Wikipedia:FLAG-BIO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New pages patrol editors should use this protocol if you feel that a new article fails WP:BIO, or if you plan to apply a {{Db-person}} to an article and generate the concern:

It is an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)

You may also follow these steps to tag it for a proposed deletion if you think that a speedy deletion may be premature.

  1. Put {{Flag-article}} on the Discussion page (announce your intention)
  2. Put {{Flag-editor}} on the author's Talk page (Welcome the newbie)
  3. Put {{Prod}} or {{Db-person}} on the Article
  4. MOVE ON

If you are an inclusionist, then you can use this protocol to flag articles and editors for cleanups during some future session, in which case the 3rd Step becomes, "Put some lipstick on this pig." :-)

Your initial reason for considering the article for deletion may be lack of any Attribution whatsoever, but remember that is not grounds for an A7 speedy delete:

It is the author's responsibility to find reliable source references, but just because there are none currently in the article does not mean that none can be found by a simple Google search … if you do not have time to look for them at the moment, then flag the article for further review later.

Note: Inclusionist editors can also apply these flag templates to mark articles for improvement during another session.

1st Step: Flag the article[edit]

Assume that the Discussion page has never been edited, i.e., it's a virgin page … "Edit" this section to copy the stencil material and then paste it on the article's Discussion page … if it already has a {{Talk header}}, then edit/work around it so that this new sections appear at the end.

Note that this stencil also includes a {{WPBiography |living=yes |class=Stub}} template … add/change fields as appropriate, e.g., |living=no.

{{Talk header}}
{{WPBiography |living=yes |class=Stub}}
__TOC__
{{subst:Flag-article|EditorName|Biographies|header=1|noassist=1}} — ~~~~
… other comments
{{Category:Place of birth missing (living people)]]

Remove the "|noasist=1" parameter if you are feeling helpful, and don't forget the edit summary:

"Talk header – 1st contact"

2nd Step: Alert the author[edit]

Assume that the author is a newbie because their Talk page has never been edited, i.e., it's a virgin page … "Edit" this section to copy the stencil material and then paste it on the author's Talk page … if it already has a {{Talk header}} or a {{Welcome}}, then edit/work around it.

{{subst:Welcome}}
{{subst:Flag-editor|ArticleName|Biographies|header=1|noassist=1}} — ~~~~

See "Lacks WP:A to verify WP:BIO" for another boilerplate you may wish to add.

See John Q. Public, an Example of a stub with good WP:A for WP:BIO that you may or may not wish to reference during this First Contact with the author … it provides an example of using the {{cite news}} template and <ref name=fubar> tags for multiple citations from the same source … you may want to save it for a follow-up message if the author ever gets back to you … no point in posting it on the Talk page of a newbie editor with no prior edit history, for example, or any editor that you suspect will never be coming back.

I usually save the example for my reply to their "WTF gives you the right to delete my article?" response to the courtesy warning … use this to vent instead of rising to the bait. :-)

Remove the "|noasist=1" parameter if you are feeling helpful, and don't forget the edit summary:

"Flagging ArticleName for further review"

Removal of speedy deletion tag[edit]

Note that {{Flag-editor}} also includes the following {{Uw-speedy1}} template in a comment at the end … this is in case the author removes the {{Db-person}} and you (or Some Other Editor) need to give them a warning … just remove the comment tags and you have a generic warning in front of your previous signature.

<!--
===Removal of speedy deletion tag===
{{subst:Uw-speedy1}} … DO NOT remove the {{tl|Db}} tag yourself! 
I have restored it … please read [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]] 
and don't do it again, or you may get [[WP:BLOCK|blocked]] from editing here.
-->

3rd Step: Tag the article[edit]

The decision to use a {{Prod}}} or a {{Db-person}} is a judgment call, and the former should be used in preference if you think that the article is redeemable if given more time for attribution and improvement. If you choose to PROD an article:

{{subst:Prod|Article lacks [[WP:Attribution|]] to [[WP:Verify|]]
[[WP:BIO]] or [[WP:BLP]] notability criteria.}}

    -- or --

{{Db-person}}

And don't forget to notify the author:

"{{subst:Proposed deletion notify|ArticleName}} — ~~~~"

or

"{{subst:nn-warn|ArticleName|header=1}} — ~~~~"

Multiple issues[edit]

This is also a good opportunity for inclusionists to add some other tags and categories as appropriate. This {{Multiple issues}} boilerplate contains some of the most common parameters … remove any that are not appropriate.

{{Multiple issues
|advert= May 2015
|cleanup= May 2015
|coi= May 2015
|copyedit= May 2015
|notability= May 2015
|npov= May 2015
|orphan= May 2015
|primarysources= May 2015
|unreferenced= May 2015
|wikify= May 2015
}}

    … article as submitted by author (with token cleanups)

{{Stub}}
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Year of birth missing (living people)]]
<!-- if appropriate … -->[[Category:Year of death missing]]

Researching reliable sources and doing WikiGnome grammar and WP:MOS cleanups is sometimes called, "putting lipstick on a pig." :-)

4th Step: MOVE ON[edit]

Everybody likes "closure" … I make a list from my edit history, using the "Talk header – 1st contact" edit summary as the key … my "watchlist" is just links to the Discussion pages that I created in the First Step … when they go redlink, I delete them and MOVE ON.

If it's still there after 24 hours, then I click it to see if anyone has added a message … if there has been no movement since I tagged it, then I MOVE ON.

But if it's still there because a CSD has been declined or removed by the author, or a PROD has been reverted without comment, then I revisit the First Step and take it up a notch … I post messages on the Discussion page announcing my plans to escalate, and then I put the following boilerplate message on the Talk pages of all of the editors involved so far:

==[[article-name]]==

Hello … please see Talk:article-name for my most recent comments on it's speedy deletion being declined … please add your comments on that Discussion page so we don't fragment the conversations … Happy Editing! —~~~~

THEN I can do whatever I said I was going to do on the Discussion page, and MOVE ON.

If a Discussion page still has not gone redlink after a week, then you may assume that:

  • it's already been revisited at least once already
  • Some Other Editor has declined it since your last visit, but they neglected to ping you.

This means it's time to either:

(a) consider whether you want to try to improve the article by searching for evidence of notability,
(b) involve the rest of the community with an AfD, or else
(c) delete it from your watchlist and MOVE ON.