Thanks to Worm That Turned for constructing some of the pages linked to.
Below are a number of articles which may meet one or more of the speedy deletion criteria. For each example, say whether the article is an appropriate candidiate for speedy deletion, and which criterion it should be deleted under (some may be eligible under more than one). If you don't think it should be speedily deleted, say what you would do instead (if anything).
Assume unless otherwise stated that all of these are found in article space.
1.
Danille Stross
A. Speedy deletion because of the criteria A7, A1 and A3
2.
Waichi
A. Criteria A2 as when I googled the articles the person resembled of importance and notability but language is to be english. But this article is not to be deleted for, it has good third party resources . Tagging for clean up.
{{
Not English}}
) and listing at
Pages needing translation would be an appropriate course of action. However, if you're really on the ball, you'd tag this with
A10: Duplicate of an existing page, since it's a word-for-word translation of the existing article,
Sugiyama Waichi.3.
Zack de Vries
A. A7. No indication of importance and No third party sources or a single reference
4.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barry Ross
This example should be treated as an AfC submission
A. A7. No indication of importance and A1. No context as the person has almost no reason to be notable for an article on wikipedia and
5.
Alfreld Herchkerck
A. R2 as it redirects to the original page and A10 as it duplicated the existing topic.
6.
Blgah
A. G3 and A3 the reason : its a rubbish page.
7.
Portland Square Bombing
A. A1. No context although it has sufficient importance as when a person googles the subject there are significant pages showing the notability.
8.
User:Chest McFlink
This example should be treated as a userpage
A. A7 no importance and lack of notabiilty.
9.
Tsutomu Yukawa
A. Tag the article for clean up and rewriting but not for deletion.
10.
Johnny Awesome
A. A7 as the article has no importance.
A7 applies if it appears that the article is a genuine attempt to write an encyclopedic page about an unimportant subject. If you take this page seriously, the claim of a chart-topping hit single would constitute an indication of notability. In this case, though, the text makes it obvious that this is at best a hoax (G3) or more likely, an attack page (G10). Either of these tags would be much more applicable.