User:Rosguill/Asparagusus NPPSCHOOL

Hello, welcome to your New Page Patrol School page! Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your NPP School page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working).

Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Notability as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

How to use this page

This page will be built up over your time in the School, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

If both the instructor and student make completing the course curriculum a top priority, it will generally take around a month to go through the entirety of the curriculum. This pace is not required or necessarily expected, but rather is provided in order to give participants an idea of what to expect. It is also worth stressing that NPP's focus is on "quality, not quantity" so there should not be a rush to complete assignments.

Notability

PART 1

Questions

Question 1

In your own words, how is notability defined on Wikipedia?

Notability on Wikipedia is one of the main guidelines that decides if a topic/subject warrants its own article. Depending on the type, a subject is usually notable if reliable, independent sources give significant coverage of it. Notability is not presumed just because the creator of an article believes it so; it must be verifiable based on these sources. It is also important to stress that specific subjects can be notable; the subject must be defined before it can be made into an article. A subject is not notable just because notable people are related to it (for instance, if celebrities (not professional reviewers of a subject) have expressed positive opinions on the subject or if someone is known for being friends with a celebrity).

Y

Question 2

Would step by step instructions on "How to change a car tire" be considered a notable topic in Wikipedia? Why or why not?

This would not be notable per WP:NOTHOWTO. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate, undefined collection of knowledge; it is an encyclopedia. Instructions are (pretty much) inherently WP:POV. Ways of doing something may, and often do, differ from person to person. It would be a whole mess if we just let people publish them.

Y

Question 3

What are the differences between the WP:GNG and the subject-specific notability guidelines? How do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article?

The general notability guideline works when one cannot figure out what subject-specific notability guideline to apply, but it's often better if the reviewer can find the latter. The subject-specific notability guidelines exist for a reason; sometimes the GNG is too vague or not defined enough for particular subjects. The GNG cannot cover everything; otherwise, it would be hard to decipher. It only gives general parent rules that should be elaborated on per category. If a reviewer were to use the GNG instead of WP:NBIO to review a biography, they could be wrong in their decision.

N, GNG applies to all articles, regardless of whether a relevant SNG exists. SNGs are best thought of as heuristics or shortcuts to establishing notability, based on criteria that editors have agreed are highly indicative that a subject meets GNG. We'll examine SNGs more closely in the next few exercises. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Subject-specific notability guidelines

1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines) into the following three categories

Primarily additional criteria that are likely to indicate notability

• WP:NFILM Y the NFF section makes this more of a category 3 in my view.
• WP:NASTRO Y
• WP:NBOOK Y
• WP:NMUSIC Y, the BANDMEMBER section makes this more of a category 3 in my view
• WP:NBIO Y

Primarily additional considerations that define or restrict the nature of coverage or sources required

• WP:NEVENT Y
• WP:NGEO N this is definitely a category 1 guideline, with extensive additional criteria for inclusion provided in the GEOFEAT section
• WP:NNUMBER N, I think this is a category 3 guideline, with some negative criteria about consolidating related names, but also several positive criteria for the inclusion of numbers with interesting properties.

Even mix of the previous two categories

• WP:NACADEMIC N this is a category 1 guideline, as it only provides additional criteria for the establishment of notability.
• WP:NORG N, this is a category 2 guideline, as the most notoriously strict set of additional negative criteria and no additional positive provisions.
• WP:NSPORT N this one has changed a fair amount following RfCs last year, but it still primarily comprises additional criteria for inclusion and does not condition the kinds of sources that may be used to establish notability, even though it has fewer inclusion criteria than it once did.
• WP:NWEB Y I would place this in category 1, as it specifies that notability can be established by way of an award, and the other criterion just restates GNG. For what it's worth, this is not a terribly useful SNG. In my opinion, the most important information in the guideline is the instructions of alternatives to deletion to consider if notability is not established

Asparagusus (interaction) 13:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

2. Virtually all SNGs that provide additional notability criteria specify that these criteria may indicate that the subject meets notability guidelines. How would you interpret this caveat as a new page reviewer?

Even if the subject meets the SNG, they may not meet the GNG and should also be evaluated on those criteria. Asparagusus (interaction) 20:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Y

Feedback on prior exercise

I marked a fair number of the answers in the guideline-categorization exercise as incorrect. Do you have any questions about this section before we move on? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any questions. I'm sorry about missing so many; I probably should've asked you when I was confused about what the categories meant. Asparagusus (interaction) 02:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Scenarios

For scenarios 1-6 review just based on "subject notability guidelines" (SNG) "alone" for sake of the exercise. Do not consider any sources or other policies. Please answer if the subject meets the SNG guidelines based on the given content below, and specify which notability criteria they meet or fail.

Scenario 1

An editor creates an article about "2028 Summer Olympics" without providing any sources

• WP:NOLYMPICS
• SNG does not confer notability. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Y

Scenario 2

A New York city based 2020 start up software company , specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund.

• SNG does not confer notability. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Y

Scenario 3

Guram Kutateladze who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 12-2.

• Delete: Has not been ranked in the top 10 in his division on Fight Matrix or Sherdog —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 23:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Y

Scenario 4

An upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, which will be in production in December 2022 and to be released on August 2023 in the cinemas.

• (I assume the dates are meant to be in the future)
• The film has yet to start production
• Delete or Draftify: The film does not meet the inclusionary criteria for upcoming films, which state that the film has to have been confirmed by reliable sources to have started production. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 23:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Y, you're right we need to update this prompt. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Scenario 5

A political candidates, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2020 election for a Senator position in United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy.

• Delete: They are still a candidate. Local newspapers do not establish notability. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 23:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Y

Scenario 6

A singer who self produced his first album in May 2019 and his songs are listed in Spotify.

• Has not had any music chart
• Has not had a record certified gold
• Has not been on a reliably-sourced national/international tour
• Does not use a label
• Has not been nominated/won a major award
• Has not won a music competition
• Songs aren't notable
• Has not been on a radio
• (other criteria do not confer notability)
• Delete: singer is not notable per WP:BAND. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Y

Sources

Background for trainees

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, claims made in articles should be supported by independent (secondary), reliable sources for verification. Please read WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:RSP, WP:V, WP:PROVEIT, WP:Primary, WP:Secondary, and WP:Tertiary. WP:NPPSG may be a useful reference for looking up the reliability of a source that has been discussed before on Wikipedia.

You can contact WP:RX if you could not find the sources yourself either on the web due to paywalls or offline-only sources.

---

Exercises

1.

Topic	Definition	5 Examples	Comment by Trainer
Reliable source		(example)The Guardian newspaper
User generated sources
Non Independent source

2.

Type	Definition	Examples (15 Primary ; 5 Secondary ; 5 Tertiary)	Comment by Trainer
Primary		(example) scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results
Secondary		(example) newspaper
Tertiary		(example) encyclopedias