" 
 ::OK. Nonsense is ""Quasi aardvark serious germane oil filter"" or ""uytcuyuyuyiu yrcuyyvk"" - but make sure that what is obviously not English is not something like Upper Slobodian by dropping it into a Google search (without brackets). If it comes up all in a piece, it's a copyvio; if it comes up in bits, it's Foreign. (Then you try Google Translate, or if that fails, look at the domain endings. A7 is a minefield for beginners to patrolling. Basically, if it's got people (or named animals like Fido the ninja hamster from Bloggsville) in it, it can be A7ed. That includes companies, churches, underwater knitting circles, charities etc, but not species like Hamsterus ninjatoides. For some odd reason any web content can also be A7ed, but not software. If you use it online, yes. If you download it to use at home, no. Hoaxes are usually blatant and can interact with A7. ""Josh is aawwweeessssoooommmmeeeee!!!!"" is both a hoax and A7. Some are subtle,but can be got away with at CSD. Others take a lot of research to nail, and are possibly better at AfD. Context and content are confused often. Content is something less than a stub, and probably is just 'Hi!' or a URL. Context is a bit subjective, Some might regard an article titled ""Smarties of Death"", with ""An expanded metal band from Bloggsville."" as its sole content, as coming under context. Others mightn't. That would be subject to A7 anyway. Definitely an article titles ""Squishy Tarts"" and having the content ""Awesome"" would be context. Steer clear of the housekeeping category until certain. Test page covers a multitude of things, from an obviously abandoned failure to a polite way of saying 'will someone please bin this crap'. almost anything with 'we' (etc) in it is spam. Also, things with no paragraphs and occasional blue words or phrases (that are external links in the text) are usually spam too. If it's neutrally worded, try A7 if A7 would fit. Spam is wider in that it encompasses products, beliefs and theories as well as companies. Copyright is a minefield. There are a lot of mirrors that copy us - and don't always say so. Facebook etc can be copies of here - or here can be a copy of there... Look at posting dates. Also, look at the history - is it a new alteration to an old article that can simply be reverted? Most of the rest of the categories are either obvious or rare. That should keep you going - one other thing that I told someone this morning: if a new article is by someone with a contribs list showing regular work over two years, they probably know what they are doing. When I was patrolling, I worked on contributions by new accounts. I used to pick up a lot that was missed by the Huggle users, and learned about the tagging by watching others at work. (You can find this lot by going to your own contribs and resetting the thing at the top to 'new accounts'.)   "