User:Cassiopeia/NPPS/Danre98

Hello, welcome to your New Page Patrol School page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. 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 Academy, 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.

PART 1

When patrolling or reviewing an article, you may often come across articles do not meet the WP:N guidelines, but the editors make the edits in good faith. Please read WP:AGF and do not WP:BITE the new editors.

A. Notability is a test guidelines to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article in Wikipedia mainspace. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, General Notability Guidelines, Specific Notability Guidelines, Stand-alone list before completing the following tasks.

1. In your own words, why it is important to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE new editors.

Answer: It's important to assume good faith of new editors because people generally try to do right and new editors are probably unaware of many Wikipedia policies and guidelines instead of being deliberately malicious. Experienced editors need to be patient and not bite new editors because being impatient and telling them everything they are doing "wrong" might scare them away. Every longer-time editor started out as a new editor; new editors that stick around are needed to have experienced editors on this project.

Y. Newcomers often make mistakes unknowingly for they are might not be be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines. If we "bite" / criticise them harshly, they might feel that their contribution to the project is not welcome and might be scared them away from Wikipedia. Instead, we assume good faith in a friendly manner to educate them about Wikipedia guidelines and correct their mistake. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

2. In your own words, how does notability is defined in Wikipedia?

Answer: Notability is defined as "worthy of notice" or worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (as a standalone article). More specifically, this means that the subject either has independent significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:GNG) or meet a criteria that shows sourcing probably exists (WP:SNG). In addition, the subject must be part of what Wikipedia is and not what it's not (WP:NOT).

Y. The subject need to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject where by the sources talk "directly" about the subject in depth and in length and not only passing mentioned. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

3. Does a step by step instructions on how to "Change a car tire" considered a notable topic in Wikipedia?

Answer: No, per Wikipedia:NOTMANUAL, Wikipedia is not a manual. Step by step instructions means that the article would be a manual. The topic step by step instructions on how to change a car tire is not notable.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

4. What are the differences between A WP:GNG and a specific notability guidelines? how do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article?

Answer: The difference between the GNG and a SNG is that the GNG is the verifiability of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (as in the sources can be readily found) where most SNGs predict the existence of such coverage. Some SNGs provide additional guidance and some (like WP:GEOLAND) differ substantially from the GNG. When patrolling an article, the GNG is used first to try to establish notability. If it is determined it is not met then an SNG may be used to establish notability. However, if the topic is part of what Wikipedia is not (per WP:NOT) then neither set of guidelines is used. If an article topic falls under what Wikipedia is not, meeting the GNG or an SNG cannot establish notability.

Y GNG is applied across all articles regardless of the subject. SNGs established verifiability of sources and notability of topics for specific subject fields. Both can be used when patrolling; however, SNG/SSG (Specific Notability guidelines /Sport specify guidance) does not superseded GNG but those subject falls under SNG/SSG (sport specific guidelines) but fails to meet the GNG guidelines, usually would survive the AfD (article for deletion). Example: certain subjects would not meet GNG due to the fact that no article talk about them directly in length and in dept such the academics- WP:PROF - who would received few or none independence sources talk about them but we would see BBC write an article about car stuck in a tree see here but not the President of Australian National University would be hard to find) Other SGN such as WP:NCORP and WP:NASTRO specify a very strict set of source criteria and requirements respectively.10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

5. If an editor creates an article about "2024 Summer Olympics" in 2019 without providing any sources, is the subject considered not notable and why?

Answer: The subject would still be considered notable because preparations and the bidding process for an Olympic games start several years before the actual event and there is enough coverage to write a verifiable article. Olympics several years away are not notable, however Olympics in 5 years is probably notable. If an editor created in article about the 2040 summer olympics in 2019, it probably would not be notable per WP:CRYSTAL. It doesn't matter that the editor failed to provide sourcing- notability is based on the existence of sources not the state of sourcing in the article per WP:NEXIST.

Y. Olympics host country would be selected 8 years prior the event date, so sources could be found easily in the internet. For a reveiwer or even an editor, if we know about the subject well and know there are IRS out there could be found, (sources can be in any languages as long as they are IRS), then as a good practice we search for the sources (inline citation) and add them in the article so they could pass the GNG/SSG/SNG. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

B. Without considered of sources/content policies and review just based on "subject specific notability" (SSN) "alone" for sake of the exercises below, please answer if the subject meets the SSN guidelines, based on the given content below, and specify under (1) which notability criteria they meet or fail (example - MUSICBI#1 if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations.

6. A New York city based 2021 start up software company , specializing in data mining, has just received a USD 200K investor fund.

Answer: This start up software company would not be considered notable with the given information because a large quantity of something does not mean something is notable (WP:BIG). Simply having a 200k investor fund does not make a start up notable, but the existence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources does make a company or organization notable (WP:NCORP). There is no information in this example to support the existence of such sources.

Y The question above is to be answered without considered the sources (Pls read section B again). Many company articles such as a start up company, normally it would not pass find SSN or GNG but is created for promotion. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

7. Tagir Ulanbekov who is a Ultimate Fighting Championships fighters with the undefeated mixed martial arts record of 10-1.

Answer: The applicable SNG, WP:NMMA, has three criteria. WP:NMMA#2 is not met because Tagir has not fought for the top title of a top tier MMA organization. WP:NMMA#3 is not met because the subject hasn't been ranked top 10 on sherdog and is currently ranked 25th on FightMatrix (up from 26, historical). That leaves WP:NMMA#1. This requires 3 fights for a top tier MMA organization (defined by WP:MMATIER). The subject's most recent fight (Oct 2020) was in the UFC, so that is one. The subject has had several fight for Gorrila Fights and AMC Fight Nights but neither are listed at WP:MMATIER so none count for the criteria. The subject also has had a fight each from Pride Fighting Show and Fight Star, among other organizations. However, none are listed at WP:MMATIER so the subject only has one fight counting towards WP:NMMA#1, failing that criterion. The subject failed the criteria and is not notable under the applicable SNG.

Y. Cassiopeia talk

8. A upcoming action drama title "Suleiman the Great" based on the the life of Suleiman the Magnificent, was reported will be in production in December 2021 and to be released on August 2022 in the cinemas.

Answer: Per WP:NFF, the action drama is not notable because it hasn't started production yet and there might be issues that come up in pre production that might hamper release of the action drama. In line with WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia should not have an article on something in the future unless it is almost certain to take place (or coverage in sources is sufficient) and a film in the early stages of becoming a film is not a sure film.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

9. A political candidates, without any previous or current political position, who is running for November 2021 election for a Senator position in United States with multiple local newspapers coverage of his candidacy.

Answer: The candidate isn't notable simply by running for a Senator position per WP:NPOL. The common outcome for candidates is that they are often deleted or merged. In addition, because this candidate is probably notable for only one event, the article should be made on the event and not the person per WP:BIO1E. Even the event may not be notable because it doesn't have a large scope (local only, per WP:GEOSCOPE) and may not have lasting coverage (per WP:PERSISTENCE, although only time would tell whether it would receive coverage afterwards). The political candidate isn't notable and the event might not be either.

Y. Almost all politician do received local coverage during the campaign period. That would not could count as part of WP:NPOL guidelines, unless the coverage is something else of the subject besides the political campaign and it is supported by significant coverage of independent, reliable sources. We would accept the article if the subject has "won" the election but yet to assume the office. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

10. A singer who self produced his first album in May 2020 and his songs are listed in Spotify.

Answer: The SSN located at WP:SINGER has 14 criteria so I will not be listing each one as too time consuming. Nothing about Spotify is listed in the SSN so it probably isn't notable. Simply having songs on Spotify does not make the singer notable. The songs need to be gold in at least one country (WP:SINGER#3), published in multiple albums by a major record label (not self published, WP:SINGER#5), or meet a different criterion listed at WP:SINGER. Spotify is not enough to establish notability.

Y Subject fails every WP:SINGER criteria. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

C. Based on which SSN guidelines the below subjects are notable under (1) which notability criteriaMUSICBI#1 (if certain sub set of criteria is applicable) and (2) reasons/explanations

11. Carlos Alós-Ferrer

Answer: The applicable SNG is WP:NPROF. It seems like he would be notable through WP:NPROF#8, as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Economic Psychology. It is a major, well, established journal in his subject area (he is a professor of neuroeconomic theory). He also probably meets WP:NPROF#1 as Google Scholar and Scopus have him at over 1,000 citations, with h-indexes above 20.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

12. Alistair Overeem

Answer: Both WP:NMMA and WP:NKICK are applicable. The subject definitely meets WP:NMMA#1 with ~20 UFC fights. He also meets WP:NMMA#3, currently ranking number 9 on Sherdog and currently ranked number 8 on Fight Matrix, with a top ranking of no. 2. He also meets WP:NMMA#2 as he was the heavyweight champion for Strike Force which was a top tier MMA organization according to WP:MMATIER. Alistair also meets WP:KICK#1 as the champion of the K-1 World Grand Prix 2010 Final which counts as a major organization.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

13. Jennifer Lopez

Answer: There are two applicable SNGs: WP:NACTOR and WP:SINGER. Jennifer Lopez meets WP:NACTOR#1 as she has starred in several notable films as shown by Jennifer Lopez#Filmography. She also meets WP:ENT#3 as her awards seem to indicate her contributions to her field are profilic. She definitely meets WP:SINGER#1 as the subject of multiple non trivial publishedw works. Jennifer meets WP:SINGER#2 as in the US alone she reached #1 for a few albums/songs (Billboard). The subject meets WP:SINGER#3 as she has multiple golds/platinums from the RIAA alone. Lopez also meets WP:SINGER#4 as Dance Again World Tour received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. She also meets WP:SINGER#5 as (in addition to other albums) J.Lo (album) and This Is Me... Then were released by Epic Records, a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment which is a major label. Jennifer meets WP:SINGER#8 as Let's Get Loud won a Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording.

Y. The subject is notable (1) under SINGER#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #8, #11, #12 and (2) NACTOR#1, #2, #3. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

14. Three Mile Island accident

Answer: WP:NEVENTS applies here. This event meets WP:EVENTCRIT#1 because it has lasting effect (also meeting the GNG and has historical significance)- a significant point in the advancement of nuclear power (Three Mile Island accident#cite note-71). The number of reactors under construction declined and, afterwards, no nuclear power plant was authorized to begin construction until 2012 in the United States. It's also one of the factors that led to a decline in new reactors globally (File:Nuclear_power_history.svg).

Y. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

15. Persepolis

Answer: WP:NGEO applies here. It meets WP:GEOLAND#1 as it used to be a populated, legally recognized city and notability encompasses its entire history. Because it is also a World Heritage Site [1] that is artificial, it also meets WP:GEOFEAT#1.

Y. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Danre98 Good day. See assignment 1 above. For all the assignments, pls provide hist diffs (as per diffs instruction here) of the articles, reverts, edits, reports, results of the reports, guidelines, talk page messages, and any hist diff that is applicable. Pls provide guidelines where applicable and justify/explain in details of your application or analysis. Pls ping me if you need assistance (here in this program page at the communication section of every assignment). Please book mark this page and ping me when you have finished the assignment for me to review. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I have completed this assignment and am submitting it for review. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia It's been a week, pinging you in case you missed the ping above. I've completed this assignment and am submitting it for review. If it's taking you a while to review the assignment that's fine, I'm ok with delays. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 05:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Danre98 Sorry for the delay. See my comments above. Btw I am disappointed that you look at look at other participants work for your answers. This program is designed for you to read the material/guidelines and answer the questions yourself so you would understand the topics of this program. If you look at the answers for so you may copy then it not only defeat the purpose for you to learn and not only you would not do well in final exam. I suggest you to the rightful for yourself and I who design the program and respect this program to read the reading material and answer the questions with you what you know. Cassiopeia talk 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Thanks for reviewing, I'll read your comments. I did not look at other participants work for my answers. The only time I for no more than 2 seconds looked at other participants was to see how long the program is by scrolling through the page without reading anything. I did not read and take in other participant's answers. I understand that I will not learn as much if I look at and copy other participants answers and defeat the purpose of the program. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 14:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It makes sense for it to be good practice to add the appropriate sources to articles so that they clearly pass the GNG/SNG/SSG. When reviewing articles about organizations or corporations I would need to watch especially for advertising or promotion. I will keep that in mind. How would I verify criterion WP:SINGER#11 and WP:SINGER#12 for Jennifer Lopez (and others)? I'm not sure how to do that. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Is there anything you want me to do? I am curious as to why you think I cheated and looked at other participants' work for my answers. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Danre98 Certain answers in the assignment cant be found in the reading material/links provided. You gave an answer with external link which no participant could provided even they are experience editor. I am a trainer no only for NPPS but for other program as well which is a lot more easy than NPPS. Those participant who looked at the other participant program and copied the answers or those who I suspected they did, none of them in all the programs I trained either abandoned the program half way or in the final exam because they cant answer the practical questions and some of them were banned for other reason. We the trainers take a lot of personal time to review and to discuss with the participants and I do not appreciate when a chance was given to you to admit what you have done, and respect the program, for you have done and yet you didnt. I do not wish to be your trainer as I dont want to waste my time who does not want to learn and do then necessary work so they would know how to review article when they become a reviewer. Rome is not build in one day Danre98 and there is no short cut to acquire certain achievements. Do continue to edit Afghanistan related articles for they do need a lot of help from editors which I believe we dont have enough of such editors. Stay safe. Cassiopeia talk 00:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia I understand not wanting to be my trainer if I cheated because then I would be a waste of your and time is a precious resource. I thank you for taking the time to review my answers for this assignment and communicate with me as I understand you used some of your time to do that. I agree there is no shortcut because if I cheated my way through a course what good will it do when I am reviewing new articles? I did not admit that I cheated because I truly didn't cheat. I could explain why I provided external links but as you no longer wish to be my trainer which I understand I will stop wasting your time. And yes, with the lack of editors and especially with the new regime Afghanistan articles need a lot of work. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

---