Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New page reviewer

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Shortcuts
Please read the guidelines for granting this right before making a request.

User:Dclemens1971

I have extensive experience with new page creation and expanding stubs into appropriately sourced articles, and I also engage regularly (and constructively!) in AfD debates and PRODs with a good understanding of applicable policies. I'd like to apply this experience by helping out in May with the NPP backlog. Thanks for considering! Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dclemens1971, I appreciate your desire to help out with the backlog as we always need fresh eyes and eager participants. :) I see that you've had some participation with AfDs, which is good because a lot of NPP is related to the nuances surrounding notability. I took a look at the articles you've created. I noticed that some of your articles rely heavily on primary sources? Some examples are Church of Bangladesh Diocese of Kushtia, Church of Bangladesh Diocese of Barisal, Nathan Ingen, and Brian Williams (bishop)? I admit that this has prompted some serious hesitation on my part. I'd rather not reject a request before hearing what you have to say on the matter, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question @Clovermoss. I agree that the pages rely on primary sources for non-controversial facts. Dioceses and other middle judicatories of major church traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) have historically been viewed as per se notable, even without secondary sourcing (see AfDs from 2019, 2018, 2018, 2012, 2007, 2007. (The only "delete" results for a diocese that I've seen were for a tiny splinter group with no sourcing available at all or for an apparent hoax). Under the principle articulated by these "keep" results, I operated on the view that the Church of Bangladesh dioceses can be presumed notable. For Nathan Ingen and Brian Williams, WP:BISHOPS states that "[t]he bishops of major Christian denominations are notable by virtue of their status." (In both of these cases, the bishops are also acting primates (heads) of their churches in the Anglican Communion.) To sum up: I understand that generally N:ORGCRIT or N:BIO apply, but WP practice appears to treat major church traditions' dioceses and bishops as inherently notable and that's what I operated under for those articles. Happy to continue the conversation or answer other questions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: Thanks for linking those AfD discussions... they are interesting. My discomfort is in relation to the fact that they we don't actually have an SNG about dioceses. However, your response definitely demonstrates that you understand nuance. If I gave you the perm, do you think you would be able to only review articles that you think meet GNG, NCORP or an SNG? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss Of course, I would stick to stated policy in any new page reviews. (And it's probably worth my raising the question of an SNG for dioceses at the Wikiproject.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done for a trial period of 3 months. Ping me when its close to expiry if you're still interested in reviewing and I'll provide feedback. If you do propose an SNG, I'd suggest going higher than a WikiProject per WP:LOCALCON. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Florificapis

I got busy in real life for most of March and April, so my request was put on hold per [1]. Here is my original reason for requesting NPR permissions again.

I have over 120 new articles under my belt, mostly relating to medieval history, monasteries, saints, and geographical features. I am familiar with the kinds of content that would fall under CSD criteria, since I have experience wikifying new pages and tagging obviously problematic new pages for speedy deletion. I know the guidelines on notability, proper sourcing, draftifying new articles, rating talk pages using scripts, AfC, AfD, and other essential patrolling tasks. Would be quite happy to reduce the backlog while being cautious and careful. Also currently a Pending Changes Reviewer. Florificapis (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([2]). — MusikBot talk 00:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:InDimensional

I would like to participate in the NPP backlog drive.

  • I have experience creating new pages as well as participating in AfD discussions.
  • Never had any blocks.
  • Agree to review on a trial basis. InDimensional (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TarnishedPath

I participated in the December backlog drive, being granted a trial. At the end of the trial I requested permanent NPP, which was denied with the denying admin expressing concern that I hadn't created any articles. I've since created an article about Neeraj Gupta (refer to User_talk:TarnishedPath/Archive_2#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Neeraj_Gupta_(sculptor)_has_been_accepted) and been responsible for the bulk of the material in the newly created article Bruce Lehrmann‎. I had been working on Draft:Bruce Lehrmann‎ but someone else started work on Bruce Lehrmann‎ just as I submitted Draft:Bruce Lehrmann‎ to AfC so I ended up merging my work over to the mainspace article and issuing a CSD for deletion of the draft. I've continued to be semi-regularly involved with AfD. I'm applying because I got a notification a while ago that there was a backlog drive for May and I'm willing to help out a bit with that. TarnishedPathtalk 06:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC) TarnishedPathtalk 06:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Rosguill, as they granted the trial perm. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trainsskyscrapers

Hello. I was initially given a month long trial as a new page reviewer after receiving an invitation on my user page, and I've been enjoying everything so far: reviewing pages, providing feedback, sending WikiLove to new and returning users who have made exceptional first attempts, tagging issues, and resolving issues myself (that could otherwise be tagged) when I have time in an attempt to reduce the backlog. I have already been renewed once, and my second trial expires in a little over two weeks (May 26th). I'm requesting either an indefinite or longer-term ability to review new pages before my time lapses. Haven't had any behavioral issues, and I try to treat all users with respect. I will continue to help clear the backlog in the meantime. Thanks again. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 00:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ixtal

Forgot to re-apply before the permission ran out. Would like to continue participating in the drive as well as afterwards. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Sign up for the 2024 DCWC! — Non nobis solum ♠ 06:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer&oldid=1223342211"