Thanks to Worm That Turned for constructing some of the pages linked to.
Below are a number of articles which may meet one or more of the speedy deletion criteria. For each example, say whether the article is an appropriate candidiate for speedy deletion, and which criterion it should be deleted under (some may be eligible under more than one). If you don't think it should be speedily deleted, say what you would do instead (if anything).
Assume unless otherwise stated that all of these are found in article space.
1. Danille Stross
A. Speedy deletion because of the criteria A7, A1 and A3
A7 certainly applies. A1 is debatable, but permissable. A3 definitely wouldn't be considered; it's primarily for pages that are completely devoid of content, which this isn't. You could also have used G3 (vandalism) or G2 (test page), which most admins would accept for articles like this.
2. Waichi
A. Criteria A2 as when I googled the articles the person resembled of importance and notability but language is to be english. But this article is not to be deleted for, it has good third party resources . Tagging for clean up.
- A2 is only for foreign language articles that already exist on another Wikipedia (in this case the Finnish version, which (to the best of my knowledge) does not have an article on this topic). A common mistake is to use A2 for any article in a foreign language, which isn't the point of the criterion. In this case, tagging for clean up (with
{{Not English}}) and listing at Pages needing translation would be an appropriate course of action. However, if you're really on the ball, you'd tag this with A10: Duplicate of an existing page, since it's a word-for-word translation of the existing article, Sugiyama Waichi.
3. Zack de Vries
A. A7. No indication of importance and No third party sources or a single reference
- A7 would be a hard sell on this one - numerous ad campaigns and catwalk appearances would constitute a claim to importance (and could be construed as passing WP:NMODEL#1, which would also make him notable). The lack of sources is a reason for deletion, but not speedy deletion - this article would be a candidate for WP:BLPPROD.
4. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barry Ross
This example should be treated as an AfC submission
A. A7. No indication of importance and A1. No context as the person has almost no reason to be notable for an article on wikipedia and
In article space A7 (but not A1) would apply. However, this is not an article, it's an AFC submission, meaning that it's in the Wikipedia Talk namespace. As such, none of the A tags are applicable; the only appropriate tags in AFC are G2, G3, G10 and G12. The appropriate action here would be to decline the AFC submission citing lack of sources.
5. Alfreld Herchkerck
A. R2 as it redirects to the original page and A10 as it duplicated the existing topic.
- Right category, wrong criterion; this is an implausible typo and therefore falls under R3. A10 doesn't apply to redirects.
6. Blgah
A. G3 and A3 the reason : its a rubbish page.
- I can see the arguments for both of those, but this is a classic example of a page that should be removed under G1:Patent nonsense; that's far and away the most appropriate tag.
7. Portland Square Bombing
A. A1. No context although it has sufficient importance as when a person googles the subject there are significant pages showing the notability.
- It's clear that you're struggling with A1, from this and some of the answers above. A1 applies in cases where you can't figure out what the article is about. If you can tell what the page is trying to decribe (in this case, a historical event), then A1 isn't the right tag. In this case, the most appropriate action would be to leave the page alone entirely or tag it for cleanup.
8. User:Chest McFlink
This example should be treated as a userpage
A. A7 no importance and lack of notabiilty.
- Since this is a userpage - not an article - A-tags don't apply. You could have perhaps used G11: Blatant advertising, but a more sensible approach would have been to warn the user on their talkpage that their userpage was inappropriate, and (if they refuse to change it) nominate it for MFD.
9. Tsutomu Yukawa
A. Tag the article for clean up and rewriting but not for deletion.
Exactly.
10. Johnny Awesome
A. A7 as the article has no importance.
A7 applies if it appears that the article is a genuine attempt to write an encyclopedic page about an unimportant subject. If you take this page seriously, the claim of a chart-topping hit single would constitute an indication of notability. In this case, though, the text makes it obvious that this is at best a hoax (G3) or more likely, an attack page (G10). Either of these tags would be much more applicable.