User talk:Deepfriedokra/g11: Difference between revisions

`

I use this as a template message to educate those whose pages I delete per WP:G11. But it's geared more toward biographies. What catchphrases and content help you recognise a G11 biography? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to track down a mystery colonel so I've not much free time, but let me put some thought into this and i'll come back to it a little later on. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks pretty good just as it is, although I am sure it could be improved further. I look for such things as statements of opinion or adjectives of quality not part of cited quotations, excessive history; mission statements for organizations; lists of partners rather than description of activities; blurbs and testimonials; excess reliance on self-published sources; excessive detail on parts of the subjects bio or history not relevant to the reasons for notability; resume/CV structure; excessive lists of minor publications; and name-dropping, particularly with mentions of celebrities. Probably other things, those spring to mind off-hand. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I use {{Template:Steps to Article}} and User:DESiegel/CreateWarn as advice, but those are not designed for cases where pages havbe been deleted particularly, althoguh they can be used in such cases. You might look at the way I incorporate different guidelines for different types of page in Steps to Article, based on a type parameter. I usually fill these in from User:DESiegel/Tools, a semi-random list of useful links and skeletons. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]