User talk:Balloonman/CSD A7 survey

DGG's Review of your GA7s

Basiclly, you are correct that its less contentious.

• Comments from DGG:

comments:

1. Agree. Classic correct A7.
2. Ditto
3. Ditto
4. Agree, as the article is written. Interestingly, without the sentence bout what they consider their most notable accomplishments, it would be more difficult to interpret.
5. Agree, but only if it is confirmed there is nothing useful to be quickly found on Google
6. either A7 or nonsense; though it can be deciphered, it is overall nonsense, Since it amounts to playing games with WP, one could call it nonsense.
7. agree.
8. not sure. A professional skater might be a claim to fame, but after only 2 years? I would perhaps have Prodded.
9. agree, but I consider this classic A7 material as no common sense plausible claim & not worth extended treatment. I might equally call it a test page/
10. Agree. This was an absolutely incorrect A7. Prod or Afd. It will be deleted, but it mioght happen there are sufficient news references for either the church or candidacy.
11. Agree. I delete these as copyvio, while saying in the box "would be G11 promotional even if not copyvio." to discourage them from saying they have permission. Copyvio has the advantage over G11 that its an absolutely sure reason.
12. Not sure I agree. There might be sources, and they might be hard to find.
13. Not sure I agree. I'd agree only if a check shows nothing notable. I'd look at IMdB myself. People who start articles like this often forget to say, and the article just might be rescuable.
14. Agree, but that's because nothing more done in the 2nd round. Otherwise I would at least leave a personalized note suggesting writing more. In practice, though, very very few HS students are actually notable.
15. Disagree totally. Invalid A7. Saying that an airline has ordered 10 airplanes is an assertion of notability. This needs a more careful check for sources than is appropriate for speedy.
16. Agree, but I do them as test pages usually
17. Ditto. that the author didn't say where makes it clearly just a test. Nobody would even do this for a social networking page.
18. Agree. Invalid A7, but I do not think it a subious one. If an article says this much there might be sources tht the work has been noticed.
19. Agree
20. Agree, but would call it test a less of a put-down DGG (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Amalthea's Review

• My take. First of all, A7 is only asking for an indication of importance, while you require a "claim to notability" in your review. It's worded that way to stress that it's a lower standard than notability.

1. I find this one less clear cut than you and DGG do. The "is currently working on many film projects" can be an indication of importance or significance. Per google and imdb I agree that it doesn't make a credible claim of importance, so it's an A7.
5. OK per the article, but the topic might actually be notable enough for an article, per google. It's at the very least a plausible search term for John Currin.
9. I know it's currently discussed again, but in practise A7 has always required a credible claim of importance (and it used to be written into the criterion, but was recently removed).
13. Correct per the letter of A7, but with articles on actors it never hurts to take a look into the imdb profile.
15. What DGG said: a passenger airline with Tu-204 and A318 size planes has an implicit claim of significance.

Cheers, Amalthea 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• BTW, following this edit I guess you should mark all the surveys with __NOINDEX__, or at least move the reproduced articles to non-indexed pages. The contents might have been released under the GFDL, but placing them in the context of a list of non-notable people/groups, accessible via search engine, can be hurtful to the topics. --Amalthea 04:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  ETA: everything in /wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ is similarily excluded from indexing through the robots.txt. --Amalthea 16:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessments by Seraphimblade

My assessments of what happened with these.

1

Agreed, no assertion of notability, valid A7.

2

Easily valid.

3

Valid.

4

No assertion of notability, so valid A7, poor writing aside.

5

Valid A7, an independent reliable source would be a notability assertion, but not a source written by the subject, and no other assertion.

6

Exactly the type of garbage A7 is meant to take out. (Agreed G3 could apply just as easily.)

7

At least from the translation Google can provide, which seems pretty close, no notability assertion.

8

No notability assertion, valid A7.

9

Certainly a valid A7. "Most (insert term that means effectively nothing) in the world" is not a notability assertion, and the claim has to be at least remotely credible.

10

I would probably prod myself, but candidacy for a state office and founding a church are not claims to any especial significance. Valid A7.

11

Agree that copyvios should be deleted as such, it if nothing else lets others know that we should not restore the material for any reason.

12

Valid.

13

Valid.

14

Valid, and certainly true about "More coming later!"

15

No assertion this company is notable. Valid.

16

Certainly valid.

17

Exactly why we have A7.

18

Very marginal whether "I've been in commercials" is an assertion of notability. I'd lean toward prod myself but can't really say this was invalid, I can see saying "That's not a claim of any significance", and couldn't realistically argue with it.

19

Exactly why A7 includes organizations too.

20

Clearly valid.

Conclusion

I'm rather surprised to see this is where we agree the most, A7 is usually one of the more contentious areas. In general, though, I find myself in agreement with most of your assessments, and the cases you found borderline I tend to agree that they're borderline but probably not flat invalid. Also see no errors out of 20 cases, a couple of decisions I personally would have done differently, but no flat out "That was really dumb" ones. I think this one is the most interesting of all the data so far.

My personal speculation is that because of past contentiousness surrounding A7, the guidelines have been fairly well defined. I find most of the mistakes in A1 or G1.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)