User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes
|This page in a nutshell: A7 (and by extension A9 and A11) should only be used in clear-cut cases when there is no reason whatsoever to assume that a certain subject might warrant inclusion in Wikipedia and there is no reasonble alternative to deletion.|
Of all the criteria for speedy deletion, A7 (and by extension A9 and A11) is probably the one that gets misapplied the most. This page serves to outline common mistakes and strives to provide a list of claims that make an article's subject important or significant enough to fail speedy deletion.
|“||An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.||”|
The big mistakes
The following criteria are often, mistakenly, used when applying A7:
- "Subject is not notable"
- A7 is not about notability. The wording clearly states that the standard for A7 is lower than that, using "important or significant" instead.
- "No sources" / "No references"
- A7 is not about whether the indications of "importance or significance" can be verified. An article does not have to have inline citations or sources, let alone reliable sources to fail A7. Those are concerns for an articles for deletion discussion.
- Limited scope
- A7 only applies to real people, individual animals (not species), organisations, individual events and web content. It does not apply to books, films, albums (see A9 for that), fictional characters, locations (considered inherently notable anyway), buildings, games, software, products or anything else.
- Retagging declined speedies
- This is a mistake people make with every criterion. Admins are allowed to decline deleting a page even if the tagging was correct. This is a binding decision for everyone involved and it should not be retagged for the same reason and, as one can assume that admins consider all applicable criteria, none other (except valid G10 and G12 taggings). If an admin decided that a page should not be speedy deleted, do not retag it for speedy deletion but rather choose alternative venues like WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Retagging may be viewed as attempted admin shopping. Of course, this does not apply if circumstances change after the declined tagging or if new circumstances become known that the first admin declining the tag could not consider. For example, re-tagging as G7 when the user requests deletion after the declining or as G3 if it turns out that the page was created for vandalism-purposes.
Common indications of importance or significance
- → This list can now be found at Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance
|This section is retained as an archive. The list has been moved to the aforementioned stand-alone essay.|
The following lists common claims in articles incorrectly tagged with A7. If the article makes any of these claims, it almost certainly does not meet A7.
Handling articles about potentially significant or important subjects
The aforementioned section mentions a lot of common indicators why A7 should not be applied to the subject in question. Those are, however, not reasons why the article should be kept. If you encounter an article about a subject that is potentially significant or important according to these indicators, check whether it also is notable enough for a stand-alone article. If it isn't, remember the alternatives. If significance or importance is indicated because of an association with a notable subject, consider merging and/or redirecting to the subject's article. Otherwise, see if there are suitable lists or other entries that can benefit from the inclusion of this information. In most cases, any article about a subject that meets one of the aforementioned indicators will not have to be deleted, even if the subject does not merit its own article.
- Version as of 19:12, 4 January 2015
- See also: Wikipedia:Why I hate Speedy Deleters#The difference between "may" and "must".
- An article that only passes this kind of test actually meets A7's wording, although not its spirit. A7 is to weed out the autobios, myspace bands and other things where there is no realistic chance that they will become encyclopedic. If there is a chance that they are encyclopedic, they should rather be improved than tagged for A7.
- See also: Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #6