Town Hall. There is no trace of notability and not likely to be a search title. Which one is appropriate here- move to draft (10% support) or deletion(90% support)? I think deletion is better. Am I right? Kindly please help.PATH SLOPU 13:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes Path slopu this should be deleted. I would suggest you bundle it with Avon Terrace west side walking south from 156 Avon Terrace and Avon Terrace east side walking south from 156 Avon Terrace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Hi greetings, I've draftified four articles today (seems notable, undersourced, draftspace will helpm creators to improve them until it meets the qualities to incubate in mainspace). You have told me to stop draftification. I moved this after some thinking, but needs expert's consultation as a second view.

Now I'm using extendedmover right for renaming different articles to common name (many of them needed round robin move) other than draftification. Also I've closed a RM request Júlio Coelho. Kindly please checkPATH SLOPU 15:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The move of Coelho is a good use of page mover. Good job there. As for the draftifies let me throw it back at you Path slopu. I think there is one clear "yes should be drafitied", one that's OK but maybe unnecessary, one that is somewhere between clear yes and maybe unnecessary so fine but not one that all reviewers would do, and one that should not have been draftified. Can you self-assess and say which description matches which article? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Thank you very much for the comments. I think them as following.

I don't know my assumptions are right. Please check. PATH SLOPU 15:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Barkeep49/NPP/Path_slopu&oldid=925670846"