User talk:DGG/Archive 102 Jul. 2015

ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD, Speedy & prod, NPP & AfC, COI & paid editors,    BLP,            Bilateral relations
Notability,   Universities & academic people, Schools, Academic journals, Books & other publications
Sourcing,    Fiction,       In Popular Culture    Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Request for your help

David, is there anything you can do to have the banner removed from my page? I think you agree that it is not justified, and its only effect is to instil doubt about the validity of my page, which is in fact understated and minimal rather than self-promotional. I'd be grateful for any help you can give me. Best wishes, Stevan --User:Harnad 14:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

working on it -- answer later today. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again David, I see you to-do list is long, but just a reminder about the banner on my page... Chrs, S --User:Harnad 12:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

U:Harnad: Stevan, here's the situation. Most biographical articles in WP, including academic bios, tend to be written by PR staff, and are excessive in praise of their subject. But your bio is one of the academic bios that is too modest to the point of being inadequate: it doesn't give a full basic sequence of positions, and it needs more detail, especially about the cognitive science aspects, along with more links to related articles and a list of major publications in that field. I've always meant to expand it, but it would get me started if you could suggest on the article talk page any good third party published descriptions of your key work. (In the last few years we've tightened the rules a good deal, and since you are the subject, you are supposed to put the suggested material on the article talk page; I or someone else will then add it. We've also adopted a more standardized approach to academic bios--I will make the appropriate adjustments.)

As for the tags: The primary sources tag tho now justified can be removed--there are too many links to your talks and statements, which does not take the place of a listing of major works, justified objectively by some factor such as most-cited. I think I know which ones to remove, & I'll remove the tag. The connected contributor tag will have to remain--you are the major contributor, and it's our standard notice. It doesn't imply bias, just an alert to possibly watch for bias. If I removed it, someone else would put it back. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, I will provide the materials you request on the talk page for my entry. I was not aware of all those format and content requirements. Best wishes, Stevan --User:Harnad 04:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

yes, best practice has gotten more organized & formal as compared to when you &cI started here. DGG ( talk ) 13:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletetion

Hi DGG,

I have recently created a new page for an engineering department. The page was deleted very fast without any suggestions. Please guide me through the creation process. The page that was deleted was still new and it was not containing any advertising. I was going to edit it and add new information. I was surprised how fast it was deleted. Should I send you the article for reviewing? your guide and help is highly appreciated.

ThanksHaydertouran (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very few individual academic departments are notable. That's not my personal decision, but the consistent practice of the community. For practical purposes, without going into the rather elaborate Wikipedia jargon, the requirement is world-famous. The basic requirement for inclusion of any organization is coreferences providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Very few academic departments can meet this requirement. In addition, a requirement for an article on an academic department (or any organization) is that the article be non-promotional--that it be directed towards what readers of an encycopedia might want to know, not what the organization might want to tell them.

Your department does not meet either part of the requirement. But the primary reason for deletion was not advertising, but rather that it gave no indication whatsoever that it might possibly be important in any sense, let alone world famous. I should have specified that as the reason, and I apologize for any confusion. It was for good measure, very difficult to understand. The title didn't even say what university it was in. The text was written in English that would need to be almost completely rewritten, even if it had been famous. There were no references except to its own site.

I also removed your edit inserting a direct link to your department in place of its name at the university article. We do not include such links. We linkonly to the main university web site. The reader can generally find the web pages of individual departments from there. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation (Prince Edward Island)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation (Prince Edward Island). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Philip Needleman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philip Needleman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Needleman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jane Peterson

Hi, DGG,
I tagged this draft article because it hadn't been edited since November 2014 and was eligible for deletion under G13. I'm glad though, that you see something worthwhile in it and I hope the author will return to work on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested speedy deletion of Ardsley-Secor Volunteer Ambulance Corps

Hi DGG,

I wanted to let you know that I've contested your speedy deletion nomination of Ardsley-Secor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, as noted on the talk page

--24fan24 (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24fan24, I never insist on a a speedy where there 's a good faith defense of the article; in such circumstances a community decision is best. (Had you not been the author, you could of course have just removed the tag). It's now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ardsley-Secor Volunteer Ambulance Corps DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I deleted them since they seemed to be promoting Neuroleadership - A Journey Through The Brain for Business Leaders, so feel free to restore that too if you wish. I'll do the others when I've signed off here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I'll double-check first and see if there's enough for a decent article. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Touchsuite

Hello DGG:

I am not exactly sure why the post was removed...I assume I quoted something wrong or did not provide enough reference links for the company. I do need your help on what to change. They are an Inc. 500 company and have received numerous top growth company awards... they are a very big, real company. I had created a page for Touchsuite. I have been a client of their as a merchant for a long time. I know the company has been around since 2003-04 or so via business and thought they were a known company. The company is a technology company that has created a really good point of sale to quickbooks integration and many other technology products in the processing space. (comment by User:Jonnyboms)

Jonnyboms, a speedy could be justified on two grounds: no credible claim to importance, and promotionalism. You are on the Inc 500 list of fastest growing companies, which normally indicates that you are small and not yet notable. . This is therefore not a credible claim to importance. The emphasis on your inclusion in the list in the first paragraph was advertising. Otherwise, I see either just mentions or press releases-- except for the NYT article, which is I think a human interest story about the family, and does not show notability of the company. Since it is possible that some might think this is notability, to avoid all question, I'm going to revert my close,and comment instead. Another administrator will close the discussion.

I remind you of our conflict of interest policy: if it is the case that you have any financial relationship with the company,you must disclose it on your use talk page. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG,There is no financial interest in the company. You are incorrect in that assessment. Also, there are other articles out there. Shall I edit the page to include other mentions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyboms (talk • contribs) 18:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you did--I have no way of knowing that. I said "in case." I always remind authors of articles on businesses of this rule, partly because the terms of use rule is relatively new, though the conflict of interest policy is long-standing.

You should add whatever references you have that provide substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Local business journals are not reliable sources. Blogs are not generally reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabor Racz

Can you please explain to me why a doctor's credentials are considered "promotionalism"? Atsme^📞📧 01:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Another question - since this particular doctor is now in his 80s, he has a very long and extensive career. I used David Gorski as a model, and if you'll look at his brief career in comparison, it lists his credentials: [1] so are you going to remove that information as puffery as well? And what about the entire section in the Gorski BLP promoting his blog off Wiki along with an entire section on Skepticism which is clearly UNDUE for a BLP? Doesn't that also need to be trimmed down? Atsme^📞📧 01:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you taking out all the engaging prose at that article? What is going on exactly? See WP:FA

well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (^[1]) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. The use of citation templates is not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

^ Smith 2007, p. 1.

I've commented on the article talk p. I have not removed a single one of his credentials. I have removed many duplicate and triplicate statements of them. I will be very glad to look at the other article you mention, as I have removed promotionalism and puffery from many articles on scientists and other physicians. We have altogether too much of this in WP, and it will be a very long time until we remove all of it. What you call "engaging prose" is puffery. WP is an encycopedia, and engaging prose in biographies is usually out of place. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't write the criteria. It's the criteria for FA - and it not only says "engaging" it says "even brilliant". We are writing for the GP - the average reader - the prose doesn't have to be as dry as a scientific journal.

That would be horrible. Atsme^📞📧 01:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate prose style varies with the subject: he is a scientist. there is a difference been effective encyclopedic prose and empty rhetoric; even more so, between effective prose and repetitions. I see others are now editing the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revised and waiting for review

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dato%27_Sri_Lee_Ee_Hoe,_JP

Dear DGG, Kindly review revised article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendyapplenian (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Patricia Anne Johnston for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patricia Anne Johnston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Anne Johnston until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI

I posted a link to Gorski's BLP (re:the section on skeptism) to the TP of Tsavage that he might want to use to help demonstrate parts of the discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories&diff=670442198&oldid=670437398]. Within minutes of hitting enter, I had a Canvassing template on my user page from Jytdog that I have since archived. [2] I just wanted you to know that I was not canvassing Tsavage to help me collaborate at Gorski. You told me you were going to review it, so I'm patiently waiting to hear back from you about the review. Jytdog also put a recruiting tag on the Gorski TP which is also unwarranted. What is all of that about anyway? Any editor should be able to go edit that BLP and ask any others to collaborate. There's much ado about nothing, and I really think the attacks against me as seen on that TP are unwarranted. Atsme^📞📧 03:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It takes me a few days to do this sort of work, because I try to think carefully about what to say and do . Please concentrate on articles, not user behavior, but, FWIW, I do not consider leaving a single notice of that sort as canvassing. None the less, it's not worth edit-warring to remove jytdog's tags. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on island time, and will wait patiently for you to look at it. I am in no hurry, and I don't want you to think I'm rushing you. The no deadline philosophy of WP is perfect for me considering I left deadlines behind when I retired last year. Removing that weight from my shoulders was incredibly uplifting. If only I could lose it off my hips as easily it would be a perfect world.

Atsme^📞📧 16:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would think that if you have time to criticize the Racz article, you'd have time to look at the Gorski article where there is complete section that is nothing but promotion of his advocacy. You were just criticizing Racz for being promotional and wanting it delisted. What about Gorski? Of course it's not even close to being a GA. There's a link in the Skepticism section to his blog. That's noncompliant with PAG, so let's see how fast it gets removed now that I've advised you. I'm beginning to see a much clearer picture now. Atsme^📞📧 06:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Gorski's high-quality blogging receives a lot of secondary coverage (one might even argue it's what he's most notable for) so as an adjunct to the secondary sources used, the link to his blog is not a huge problem - if unnecessary. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the Gorski article is for various reasons more complicated for me. I do not follow a sequence of things on a "to do" list -- I work on altogether too many things here to keep track of, and I go from one thing to another in a trough sort of rotation. Each day, I deal with emergencies first: impending deletions, OTRS problems, direct challenges, and now arb com matters. Then I do a selection of everything else, following up anything particularly interesting as I come across it. I'm not an organized type of person. To protect myself, I have a negative reaction to being leaned on to do something. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad mehdi jafari

'Kep the sources in the Persian WP are probably enough. There is absolutely no requirement for a source in English, or in a roman alphabet The articles are written in English. The sources are outside the article--we are just referring to them. We have probably a few hundred thousand articles on people and places with only non-English sources. The alphabet problem is real--but we probably have about 50,000 articles with only non-Roman references, which include the geographical articles for at least half of the world. Persian, btw, is not a dead language--seeWP:Persian -- Iran uses Persian as its only official language, not Arabic--the main use of Arabic in Iran in religious contexts PsychoticSpartan123,, before you comment on an article on a national topic, you should find out the basics about the nation. Before you say a language is dead, you should look it up. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 00:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just didn't care enough about the name of the language or it's status to look it up. I still don't think the subject is notable enough, but unless somebody can actually write the article in good English and actually use these often mentioned Persian references I don't think it should be kept. On an off note, is there a page to go and specifically request assistance from Wikipedians that can read Persian? Psychotic Spartan 123 04:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said , and I should have realized myself, as a member of parliament he is unquestionably notable. But I was mainly replying to your comment on the languages. Checking on various places, some currently actives WPedians who know the language are U:Amirreza, U:User:Hockeysoccertennis and U:User:درفش کاویانی DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 deletions

Hi DGG, there are a ton of articles currently eligible for G13 deletion (see Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions), and many of them have been postponed before (often by you) and don't merit deletion. If you have time, I'd recommend helping me sort through the category to re-postpone the articles that have potential merit. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calliopejen1, apparently the older ones are at the front of the list. What I'm going to do first at the rate of about 100/day is to scan from there looking for academics and others of special interest. I find it convenient when doing that to also list for G13 the ones I am sure wont make it to get them off the list. And probably to accept any that might reasonably pass AfD without stopping to improve them further.

We also needto check for the article already existing--which, when identified, needs to be looked at quickly to see whether it is a case of someone having written a reasonably good article and angry at the foolish decline putting it into mainspace anyway, or the equally common case of a spammer deciding to ignore the correct decline & putting it into mainspace. The identification could & should be done by a bot--the checking can't be. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I've generally found that the ones with the old-style prefix (Wikipedia talk...) are better because they have been postponed numerous times already. That's pretty much my workflow too. I agree that it could be helpful to have bots identify where AFC drafts duplicate mainspace articles.... Maybe I'll post somewhere seeking the help of someone more competent than I am to code one! Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q

David, would you mind having a look at Draft:Ciklum? I wonder if this wasn't declined a bit too soon. I don't have access to all the sources, nor do I speak or read Russian, and I do think that there's quite a bit of padding--but I think there are some valid claims to notability. Thanks--and I hope you and yours are well. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: see also this--declined initially, and then furthered on by Samwalton9, in my opinion correctly. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe L235 and Primefac went through all of Sulfurboy's (impressive number of) reviews with them the other day on IRC, I'm sure each will have an opinion. I'm not 100% convinced with the one that I accepted there, but I think it has an above average chance of surviving AfD, which I believe is the rubric often used. Sam Walton (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - While L235 and I did go through their reviews, it was only to check the accepted drafts. The declines were left alone, because I figured they'd sort themselves out. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually remember the Ciklum one, because it was borderline for me and I actually went through and translated the Russian sites. I declined it because nearly all the credible sources were generic press release involving simple info about the company or acquisitions, not actual coverage of the company as a whole. As a result it makes the entire page read like a press release. It has an impressive amount of sources, but I think it's a case of WP:BOMBARD. As some of the sources are just the same press release (title and all) but on different sites). Can the company pass notability? Probably. Should it have been moved to the mainspace as it? No, not in my opinion at this time. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, the Redline article was brought up. Please note it was heavily edited after my decline. The initial decline was quite correct. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        FYI, Sulfurboy, (last time I checked) the generally accepted guideline is, if it has a >50% chance of not being deleted at AfD, it should be accepted. Cheers - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please,everybody, give me a chance to respond. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, dealing with the two articles in question here:

These two articles have the same problem: they are very likely written by COI editors, about borderline notable companies, but avoiding gross promotionalism. There is no correct thing to do with articles such as these. The way I handle them depends on my judgment of the importance of the company and the ease of removing the promotionalism: if important and easily fixable, I remove the promotionalism and accept. Otherwise I do not. We have altogether too many weak promotional articles on WP, and I try notto add to them. For these two I would evaluate as follows:

Redline: I am not sure that I would have accepted it as it was when Sulfurboy declined it. If I had, I would have made at least the same edits LPartner did,; after those edits, I would probably have accepted it as did Samwalton9, but I would have made at least some of the edits that Edgarde subsequently did. I may make one or two more. There's a special problem with companies whose notability is based on negative material. Had this been a natural person, I think it would probably be deleted at afd. There have been several efforts to get us to treat corporations the same way, just as US law sometimes does. They have all been overwhelmingly defeated, in my opinion correctly. We do remove libel, and we do normally remove individual consumer complaints, on the grounds of balance and NPOV. We do not remove relevant well-cited negative financial information, again on the grounds of NPOV.

I see that Lpartner is a COI editor making proper disclosure on her user page. Had she not done so, since it is fairly obvious that it is a COI article, I would possibly have felt differently. Even tho the focus is on negative information, good paid editors will normally include the obvious negative information to avoid the appearance of bias. (I doubt she is a paid editor by the way, but since enough disclosure was made in case she was, that's irrelevant.) Although Lpartner may have an interest only in her former company, she's learned to be a good editor and I urge her to work on other companies.

Ciklum The article is translated from the Russian WP. It has been listed for deletion there, and I've commented on that aspect on the Draft. I would not accept the article in its present state. It would however be fairly easy to fix by removing most of section 1, part of section 2, and all of section 4, and by removing those of the references that merely mention the company. The Russian references are not a problem--a Google translation of a news article normally is clear enough to indicate the degree to which a news article is relevant, at least for the European languages--including Cyrillic,which it handles better than it used to. In this instance, Ref 1 is a news article that appears to be essentially copied from the company web site. Ref 7 gives the company a little more than a mention, but not much more. I consider it was correct to decline,since no one is obliged to fix. It would not be against our rules to accept without fixing, but I would not have done so. If it is accepted, it will go to afd, where it will only be kept if it is fixed, and I'm not sure even then. It is such an obviously promotional article that I would not go to the trouble of fixing it--there are more important articles in need of help. Niklo70 seems to be an obviously promotional editor on 3 different WPs. If a paid editor, he needs to declare his coi. I've warned him. We have no formal rule that violation of the tou is a cause for deletion or blocking, in my opinion mostly because it is often not sufficiently clear that a coi editor is a paid coi editor. We do of course block promotional-only editors, regardless of their motivation.

Second, about AfC standards. It is not wise to approve articles that would have a bare 50% chance of survival. Most of us interpret having an above average chance at something like 2/3 at least. (My own result is above 95%, because I will not pass at 66% without trying to do some fixing. I do not want my name associated with junk.) Keep in mind that there are other reasons for deletion at AfD than lack of notability. Increasingly, borderline notable articles that show substantial promotionalism are being deleted there--my result for such AfD nominations is about 75% deletions, & most of the keeps are ones that get fixed at AfD.

In general the declines at AfC that are particularly wrong declines are those where the problem is merely style or formatting. Those problems do usually get fixed after articles go into mainspace. Declines which are wrong but understandable is where the notability is interpreted incorrectly by those unfamiliar with the field--some people work on afcs in any subject; I work only on those where I am sufficiently familiar with the field to recognize major notability that is not expressed properly, and where I know the WP standards well enough to judge what will pass. I do not claim universal competence for evaluating everything covered by WP. Declines that may be wrong but cannot always be avoided are those in fields where there are no accepted standards, or with problems like promotionalism where standards are changing.

Third, with respect to Sulfurboy's AfC work in general, I will take a look for myself this weekend. It's going to be a spot check, not a comprehensive review on all of them, but I don't want to comment on someone's work based on a overly-quick impression. Nor would I personally use irc for such matters--it doesn't give time to think. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks David. Look, you don't have to do a comprehensive review because I had doubts about only two of the cases they dealt with, but I appreciate your effort and your comments here. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

once you get me started .... :) DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philly Morris

I'd appreciate your input towards making an article for Checkemlads as the founder Philly Morris is not notable. I searched for any more recent coverage since then and I didn't find much aside from Highbeam, News and thefreelibrary. The article creator User talk:Checkemlads even attempted to make an AfC which I don't recall seeing before so that may need to be temporarily restored (or email me a picture) and I'll see if there's anything useful. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed you the very short text. It was just a G13 deletion, so I can certainly restore it if you like. The problem with the GN refs is separating out the PR. I wouldn't expect anything except in the UK. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art Jewelry Forum

Hello, I am working on a pet project to help digitize information about the field of metalsmithing+jewelry. I started with making a page for Art jewelry forum (AJF), and have a list of artists that I would like to make pages for as well. The AJF page has been nominated for deletion because it is questioned if the organization is "notable". I am reaching out to you because I saw that you edited some pages that relate to studio craft, and thought you may have an informed opinion (unlike the mathematician who nominated the page for deletion) about whether or not it is a "notable organization". If you have an opinion, one way or another, please way in on the articles for deletion discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_jewelry_forum Clarefinin (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There tends to be a prejudice against the unfamiliar. For anything without a lot of fans,WP can be surprisingly conservative. Fortheindividual people, keep track of the basics at WP:CREATIVE: substantial critical work, work in major museums, reviews of books they may have written. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ibn_Sina_Medical_College_(2nd_nomination)

Interested in your thoughts here, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For my first 2 years here, I helped establish the principle that every institution of higher education is to be considered notable; ever since then, for the following 6 years, I have successfully defended it. It is almost never even challenged, which is more than I can say for most of our guidelines. (there are sometimes exceptions for unaccredited institutions whose real existence is not all that clear, but that doesn't apply here) DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you did that, but congrats for setting a policy-in-practice! I have withdrawn the AfD (in word only at the AfD - I don't know how to formally do that) If you like, I would be interested in hearing your rationale - not to argue, just to learn. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The argument I made is that if one searches carefully enough, especially for potentially notable alumni, it is possible to meet the GNG for high schools and colleges most of the time, depending on the usual argument over whether sources are sufficiently substantial, etc. It would also be possible to show this for elementary schools a good deal of the time. The results in practice depended on how hard they are argued and searched for more than anything about the school itself, and have an equal amount of error in each direction. Every last one of them was at the time argued, and we therefore spent a good deal of effort at AfD, without getting any more precise results than if we accepted all the high schools and rejected the elementary schools. (Most of the discussions were for high schools; it is accepted as being all the more true for colleges.) As a compromise, it was accepted that high schools and up were notable, but primary schools would not ordinarily be notable. We therefore avoided about 10 afds a day without adversely affecting the encyclopedia. Everyone, thse arguing in both directions, realised things were better that way.

As contributing factors for the acceptance of the result, was the general view that they were appropriate for the encyclopedia considering the interests of our writers and readers; that there was limited opportunity for spam; & that they were good articles for young beginners. It's essentially the same argument by which settled geographic places are notable, but not necessarily unsettled geographic features. Both of them have proven very stable compromises.

They rely on the notion of presumed notability as a concession to those who thing the GNG the main factor. I do not, personally think it ought to be, and I have supported every effort to set a demarcation line based on something intrinsic to the subject. There are stable similar compromises for many types of athletics, for popular music, for astronomical objects, for academics, for scientific journals, for government officials , for some types of local institutions, for national vs subnational associations, etc. I don't agree with the demarcation lines in some of them, but I support all of the compromises. I consider the GNG to reflect the bias of the internet, and that if we really worked at finding sources we could make nonsense out of it.

The entire rationale for a notability standard at all is a little shaky, as compared to most of our other rules. The original rationale is so we look like what people expect an encyclopedia to look like. This was extremely important in the beginning , when people already had an expectation based on the print encyclopedias they knew, and it was necessary to establish ourselves as a serious project. The better reason is that lowering the bar too far leads us to become an advertising medium. It is much easier to control what we have an article on, than to control the content of articles. If we are more or less inclusive, we're still an encycopedia ; if we accept advertising as articles, there's little point in existing, because the internet does as well by itself. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to write all that, that all makes sense. The only argument I would have, is the "limited opportunity for spam" thing. A good chunk of COI stuff I deal with (I won't hazard a guess on the percentage, but it is not insignificant) is raw academic boosterism - maybe the state of higher ed today would call for an examination of the assumption? I do hear you on cutting down on un-necessary AfDs - there is great value to that. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it all before :). As for promotionalism: I was thinking primarily of high schools, where the sort of promotionalism in their articles is usually trivial to remove, and goes as soon as someone notices it. Colleges are much more of a problem.especially because so few of us even occasionally try to clean them up (except that there are now consistent efforts to remove non-notable alumni) Almost every US college & university article on WP is written by PR staff, except the few written by over-enthusiastic alumni. The alumni are worse: just like all fans, they don't give up. The PR staff are usually local PR staff, who are generally incompetent as compared to the people who work in industry. They follow a standard pattern, which is remarkably similar to the one-page descriptions in college guides. I don't know if there are people training them, or whether they copy each other.

I hadn't seen the boosterism essay you linked to--thanks!. I think I'll add to it. I also added a little to WP:College and university article guidelines.

I've decided to check some of the university FAs, to make sure we aren't specifying well-written but promotional articles as examples. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of COIN

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Atsme^📞📧 02:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I did. Obvious, I'recused myself from the arbcom case, if it should be accepted. At this point, I have one piece of advice, Atsme -- be careful about the possibility for a WP:Boomerang. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I can assure you, I don't want to be at ARBCOM anymore than you do but I wasn't given much choice. When an editor's work is criticized and attacked in a flurry of unwarranted reverts and deletes with the goal being to make the article unstable so it will be delisted or deleted as what happened at Racz, Griffin and 3 times with AVDUCK, it starts to wear thin. I'm not some young aspiring writer who hopes to accomplish something in life, ~~Doug~~ David. I'm a retired writer who already has and I've published and written enough articles, and worked with enough copy editors over the years to know unwarranted criticism when I see it. I have no problem collaborating with GF editors who want to create, expand or improve an article but based on the comments I was reading at Racz that certainly wasn't the goal; it was to delist or delete, and I don't consider that GF. It is what it is. Atsme^📞📧 08:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm David, not Doug. DGG ( talk ) 11:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize, David. Atsme^📞📧 14:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Academics

As is my habit, I am drawing your attention to Draft:Arijit Das. which is somewhat impenetrable. Fiddle Faddle 14:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Draft:Ciklum

When you get a chance can you re-review Draft:Ciklum? After a considerable effort made by someone after your comment I believe the page to be mainspace worthy. The page however is salted and would need admin approval before it could be moved to the mainspace. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy (talk · contribs): Done, & notified. Thanks for getting back to me on this. I hadn't really expected to see this one get improved, but after I did a little further trimming, it's as good as our other basic articles on internet providers. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by feedback on new article

Thank you for reviewing my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Association_of_Guernsey_Charities. This is my first article for Wikipedia so I'm grateful for feedback. Before writing, I had checked other articles about similar organisations to gauge the level of detail that would be appropriate, and spent a considerable time trying to create an article with enough detail to satisfy anybody searching Wikipedia for information about the organization. Following your comment, I have re-read the article and removed some information which might not have been of interest to a wider audience. Hopefully, the remaining level of detail is appropriate - but I'd be grateful for any feedback if there are other specific issues. Thanks in advance. MalcolmWoodhams (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been deleted by another admin, who noticed that it was copied complete from various parts of your website (I should have noticed this myself,of course.) If you own the copyright, it is possible to donate it to WP under a free license using the procedure at WP:DCM, but this is not recommended, because most of the material on the web site will be unsuitable, as indeed this was. The unsuitable material includes: a/ most of the 2nd paragraph of the lead, which among other things specifies the membership fee--which we do not usually include anywhere, but certainly not in the lead. b/ Almost all ofthe section on "Membership",which is devoted on informatioin of how to apply c/The section on "additional member benefits .

In addition, much of the material is vague: for example . " covering a variety of topics" ; " to discuss topics of mutual interest, raise any concerns or issues" ; "plays an active role" ; " as and when required" ; " a variety of ways for users to find information. " Some is both vague and promotional, e.g. " the many benefits to the Bailiwick of Guernsey". Some is over-general, about charities in Guernsey in general , not about the organization specifically. Some is unreferenced claims that must be referenced to a particular reliable third party published source, e.g. " UK’s biggest celebration "

I also call your attention to our rules on WP:Conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas D. Taylor

Discussion at AFD seems to have proven-out notability from what I can tell, however the article desperately needs help, being that almost all of it is made up of press releases and junk sources. I might fix it a bit ordinarily, but this kind of subject area is just not up my alley. No idea what Exosomes are and I generally despise our loose notability expectations for academics. Thought it might be more up your alley if you have an interest in whipping up a decent stub. CorporateM (Talk) 23:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notability under WP:PROF is based upon the citation record and that's all there is to it. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SHINE Medical Technologies

There are a couple of the references in my analysis that are to papers. I have been unable to check their status as peer reviewed, and I wonder if I might prevail upon you to perform that task. Fiddle Faddle 08:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commented there; it took a while to make up my mind on this one. DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

book on Morgenthau plan

My book was recently purged from Wikipedia. The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Planning has been chucked down the memory hole. Of course there were legitimate reasons for its deletion. I asked Wikipedia to explain and they kindly responded:

I've just removed the material referenced to the book The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy as it does not appear to be a reliable source. The book's publisher Alora Publishing looks like a publisher of WP:FRINGE-type works judging from what it chooses to highlight on its website, and I could not find any reviews of the book in reliable sources, and many of the references to it on the internet are to extremist websites. The author's website is also not typical of that of a neutral historian. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Worldcat shows it owned by 1319 libraries, a very substantial number. This of course does not mean it is an authority, but it might appear to be of considerable interest. Google Scholar shows it has been cited 16 times, as follows: [6]. DGG (David Goodman) ( talk ) 20:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC) (I wrote this is response to an OTRS query asking about the removal of the book).

According to Nick the book is not a reliable source. But he seems to think it was published by Alora Publishing, a publisher of “fringe-type” works. I tried to find Alora Publishing but was not successful. I contacted my publisher and he thought that Nick’s comments may have been a joke. Nick claims that he could not find any reviews of my book in reliable sources. I guess Publishers’ Weekly and Choice magazine (by the American Library Association, for academic libraries) are not considered reliable. Perhaps it was wrong of the BBC to contact me for an interview in Things We Forgot to Remember. My blog is not and has never claimed to be the work of a neutral historian.

Nick raises one troubling point about my book: “many of the references to it on the internet are to extremist websites.” I do not have any control over who references my work. In my research I have run across a great deal of anti-Semitism. This is unfortunate because it is a distraction and it is used to discredit anyone looking for the truth. Many of the key people involved with the Morgenthau Plan were Jewish, however, one of its strongest critics, Victor Gollancz, was also a Jew. I am not aware of any extremist claims in my book although its conclusions are outrageous. We live in interesting times and some even think the Little Sisters of the Poor are extremists.

The bottom line is: Who is more credible? Check the Algora Publishing website. If you believe it is “fringe” you will agree with Nick. If you check it out and wonder what Nick is talking about then you will know why Wikipedia has a bad reputation for veracity.108.19.156.56 (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In related areas I know something about, I consider many of the books they publish to be clearly fringe, such as Sweeny or Palumbo or R. Welch, or utterly absurd such as Emmet Scott. I also see some that are mainstream, such as Dippel. The nature of the publisher does not automatically prove him fringe, but it also does not lend the authority that an academic press or major serious commercial publisher does. Do you have a link for the Choice review? DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon

@DGG: Hi. I'm looking for help in writing Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon‎. I was born many years after the event, but from what i can gather, the Ratcliffe-Gordon disappearance is second only to the Beaumont children disappearance for South Australians and ranks alongside the Beaumonts and the Disappearance of Eloise Worledge for Australian child crime history. Paul Austin (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

first step is formal refs for those "front page news" in .. The Advertiser and ... The News, and did the 2014 investigation find anything? Is the pages ref in the Ott book to a chapter? Add the chapter title. What is needed is another substantial reference like that. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrowseAloud

A part of me almost wants to nominate this article again as although the article is sourced, a look at the history shows it existing since late 2005 but never considerably improving (which I'm not at all saying it should be deleted based on this, I'm mostly concerned with sources). It was also nominated for AfD twice here and here but I especially think the second one where a user says it has news coverage seems to show a (now expired) link of mostly press releases. My own searches found nothing outstanding here, here, here and here. The article is acceptable I suppose but I'd like your input. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the only substantial coverage seems to be the Belfast Telegraph article], which unfortunately reads like a press release. Other results are in news releases by various agencies which uses it. But quite a number of them do seem to use it. I'm trying to get it to work. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Igor Kozlovskyy

please take a look. Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dubious. I'll check a little further. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I have read your tentative to unblock my article about "Concessions and forts of Italy in China" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG#Concessions_and_forts_of_Italy_in_China ); and I agree with you when you write I think the policy behind G5 is often counterproductive. I can assure you that if I could I would defend all my posts, with detailed references & bibliography.....but admins like user:Vituzzu NEVER allow a defense (to get more information on him please go to ... so you'll understand more about who really is this "deletionist" damaging Wikipedia with his "evilness", as he wrote on his user page). I hope you are the kind of people who listen to both sides before making judgments about a person accused of vandalism on Wikipedia: so allow me to defend myself pinpointing that since 2007 I have never damaged Wikipedia.......while I have written more than 100,000 posts on Wikipedia in 8 years after my "ban", that was based on complete lack of justice (only if you are hurt like me, you'll behave the way I did: a vandal will abandon Wikipedia sooner or later as all of them do, don't you agree?). Anyway, I wish you the best in your life.....B. PS: Two relatives from Italy came to spend a summer in 2007 at my house in south Florida. They spent some months posting with me on Salerno topics on the Italian Wikipedia from my home (using my same modem, of course). An Italian wiki admin did not believe that we were 3 different persons and blocked us: we offered to send our passports & identifications and talk by phone to show that we were not the same persons, but he kept blocking us. I then got enraged and "hinted" that I was thinking of getting help from an attorney in order to defend myself from these offensive accusations.......and suddenly I got BANNED FOREVER! No possibility of defending myself, and the same happened for my 2 relatives who got astonished by all this. I wrote even to Jimbo. but I got always blocked and blocked and blocked and blocked every tentative of communication....this complete lack of justice -as you wrote- made me feel that wiki punishments by some admins are often counterproductive! Sincerely, B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.159.131 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the link you sent me is of such a nature that I am not going to look at this further. And looking at our records thee were many more socks than the 2 you listed. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. But the nature of the link is REAL (EVEN IF HARSH) and only in this way it helped in the ban & withdrawal of a Muslim fanatic nicknamed user:Middayexpress. BTW, allow me a last comment: in order to create hundreds of articles on some wikis I have been forced to use socks after the ban of my 2 relatives, because (as you know......) it is impossible to create articles with an IP. And finally allow me to repeat that I have been forced, because of some admins who NEVER give a chance of a defense to their VICTIMS in a really uncivilized way. Adios amigo......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.30.225 (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Stone draft

Hi DGG,

thanks for your detailed input. I left a reply on the talk page of the article. Less content there ;)

Kind regards, Azradon (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting My Bio Back to Revise

Hello, I submitted a piece on Jennifer Hammond. You reviewed and said that it sounded more like an advertisement and I needed more sources. I went back to add more sources and it said you had deleted it. Do I have to create a new piece with more sources or can I get that draft back to make corrections from there?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenniferrealty (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will email it to you if you activate your email, but , as I explain on your user talk page, I see no realistic chance of an article, so I could not in good conscience advise you to continue. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking advice regarding recent articles about food studies

I've noticed a rash of drafts/articles about studies by Brian Wansink of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab, each created by a different SPA, none of whom have ever interacted on Wikipedia:

20 June 2015 - Draft:Food Compensation: Is it fun or exercise?
23 June 2015 - Draft:Clean Plate
23 June 2015 - Bottomless Soup Bowl Study
24 June 2015 - Smarter Lunchroom Approach
24 June 2015 - Draft:Slim By Design Registry
25 June 2015 - Draft:Dinner rituals that correlate with children and adult BMI
9 July 2015 - Draft:The Fat Suit Study

The activity doesn't smell right, but I don't have any hard evidence of undisclosed paid editing, off-Wikipedia coordination, sockpuppetry, or the like. You nominated one of them for deletion and declined another at AfC. As a much more experienced editor than myself, can you give me any advice about what, if anything, I should do about the overall pattern? Thanks, Worldbruce (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this; I had already noticed some but not all of the articles. Brian Wansink holds the John Dyson Endowed Chair at Cornell University, and therefore meets WP:PROF. Someone has written an rather promotional bio in which his various projects are already mentioned; I'm editing it a little to remove some of the promotionalism; it's worth the trouble, because he is highly notable. I've listed the three articles for deletion; I don't think they even merit redirects, tho that's a possible option. All the drafts have been declined, and I listed one for speedy as promotional, along with an article on one of his books. I'm checking for other articles. It's a foolish but frequent promotional technique to try to write too many articles on closely related subjects--it generally attracts attention.

My approach to situations like this is to work on the articles. A complementary approach, which would certainly be appropriate, is to ask for a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI, but I leave that to others so as to have more time to work on content. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on promotional editing

Hi, I saw your comment on inclusionism vs promotion/undisclosed paid editing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire, and wanted to say that I agree, and am glad that you expressed this position firmly. — Brianhe (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

& see my similar comment at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Rocket Internet. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gambitious

With all due respect, I think a normal deletion discussion would have been more appropriate for Gambitious. There were 5 RS supporting notability. I haven't looked at it in a couple of years, so perhaps it's not adequately notable, but determining that takes time. Please restore it (as you have already done once) and let the normal deletion discussion play out.--Nowa (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambitious. DGG ( talk ) 13:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Nowa (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the AfD for Gambitious closed with a redirect to Symbid. I thought that was a great outcome. Thanks again for opening the normal AfD process.--Nowa (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OzCon

I can see what you mean regarding the relevance of the subject matter but unfortunately this sequence of cons was a bit after my major involvement in the sf/f field and I really know nothing about them. Consequently I can't help out here. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

If you have a moment, please compare the two IPs edit warring over a citation needed tag for an uncontroversial statement at this article here, with this user. These similar edits ([3],[4]) by that user and one of the IPs, done in the same day, make me think that it's the same editor, logged out and IP hopping, possibly to feud over an article I had created because I had just removed one of his edits on another article, in part because it was unsourced,[5] and I had previously helped revert his challenged edits to that and other related articles (see discussion). The two IPs are obviously the same editor even if the registered account proves unrelated. Thanks for your time! postdlf (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf, you'll have to ask someone else; I have the right, but I don't use it. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday August 2: WikNYC Picnic

Sunday August 2, 1-7pm: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

Sunday August 2 WikNYC Picnic (RSVP) (also on meetup.com)

1pm–7pm - come by any time! @ Bartel-Pritchard Square entrance (Prospect Park West and 15th St), immediately on the lawn to your left as you walk through the lovely lotus columns.

Subway:

to 15th Street – Prospect Park (IND Culver Line)

We hope to see you there! --Pharos (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Bonus event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednedsay, August 19)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Rebecca Masterton

What would you idea on this individuals notability be? I nominated it for AFD a few years back and it was kept but consensus was mixed. I see a lot of similarities in the recent afd for Tahera Ahmad and this article was one of the reasons I shaped my notability idea. I was toying with the notion of another afd because at least to me she seems to be a competent professional but not totally notable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

borderline notable at best. Since then, no additional books, three papers in press. I'm going to tone down the article a little. Unless what I remove is restored, it's not a priority for deletion. My priority for deletion is articles on borderline notable people where the promotionalism cannot be removed. As I see it, WP is not fundamentally harmed if the boundary for inclusion is a little lower or a little higher. It is harmed if people use it for advertising themselves or their businesses, because it defeats the whole purpose. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

thanks for helping and suggesting. will add new resources and reliable while creating again.

Request reversion of BLAR

Hi David. When you get a chance could you please revert this redirect per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R and suggest proposing a MERGE or sending the article to AfD if the editor disagrees. I don't want to get into an edit war over this but they seem very determined to delete pretty much all of this article by redirection and have shown little interest in seeking consensus. See the discussion at the bottom of my talk page. I have registered my strong disagreement but as of right now the other editor has gone silent. Conceding there are some wording issues with the article, (it does sound like a disambiguation) it is well sourced and the topic is eminently notable. I find the aggressive attempt to effectively delete the article, which touches on controversial and FRINGE theories to be disturbing. As always thanks for your time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there. If more assistance is needed, ask me. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Deletion: Richard A. Kimball, Jr.

Hi DGG. I saw that you nominated the page Richard A. Kimball, Jr. to be removed. I'm wondering how can this be avoided and how can you help us instead to make the page better? Several moderators have checked the draft and I followed the instructions and suggestions. BROOKINGS and Stanford were made as references. What else could we add?

Thank you. Itscamilla (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Itscamilla, you can avoid repeating his name every sentence, you can eliminate very minor material like speaking at a conference, and most important you can find some references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. There weren't any. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on editing polarising subject

Hi David, I'm currently helping editing an article Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission that was created by Danimations this year. I've raised some issues in the talk section I've had with readability of the page and some concerns with regards to relevance and tone that seem to insinuate a particular opinion of the Commission, that it is not independent. I've raised these and offered to help editing to ensure that people reading the page can see the most relevant information up front, however I am getting the impression that I cannot make any major edits and that the creator want's to solely edit the page themselves.

My concern is that If I go in and change the page order around, with appropriate talk page discussion and without removing significant levels of content, and mark the irrelevant information it'll devolve into an edit war or something similar. I have recently been questioned over my impartiality which has made me question whether it is worth helping the page become much more user friendly. Do you have any advice since you have been dealing with this particular user? comment by User:Raidelaide.

I commented in some detail, and I can comment in much more detail if needed. It will be much easier to change the sequence if needed after the 75& of the article that is unnecessary background or excessive detail is removed. In fact, once it's removed, I'm not sure it will be necessary to change the sequence at all. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. It seems that particular user has been making some WP:OR and WP:COATRACK edits and creations. I have some concerns after coming across some other material offsite that this is an issue of WP:ADVOCACY. Is there a SOP for dealing with this? Raidelaide (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the way I usually recommend is to work on the individual articles. See WP:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Stone, and some other AfDs I just entered. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I've taken on your advice and actioned it where I saw appropriate. Raidelaide (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

www.northerntransmissions.com in spam

Helllo DGG! I would like to know is it possible to take out my page "www.northerntransmissions.com" from spam list? i was not trying to promote my page, i just wanted to put some information about this music magazine, and because i am new here, i didn't expect that this can happen, I think, that the page is very important for wikipedia for several reasons: 1) Because this is old Canadian music magazine, and my friend spent 20 years of his life for developing it, and i think people has to know it. 2) It's very informative source about music as in Canada as worldwide 3) Because it helps artist and people to communicate with each other.

Page was deleted at 00:16, 26 July 2015 I look forward to hearing from you, thanks a lot!

Cheers, Yuri

Wikipedia is not a directory. See our rules Wikipedia:Notability (web) about what makes an organization notable]]. In particular, you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. In addition, Our articles describe the subject, not advocate for it or praise it, and are directed not to prospective clients of contributors, but to the general public who may want the sort of information found in encyclopdias. You had no references at all--and no information from which anyone could see if there was any indication of importance. If you do have such references, start a draft at the WP:Article Wizard--if you do not, there is no possibility of an article DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help finding a way to recover notable content after a page blank via redirect

DGG, I was hoping you could help me save the notable content of an old, niche car technical page. I think I have a workable strategy but I would be interested in your input. The page in question ([link to previous version]) was created in 2006 and has largely been unchanged since 2009. Recently there was a consensus of 4 editors on the WikiProject Automobiles to merge the content into the more general "leaf spring" page though two editors said it should be deleted. However the editor making the changes, one of the two who said delete it, blanked the page via redirect WP:D-R. Very little of the content was retained, critically none of the core content. The external links to the page are now basically useless in terms of finding the lost content. That editor (who I will note is working in good faith) has refused to consider saving the article content. By 2015 Wiki standards the page does need to be cleaned up. I think myself and a few other interested editors never got around to it because the page was stable. The article is certainly notable. External automotive journalists (Edmund's amount others) have cited the article. While the current citations need to be cleaned up, in the last few days I've found quite a few more that can be used to address concerns of WP:RS and what appears to be WP:OR.

The solution I have proposed, and I would be interested in your opinion as a neutral 3rd party, is one that could work for other cases similar to mine. For efficiency reasons the editors on the WikiProject page do not put notices on the article talk page nor notify active editors. This means concerned editors may only be aware of a change after the consensus discussions are closed and action has been taken. In cases where an editor objects I propose that the blanking or other significant changes are reverted for 30 days. During that time interested editors can fix issues with the content in question. Editors who may have an opinion but were not aware of the WikiProject discussions can weigh in. After that time a new consensus discussion can occur. Worst case we end up in the same place 30 days later. Does this seem like a reasonable compromise to you? Springee (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our mechanism for discussing these is at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. This can get the attention of editors outside the project. No project as final authority if there is a general consensus otherwise.

In addition, every revision in the history of the page before the redirect remains on Wikipedia, at [6]. The material can be cited using the link to the earlier version, of which the latest revision is [7]. As long as the redirect is not deleted, the material will be there. To protect it against being removed from the internet entirely if the redirect should be deleted, archive that page somewhere. See Wikipedia:Using WebCite and Help:Using the Wayback Machine.

That said, I am not sure the material is suitable for wikipedia. Such detail normally belongs on Wikia, and any verion of the page can be moved to there. They use a compatible license to ours. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will look into Wikia. Can a redirect from the old page go to Wikia or is it OK to have a simple redirect page providing say two links, one to the main Corvette page here and one to the Wikia page? This would require the redirect page to not automatically redirect. How do we decide what level of detail is too detailed for Wikipedia? I know some of the math articles I've looked up over the years are very esoteric. Springee (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy the page into a suitable wiki on Wikia. We do not redirect to Wikia, or use it as a reference, since there is no check that any information there is reliable. In some cases it can be used as an external link--see WP:EL. Whether something is too detailed does tend to vary by subject. It is decided by the consensus of editors at a discussion. All I can do is advise you that I doubt this degree of detail will be accepted here, but you can certainly try. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Liberated Energy Inc.

I am surprised that the Liberated Energy page was deleted with no notice and no discussion. This is a publicly traded company with thousands of shareholders. Moreover, it is a green company in the alternative and renewable energy space. And the entry is far from all positive about the company, showing some questionable moves in its creation. Plus, the real kicker, is that I really blame myself for launching it before it was really finished. It sure does need more references, I was intending to add more today (it was only launched, and deleted, last night) especially some biographical references to the founders that surely will not puff the company in the least, but I did not expect to have to add them all myself.

How can I get this revived? This is no promotion, but rather an important story that thousands of lives are affected by. Is there a process that it can enter? I can beat this article into shape and make sure that it is not in any way a promotion, but rather a critical piece on a company in a new and important industry. This article deserves to be finished and relaunched, and then the community should be allowed to decide on its relevance and fitness.

Page was deleted at 02:22, 28 July 2015

(talk page stalker)If I may, I would recommend going through the Articles for Creation process which is found here. This will allow you within reason to create as many drafts as needed before it is approved. This will typically prevent your article from being speedy deleted. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits-articles-contribution (talk · contribs), the article waas deleted for being an advertisement and for there being no indication of notability. Notice was given by another editor a little earlier. Any article with writing like "He changed the focus of the company to alternative energy, an entirely new direction, but one that is especially important to the health of the world."will be judged an advertisement. There was nothing there from which any importance could be shown or inferred. Any article with zero sources except the bare listings in Bloomberg will never pass AfD. You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. I don't see how biographical references to the founders will help any. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of eComfort.com

I was trying to create an article for the company eComfort.com which you deleted. This is my first crack at Wikipedia so I'm wondering what I need to do in order to get this page created without it getting removed again.

I'm not trying to be promotional or spammy so any advice you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

(talk page stalker) If I may, I would recommend going through the Articles for Creation process which is found here. This will allow you within reason to create as many drafts as needed before it is approved. This will typically prevent your article from being speedy deleted. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mlhommedieu, since the company has only 15 employees, I rather doubt you will be able to create an acceptable article. SeeWP:CORP. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afc etc

Hello DGG. I couldn't help but notice your comment on User talk:Timtrent#afc_etc, saying that submissions that are clearly non-notable should be marked as such and that the users should "discourage continuing" writing the article. What do you see as the best approach to dealing with users that submit Afc submissions that clearly do not have a chance of passing? I feel confident in determining notability but I don't want to be too harsh on anybody, especially new users. Many thanks in advance, Aerospeed (Talk) 17:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I typically say: "In order to get an article, you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. If you can not find them, an article will not be possible at this time. When you become well-known enough for there to be such references, then it will make sense to try again. " The key word to avoid harshness is When. Almost everyone understands, except some paid editors. For those who do not, I sometimes go to MfD.

And it's crucial to say this as a short personal message, not as part of the boilerplate. People rarely read long boilerplate. I often modify the templated message after it is placed, removing almost all of the surrounding text. I sometimes remove the color also, so it doesn't look like a template. Here's an example I've given up on trying to get the people who program this to improve the messages. Even the custom message template still has too much unnecessary verbiage, DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:06:54, 30 July 2015 review of submission by Valamigo

Valamigo (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Foundation for the Study of Processes of Government in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi DGG, I changed the parts which I believe sounded unencyclopedic. The rest of the information should be informational and informative, like an encyclopedia should be. I am just trying to provide an overview of the Foundation itself, more in a historical light as a part of Canadian history. Thank you. Valamigo (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Valamigo Valamigo (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will get there today or tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commented. Sorry for the delay. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing articles about academics

I have created a number of articles about academics recently and I wanted to get some advice from you on how to write such articles, what should be included in them, etc. Everymorning talk 17:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

forthcoming, probably tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will get there, probably Saturday. In the meantime, look at Chad Orzel, which I deprodded. A full article in Contemporary Authors is proof of notability -- and that article usually lists books review also)It's available online as part of Gale's Literature Resource Center, available thru most public libraries DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the only problem is I don't often edit from a library (unlike yourself, I imagine, since you are a librarian). But I'll keep that in mind the next time I stop by a library. Everymorning talk 02:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulla al-Hadj

Would you care to comment? The article was believed to be fabricated and was unsourced but two sources have been added now but I still don't think it's solid. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Smith 2007, p. 1.

[1]