User talk:DGG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Current time: 07:06,   June   3   (UTC)

add new sections at the bottom, not the top                                        ARCHIVES

Barnstars, Awards, etc.


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

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apr , May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec 
2008: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2009: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2010: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2011: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2012: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2013: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2014: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2015: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec   

   DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG add new sections at the bottom, not the top

Hi, why did you delete the Karin Horen page? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaggityswag08 (talkcontribs) 07:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


About: your eloquent summary of what does and does not improves this project[edit]

Hi DGG, or if I may be so bold, David,
You wrote at WP:AN/I Archive691: <block quote>There is more than one valid way of working here. Some people prefer to create only high quality articles, even though they may do very few of them. Some prefer to create many verifiable articles of clear notability even though they may not be of initially high quality. As this is a communal project, I think every individual person is fully entitled to do whichever they prefer, and the thing to do about people who prefer otherwise than oneself is to let them work their way, while you work yours. The only choice which is not productive is to argue about how to do it, rather than going ahead in the way that one finds suitable.</block quote> Many [who?] editors include a statement about their attitudes to editing on their user pages. I am not one of them, that is until I came across what you wrote. I would really like to include this on my user page. While I can add anything at all I like to my user page subject to WP:USER PAGE, I nevertheless ask for your permission to add the quote. OK with you? I'm fine if you decline this.
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen you reference this essay[edit]

WP:TALKINGSOFASTNOBODYCANHEARYOU. Is my memory that faulty? I can't find it, and it's possible the syntax isn't precise. Did you use this a sort of irony? I seem to remember you used the link to represent bullying behaviors. I'm seeing one such user who seems to be wanting to turn the entire AfD process on its head by using such a technique. BusterD (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have sometimes used pseudo-links like these as a statement for their own sake, without writing an actual essay. I remember saying something like this, but I can't find it. I think this one was TALKINGSOMUCH... -- but I can't find it either. As for the problem, I've commented pretty extensively at AN/I: [1], and will comment at the RfC also, But please don't confuse the reasonable message, with which I am in agreement -- that Deletion Policy is overbalanced towards deletion, and one step towards rebalancing it would be to require some version of WP:BEFORE -- with the unreasonable way it is being over-expressed. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, David. I was a debater in school before "talking so fast" became the current style. I feel anything which games the system deserves appropriate response in order to keep the system sound. I appreciate your valid concern about deletion procedures being over-weighted toward one outcome. Thanks for your valuable comments in those forums. Be well. BusterD (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, I had forgotten that context. And so was I, in college--a very valuable experience, especially in facilitating the sort of intercampus experiences only the athletic teams otherwise gave occasion for. But the stimulus is interesting: if I take a turn at NPP, the amount of junk turns me for a while into a deletionist before I catch myself and stop being so unfriendly to all the newcomers. If I take a look at AfD, the number of unwarranted nominations makes me want to give a similarly snappy and unjust response to all of them, with the less than rational thought that if I argue against all of them, maybe there's a chance the good ones will make it. Several good inclusionists have run into trouble here falling into such temptation. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

basic rules about professors[edit]

All full professors at major research universities have sufficiently demonstrated that they are recognized experts in their subject to meet WP:PROF,and that WP:PROF is an alternative to WP:GNG. This is not a formal rule, but almost all AfD have had this result, except in fields where people here have doubts about the rigor, such as Education. (Major: in the US, Research Extensive in the Carnegie Classification + schools of similar rank; elsewhere, similar level). The rationale for this is that this is the basis on which people are promoted to such rank at such universities, and their judgment is more reliable than ours.)
For those at lower level institutions, this is not automatic, and the judgment goes by individual cases; the rationale is that in such institutions people are often promoted to this rank based on lesser accomplishments or for other qualities than being a recognized expert in their subject.
For Associate professors, automatic notability is not generally accepted, but is determined case by case. AfD results vary, but imho are usually reasonable. Personally, I think it could be extended to them on similar grounds, but this has not had consensus. ("Associate" = the US rank, and corresponding ranks elsewhere)
For Assistant professors, and corresponding ranks outside the US, it similarly goes case by case, and almost all AfD results have been "not notable". I agree with this.
Additionally, in the humanities most full professors in the highest level universities-- ,-- have written two or more books that have reviews in RSs for notability, and thus meet WP:AUTHOR. In the very highest level universities, this applies to Associate professors also. In other fields, where tenure usually depends on articles, not books, this doesn't work as frequently, but it sometimes does. Similarly, in the fine arts, many people at various academic levels will qualify by WP:CREATIVE.
For that matter, if one argued on the basis of the GNG, we could find for almost anyone who has published one or more important papers that the 2 or more of the papers referencing them contain substantial discussions of their work. This would require examining the actual papers, as the mere fact of being cited does not necessarily or even usually mean there is substantial discussion of the work. If I really tried, I could probably find this for many people even at the post-doctoral level. As this result is contradictory to most people's intuitive feelings on the appropriate contents of an encyclopedia (as distinct from a faculty directory), it shows imo the uselessness of the GNG in this subject. Before the WP:PROF standard became accepted, I did use it when it matched my intuitive view. If we return to GNG-worship, I will go back to using it.
Where the GNG is used here appropriately , is for people at any level whose work happens to strike the fancy of newspaper writers. I don't consider most such people notable as academics, but since the public will read the news accounts and want some objective information, it's reasonable to have the articles here. (I have sometimes objected to isolated news accounts as being based on PR if it seems really counter-intuitive). DGG ( talk ) 17:39, Apr 24. 2012

Admin review[edit]

Which brings me to my pother point. When I was a new admin, I half expected someone would be assigned to follow me around for some time, just to make sure I was understanding the rules correctly. Either that didn't happen, or they were very, very quiet. (I'm even more surprised it isn't SOP at OTRS, but that’s a different issue.) I think we should have a more formal review system for new admins. I know there's the ability to check with someone else, but I'd like to see something more formal.

Having made my point, I'm not sure it belongs on the thread at this time, because my suggestion isn't going to help the problems that are being discussed at the moment, so maybe I'll think some more on it, and formalize a proposal later. Maybe after getting some thoughts from people like you.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are quite correct--I was oversimplifying. Sensible new admins do only the ones that are totally obvious while they are starting--it must be very discouraging to have people revert your first admin actions, and I've seen that happen. And it is true that I will make a point of checking speedy nominations others have thought it wise to pass by, and AfDs that people don't seem to want to close; I know some others do just the same, which is how we keep long lags from developing. But I had in mind also a few long term admins who actually do decide almost all equivocal cases as delete. To expand on what you have said , in a direction of my own,
I have occasionally checked a new admins deletions if I think from the RfA there is likely to be some problems, and I suppose others do similarly. But I do not know if any people systematically reviews the admin logs the way people do new pages--if anyone does, I've noticed no sign of it. The only thing I've seen checked systematically is the very long-standing page protections. It might be a good thing to do. The AfD closes are very visible, the prods have been checked by several people before they get to the top of the list, but speedies and blocks and unblocka and protections and unprotections don't get looked at, unless someone suspects a problem. I have sometimes thought of doing it, but I have always stopped, because, to be frank about it, I don't want to see the errors. I can't pass over a clear error I do see, and I am fully aware that some admins use the tools beyond the proper limits. Some of these are my friends, & I can mention it to them from time to time quietly. But for obvious reasons most of the ones I would disagree with are by people I often disagree with, with whom relations are often not all that friendly. I don't want to spend all my time quarreling and navigating sticky situations; though I may get the errors corrected, it is not likely to improve mutual relations. (I am also aware that I too make both errors and borderline interpretations, & I suppose I even sometimes interpret things the way I would like them to be, & if I have any enemies here, I do not really want to encourage them to audit me with the utmost possible rigidity. I expect I could be able to very well support my interpretations, but as Samuel Johnson put it, nobody however conscious of their innocence wants to every day have to defend themselves on a capital charge before a jury.
When I started here, I wondered how a system with a thousand equally powerful admins who could all revert each other could possibly exist. I soon learnt the subtleties of wheel warring--there were some major arb com cases on it during my first year here which pretty much defined the limits. But more important, I also learned that even the more quarrelsome spirits here understood the virtues of mutual forbearance--and that even the most self-sufficient people do not really want to look publicly foolish. Our balance is I think over-inclined to protecting the guilty if they are popular enough, but it is not as bad as it could be, or as it often is in human societies. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I smiled at your closing comment. I had the same, thought, although for the project as a whole, rather than just the admin function. I'm more recent to the project because, when I first heard about it, a few years before actually joining, I thought about the model and decided it couldn't possibly work. Oddly, I still feel that way, intellectually. If there were no such thing as Wikipedia, and I heard a proposal to create, my instinct is that it will fail miserably. I actually can't quite put my finger on why it hasn't failed.SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review response thank you / Tutoring newbies on how to do online research[edit]

I left a thank you for your response — and unrelated question(s) — here. Another thing that maybe we agree on is the importance of knowing how to do research. I really like Wikipedia's Search Engine usage guidelines and tutorial, and have tried to link to them from Wikipedia:Article titles — because I think it's important to research usage when deciding the best article title, best category title, or the most appropriate term to use — but my attempts to link to this have been repeatedly reverted by people who think they own anything related to the MoS. Likewise, for the same reason, I have been unable to add links from Wikipedia:Article titles to the regional MoS guides. The article on category naming conventions also does not explain how to search existing categories or link to the above article on how to use search engines to research the best category title, either. Maybe you have some advice or ideas on this? LittleBen (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I discovered in my first year here that there were some parts of Wikipedia where despite my interest in the subject, for one or another reason I was unlikely to be very effective. Prominent among these were the MOS and categorization. I am a little concerned with article titles, and in that field, fundamentally I disagree with you -- I think the best article title should be the clearest and fairest, and counting ghits or the equivalent is usually irrelevant. And to the extent I understand categorization debates the problem there is often finding a sufficiently clear wording to encompass the desired set of article. I think the MOS is a little more rational than it was 4 years ago; if I were doing it, I'd limit to to pure matters of style, which does not include choice between article titles, just such matters as whether to use singular or plurals. But in questions like this , your opinion is as valid as mine, and there is no point in arguing the issue here--neither of us is "right". DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
My main question was aimed at getting your opinion on "Tutoring newbies on how to do online research". You don't seem to have answered this, but maybe this is something that Kudpung is more interested in than you are. My comment on article titles was related to this: there seem to be many people creating new articles without adequately researching if there is an existing article on the subject already. Part of the problem is that Wikipedia Search, by default, only shows if there is an article title that is an exact match to the search term; it does not show if there is a category that matches the search term. If it did, it would be far easier to find related material. It is difficult to work out how to search categories. Terminology (e.g. article titles and category titles) is often inconsistent for this reason. Just one example: There are Web browser engine and List of web browser engines articles, but there are nine Comparison of layout engines (XXX) articles, and the category is Category:Layout engines. I don't understand your reference to counting ghits, and don't understand how my viewpoint disagrees with yours. LittleBen (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, I got another response on the Deletion review thread that pointed me to a discussion here that may interest you. LittleBen (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for not covering everything. The WP search function is not the problem; if it does not find an article, it suggests searching for the term. Perhaps the page could be revised to suggest that first, rather than as an alternative to making an article. I think there has been some previous debate on whether it should initially search for the term rather than the article. I also have seen it said that by the standards of other search engines, it could use some sophistication. About 1/3 of people come here from Google etc., and though those search engines rank article titles at the top, they also include articles with the term anywhere. But the Google search engine is, deliberately, getting dumber and dumber; it is no longer possible to use the "+" character as an intersection, and Google Scholar has removed the limit to subject field possibility in advanced search.
Many apparently duplicate articles are created deliberately as a POV fork, others in the mistaken belief that WP includes essays on very specific term-paper type topics. Many are simply naive, as when someone submits a two sentence article on something where we have extensive coverage.
I think teaching people to search properly is a part of research, but the main result of its failure is not the duplicate articles, but the unreferenced articles. Way back when Google was new and exciting, we librarians used to impress the students by showing we could use it more effectively than they could. (The secret is partially cleverness and experience in selecting search terms, but mainly just persistence--something like 90% of users stop at the first page of results--I will if necessary scan through even a few thousand. I have found that people learn by experience better than didactic instruction, provided they are alert enough to pay attention to what experience shows them. Certainly we should do a better job teaching beginners, but the way I think works best is to show them one at a time how to do better. A person learns best when one individual person shows them how to fix their errors and misconceptions, and this is not done by templates. Besides Kudpung & myself, very few NPPatrollers or even admins take the trouble and patience. It's too much for a few people--we need everyone who is able to do it. We progress not by discussing how to work, but by working. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that we progress not by discussing how to work, but by working. You seem to be better at that (more productive) than I am ;-) But sometimes it's more scalable if we offer others the opportunity of learning how to do the work (not specifically thinking of Tom Sawyer ;-). Thanks and best regards. LittleBen (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI - user warnings[edit]

[2] As suggested. :) I think our next step is making sure that the code is correct, and then we can start implementing. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It was suggested by several people at Wikimania that we quickly make similar changes in level 4 and 4im, and then consider whether to combine levels--that part would need an rfc. The easiest way to go now would probably be to go to three levels, by combining 2/3 , to avoid having to rewrite the level 1 warnings. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Library portal[edit]

I just accepted the AfC submission for the Library portal article now in mainspace. Since I noticed in the past that you're a librarian, posting this article here for your perusal, if you have the time or interest in checking it out, improving it, making any corrections, etc. Regards, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for referring this to me. As you realised, this required subject knowledge. It's a valid topic, but even after your cleanup, still needed extensive further editing for conciseness and removal or original research; there were obvious indications of the origin of this as an essay or term paper. I did one round; I will do another later. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for checking it out, and for the improvements. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Essay about Wikipedia[edit]

Hi DGG. I checked out your user page mini-essays - very interesting. Would you be available to talk about Wikipedia some time? I am writing about the philosophy and sociology of Wikipedia. (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

certainly. Please make an account, activate your email from preferences, and email me from the email user link in the toolbox on the right. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I created the account and set up email. I will mail shortly. Hestiaea (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Iwill get back to you, probably next week. things are a little busy. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography of Encyclopedias[edit]

You are invited to join in a discussion at User talk:Dr. Blofeld#Bibliography of encyclopedias over my plans to develop a comprehensive set of bibliographies of encyclopedias and dictionaries by topic. I hope you see the potential of such a project and understand that while highly ambitious it will be drawn up gradually over time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Rising above the mediocre[edit]

What you said here was very interesting. "I do not think a community editing project where anyone can edit will ever rise above mediocre quality. Our goal should be to not come below it--above is unreachable. The greater the degree of summarization, the more skilled the writing must be. Even among the scholarly societies, many more are capable of specialized writing than of general introductions."

I would agree personally with that. Summarising a comprehensive subject is difficult, as it involves both a comprehensive knowledge of the subject itself (rare), and good communication skills (less rare, but not frequent). But it surprised me you say that because you seem to be one of the main defenders of the Wikipedia 'ideology', i.e. the idea of 'epistemic egalitarianism', the idea that a 17 year old has as much to contribute as a professor etc. Do you see any conflict between the view you expressed above, and your belief or faith in Wikipedia? Interesting Hestiaea (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it by such monumental terms as "faith and belief"; my hope and expectation for Wikipedia is that it will be a good and useful general encyclopedia. Some aspects of it are already very good, and can be excellent: comprehensive scope, up-to-date coverage. Some will be very good, and are quite good already: accuracy, referencing and cross-linking. Some will I hope become good, though they have problems at present: freedom from advertising and bias. Some will never rise above mediocre: the quality of the writing, including their detailed style. Some of all this is characteristic of a large scale community project: comprehensiveness, timeliness, lack or bias, linking. Some are special features of the people gathered here and they way they work: objectivity , accuracy, referencing.
The intention was for WP to be at the level of the average college student. Many 17 year olds are at that level, some considerably younger in fields with no special academic pre-requisites. Certainly the high school and junior high school Wpedians I have known in Wp circles have been working at a mature level. I learned this freedom from agist bias from my parents, who treated their children as rational beings who would learn more if given the opportunity. Here, we give them that chance. Children should be treated as adults as soon as they're ready, when it does not risk their safety. This is a very safe place, compared to others on the web. And it does not affect our own safety, because when there are errors, there are thousands of people to fix them.
As I said elsewhere, there still remains the need for an encyclopedia of higher academic quality. Most high school students would not be able to participate significantly, but neither would most adults. And a great many of those with advanced subject degrees I have known in my career would not have the necessary skill at comprehensive comprehensible writing. Scholars too need to be edited, and complicated works do best with skilled organization. It can be more efficient to have questions settled by editorial ukase. But not always: as you know, I joined WP and Citizendium at the same time, resolved to go with the one that made more progress. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! BTW I wasn't aware of your involvement with Citizendium.
I don't altogether agree with your comment about academic quality. I don't think articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would be suitable for WP. What is needed is well-summarised and well-explained articles on difficult or general subjects that would be accessible to anyone of high school age (15-18) and above. The Wikipedia article on Being and the corresponding SEP article [3] are both unreadable but for different reasons. The WP article, as you will appreciate, is a rambling dog's breakfast of uncited original research (plus some glaring factual errors). The SEP article looks pretty accurate to me but just goes off into the clouds ("Anti-Meinongian First-Order View") once it gets going. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is better for a general audience but is incomplete. Hestiaea (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Milking the bull[edit]

In working upon this topic, I observed that you had a particular interest in list of proverbial phrases. When I get a moment, I plan to make some bold edits there as it seems to have gone quiet. Just letting you know in advance... Warden (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)~~

we perhaps should talk first. The main thing I think it needs is citations. I could put in a few dozen/hundred quickly. then of course it needs articles on all or most of them--that part I do not want to do. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick question: Outlines[edit]

In my work on public relations I came across this article Outline of public relations, which seems like a massively extended See also section of the PR article. Should I AfD it as a fork? CorporateM (Talk) 15:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's intended as such, essentially as a table of contents, like Outline of physical science, and many others: see WikiProject Outlines and Portal:Contents/Outlines. They are more systematically arranged than th text format of a general article, which requires reading, not scanning, to find specific topics. They are more article oriented than Portals -- see Portal:Philosophy, but more general than Indexes & Lists such as Index of standards articles or Glossaries, such as Glossary of US mortgage terminology . There's also a combination page type: Portal:Contents/History and events-- click "see in all page types".

It's a good question whether we need all of these systems of organization. We've tried others: a systematic organization based on List of Dewey Decimal classes or Library of Congress Classification or Wikipedia:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus, and yet others have been proposed. I think the overlap more than they ought to, but we'll never get agreement on which to concentrate on. Personally, I very much like the Outline of... structure, and would support it over the others. I believe that's the current tendency, also. Ideally everything would be indexed according to the two library systems also, because they're familiar--not that they're any good--especially LC, which was designed to match the structure of a US university curriculum in the first decade of he 20th century. There is no viable one dimensional way to organize knowledge--the alternative is some sort of Faceted classification, whose construction and use can get really complicated. There's even a totally different approach--to have no classification or indexing of any sort, but rely on free text implemented as we implement the see alsos, and the hyperlinks, as anything anyone thinks related, with no systematic organization. Or the extreme of having everything be a free text search.

Perhaps however you are asking whether every item on that particular outline you mentioned belongs--that's for discussion on its talk page, or whether other things should be added, in which case boldly add them. Or whether the whole outline is biased in some way, in which case, discuss it. Only if it is irretrievably biased or confusing should it be deleted.

Categories are a necessary complement--they are self-populating, but eliminate the possibility of saying anything about the individual items. I use them very heavily for what I do, which is, upon finding a problem article, finding others that are likely to have a similar problem. They should also do very well for finding term paper topics. They will be more effective as subject guides when we implement category intersection in a simply and obvious manner. (And there's the related Series Boxes, those colored boxes at the bottom. I dislike them--they're visually awful, and are used frequently to express or dispute a POV. But they do serve nicely to indicate missing articles.

Quick question, long answer. See chapter 17 of Wikipedia the missing manual for a longer one, oriented towards categories. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC) .

Library resources box[edit]

DGG, I and I expect others would appreciate your continued attention at the talk around user:JohnMarkOckerbloom's Template:Library resources box. There is a deletion discussion about this at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_30#Template:Library_resources_box. There was an article about this template in The Signpost in March, and some external press in other places.

This seems like a big issue which could set a precedent for how the Wikipedia community interacts with libraries. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

category intersects[edit]

Since you've mentioned wikidata many time, I thought you'd be interested in this: Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today. We could use it as a band-aid while waiting for wikidata to spin up. Also w.r.t your votes - I think that whether we use the proposal i made above, or wikidata, simplifying the categories *beforehand* will actually make things easier. None of the categories i've proposed deleting could not be recreated through an intersect - but for now they serve to ghettoize and are against the guidance for ethnic cats.

Anyway, regardless of what you decide on the CFD votes, I'd really appreciate your input and help on the cat intersect proposal. cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I have almost always supported ethnic subcategories. People look for articles in these fields, often to find subjects for school papers. I in general agree with maintaining the categories in the meanwhile, but I'm not sure its worth arguing about them for the present, considering the degree of opposition. As I said there is that intersection will remove the entire need for the discussions.What we need most to keep are the categories from which the intersections will be constructed. (Defining and organizing the root data is a harder problem--I find some of the current Wikidata proposals a little too casual. Adding data fields as one thinks of them is not as good as a systematic ontology.) DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

category intersection[edit]

You mentioned this in a few CFDs. Mind swinging by and giving your thoughts here, on a possible band-aid while awaiting wiki-data? Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

I noticed you (and other admins) often tag pages for speedy deletion, even though you can delete them yourselves. Is this out of personal preference for wanting review by another admin or is there some guideline or unspoken rule that calls for review by at least two different people? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of us think it better that two people see the article. I am capable of mistakes, and I know I occasionally make them, because people are not at all reluctant to tell me--sometimes I will have missed something, or not understood, or just gone too quickly. Even for the utterly obvious, there's the possibility of carelessness or sleepiness, or just frustration at having been seeing so many totally unsatisfactory articles. I doubt anything requiring human judgment can be done at less than 1% error. I've deleted over 12,000 articles over the 7 years I've been doing this. and that would have been 120 wrong deletions, and potentially 120 good editors lost to WP. But with someone else checking, that makes it only 1 or 2 in the whole time.

In fact, I've argued that this should be absolutely required, but there are cases where one must act immediately, and it's been difficult to specify exactly the exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks. I agree with you. I was just curious. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I appreciate that there are times when you must act immediately, such as WP:ATTACK and WP:OUTING and possibly other situations. Do the admins have a tool that makes it easy for admins to "delete (or WP:REVDELETE) now, and list the page for review by another administrator ASAP" and if they do, to most admins who make "unilateral deletions" use this tool? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There is no rule that admins can't delete anything on sight, but tagging and leaving for a second admin to delete is a good, unwritten practice that most seem to observe. Most of us will of course delete blatant COPYVIO, attack, and vandal pages immediately and some other cases of obvious nonsense. However, admins don't actually make many mistakes with their deletions, so 'delete and review later' by another admin would be redundant. I've deleted around 3,000 pages and only restored 20, and those were userfications. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I define 1% as "many" if one thinks of the cumulative effect over the years. If everyone who had a reasonable case stayed and complained, yes it would work, but most don't. There's also the definition of "error"-- does it mean an article that would pass AfD, or an article that with enough work might possibly pass AfD, an article to which the speedy criteria did not apply, but would end up deleted anyway The 1% is for the first two classes; for the third, it's more like 5%. In any case the error rate will depend on the type of speedys. I tend to look at the ones that have been passed over for a few hours. I only really know about my own errors, and of course my rate may be unusually high because I may be unusually incompetent. Some years ago I did intend to audit speedies--the reactions I received from admins involved in the ones I challenged persuaded me it was not the route to effectiveness here, and tolerating injustice in this was the way to be more useful overall. (There was 1, & only 1, admin who did change their practice in response to my comments.) I think I will decide the same about the G13 AfCs. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Current projects 7-3[edit]

I was reading through your current projects listed on your Userpage, and I was curious about 7-3; how would you first define what an "established editor" is? Autoconfirmed? 50 edits? Consensus? Anyhow, I liked 7-1 and 7-2 (and 7-3, just curious about the details). Please let me know when you put this in front of the community at large or if you'd like any help! Happy editing! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I really should revise these. The problems at WP change over time, and so do my interests. I am a little less concerned about articles directly, and more about how we deal with editors, I no longer object to using A7 for organizations, and I'm less concerned about the misuse of speedy in general. Since I wrote that 5 years ago, there has been a greater degree of consistency in speedy deletions generally, and in fact with deletion process generally. But more important, as WP becomes important, we are under increasing attack from people and companies who wish to use us for promotion, to the extent that very strong measure are indicated. Many of the A7 company & organization deletions also qualify as G11, and often as G12, copyvio. Their authors have no interest in contributing to an encyclopedia, but want publicity for their enterprises, and a greater percentage of them are paid editors. I have come to think at AfD that for borderline notability, we should also consider the promotional nature of the article--the combination of borderline notability and considerable promotion is reason to delete--but since that's a matter of judgement, it's a question for AfD, not speedy.
I am still willing to restore articles if anyone intends to work on them, and I'm always surprised at the few admins who aren't, I'd now say, not "established editor" but "editor in good faith", & when there's actually a chance of improving the article. In practice it's usually clear enough--and a good faith editorcan even include the rare paid editor who wants to learn and conform to our standards. The problem is a more practical one, of people finding out about the deleted articles. But this is related to what I see as the main current problem:
in the advice we give new editors. too many people rely on the templates, either in New Page patrol or AfC. In any case where there's a reasonable effort , it is really necessary to explain specifically either what is needed, or why it's likely to be hopeless--and by specifically I mean showing that one has actually read and taken into account the particular article. I don't always do this myself--there are simply too many articles to deal with them all carefully--but I try to do it if there's a likely prospect of improvement, in either the article or the editor. But most patrollers and reviewers patrol or review using insufficient care or the wrong criteria.
I'm currently not that much specifically trying to save individual articles, or even to teach individual new editors--I'm trying to use my experience to help the people who work with new editors do it properly. At this point it's not a question of changing our rules, but the way we apply them, and changing the practices and expectations of the people who apply them. I tend to do this as Idid 5 years ago with speedies--I can't check every article submission, but when I see inadequate advice, I can follow up with that particular person. ` DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines[edit]

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, or have shown some ability and interest in helping to develop broad topic areas, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I also raise a few questions about broader possible changes in some things here, which you might have some more clear interest in. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

SIgns of promotionalism[edit]

For anyone watching, there are some internal signs of promotional-style biographies for businessmen that are almost always copyvio as well (besides the obvious giveaway of a statement of how important the company is, and especially a statement of how important their duties were in previous positions in the firm.)
Headings that use <big> instead of our formatting
Placing the education at the end, with a final sentence of about spouse and children.
Not giving the positions in chronological order, and often not including earlier positions except the one just before coming to the firm.
The corresponding signs for academics are slightly different, depending on whether they're done by a central office or by the individual. For senior administrators they characteristically include multiple junior executive positions and in-university awards. For any faculty, if the individual wrote it, it will often includes full details of all publications however minor; if the central office, it will omit most exact titles, especially for journal articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Local interest topics again[edit]

Hi DGG, a while back I asked you for your position on local interest topics. I think you may have forgotten about it. Could you see if you can find the time to give it another swing? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As before, the problem is maintaining them free from promotionalism. The more local the organization, the more likely it is that any available sources will be essentially press releases. for example, I've got this problem in my own neighborhood, Boerum Hill: there are a number of interesting creative projects of various genres, as well as some fascinating stores, all with good coverage in the fairly respectable local paper, but that paper will essentially write an article on anything in the general area, and will say more or less what the proprietors tell it. (The paper's political coverage I do trust, and i could use it to justify articles on every city councilman and community board member in the Brooklyn, not to mention the losing candidates, but I don't want to push it against the consensus they aren't notable ) So Iwait until the NYTimes or at least New York covers something in a substantial way--New York may be a bit of a tabloid sometimes, but it isn't a PR outlet. I love local journalism. I even read it when I don't know the area--it shows the way people live, in all their variety. If we could maintain the articles, I might want to do it.
The best hope for this is a local wiki. The attempts at a local wiki in NYC haven't really taken off--there are insufficient people in any one neighborhood who understand, and the ones that exist tend to be dominated by the real estate agents and local attorneys. Or possibly something built around Open Street Maps--that sort of a geographical interface makes sense. Or a combined wiki, Wikipedia Two, still maintaining NPOV and sourcing, but not requiring notability and not all that strict on promotionalism.
actually, I'd like a three way split, WP, the general encyclopedia; WP 2 for local content, and WP+, for academically reviewed material. Citizendium offered promise for that third part, but it 's manner or working drove off too many of the good people. I in fact joined it as one of the original group of expert editors, but I didn't get along with Larry, and if you didn't support him, there was no place for you there. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. Reading what you say, and thinking about my own experiences, the problem here is that local newspapers are reliable on some subjects, but aren't necessarily reliable on all subjects. Because of that, we have no objective measure on how useful inclusion in a local newspaper is as a measure for inclusion in Wikipedia, and some organisations and individuals will take advantage off that to inject their self-promotion in to Wikipedia, so you prefer to rely on other sources that make it easier to draw a clear line. Is that roughly it, or am I just filling in my own perspective? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I prefer to rely on other methods than using the GNG to make it possible to draw a clear line. Decisions under the GNG come down to the details of what counts as reliable especially with respect to the key words "substantial" and "independent." Depending on what one wants to include or exclude, questions of what is a RS for notability purposes can often be rationally argued either way. But I've learned to work with the GNG, since it is unfortunately still the rule and likely to remain so.
And our key problem now is dealing with promotionalism. It's hard enough to deal with it in articles on major organizations--our standards for what we've accepted before were incredibly lax, and probably 90% of the articles on commercial and non-commercial organizations need to be rewritten. I'm reluctant to start including any thing that would add to the problem. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit description[edit]

Thanks for your edit description here, it's much nicer and more informative than the usual form message that gets left. --TKK bark ! 00:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of EDP Energias do Brasil[edit]

Hi, DGG. I agree that the reason for deleted (creation by sock) is valid and serious. However, I have understandings that this is usually used for newly created articles, not for articles which have been for years and have been edited by number of other editors. Is there any other reason for deletion in addition to G5? The company itself is notable, so maybe you could restore the last version to my user space and I will clean it up before recreating? The problem with Edson Rosa's socks is that if we delete all articles what they have created, we should delete most of articles about Brazilian companies (and also some others from other countries). And it is impossible to stop his current editing as he uses dynamic IP from the Sao Paolo region. Beagel (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that that is a consideration, but it should also be weighed against rewarding socks. If they know that the articles they create will remain, no matter how they create them, we keep the incentive for others to pay socks to continue to do this and it is getting way out of hand Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277--I am One of Many (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Right. It's not impossible to stop the current editing. If we manage to remove all the articles now present, and continue to remove them as they get submitted, then there will be no incentive for that editor to continue. It's the only defense we have. (I did not previously think this way, but the problems we have now been finding are so severe, that they threaten the objectivity of the encyclopedia, and it's time for emergency measures. I agree there's a problem about removing such a large body of content, and the articles should be rewritten. Perhaps the time to rewrite them will be a little while in the future, once we get this editor to stop--and to rewrite them without any of their work in the edit history. I can certainly make the material available to use the references as a base for such rewriting, but perhaps it would be wise to wait. I see only one alternative solution, which is to require identification from editors, and that is such as drastic change in our principles that it is not yet time to propose it. It would be a serious compromise in our mission, but it's a better alternative than permitting promotional editing. We would lose truly open editing, but we'd still have an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

note: I have come to re-evaluate the question of the articles by this particular editor. They seem for the most part unequivocally useful, and often just what we would do ourselves if we were adding content on these topics. I'm unsure how to handle this, and my opinion varies. Some other sockfarms have been very different, with promotional articles on sub-notable companies. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


G'day DGG,

Thanks for your comment We normally accept inclusion in anthologies as notability [4], which as well as being a welcome contribution to that particular discussion interests me more generally.

I agree we should, but is this documented anywhere? I can't find any explicit mention in guidelines or policies or help pages, but perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong places.

Or, are there other notability discussions where inclusion in anthologies has been cited as evidence? I don't lurk on AfD currently (I used to but WP:RM seemed to have a greater need) so I'd have missed them.

Any help appreciated. I'm vaguely thinking of proposing some sort of tweak to notability guidelines to better cover hymnists, and don't want to be reinventing the wheel and/or generating useless instruction creep. Andrewa (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

we've routinely used this for poets and writers of short stories, and for short stories themselves-- see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mouse (short story), where it was used in a negative sense, deleted for not being in anthologies. I don't know we've used it in this context before. There was an explicit guideline once somewhere; I typically have the sort of memory that always remembers if I've seen something, but not necessarily where or when. Actually, I consider this an exceedingly broad criterion, but so is NBOOK, and in consequence NAUTHOR. . DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality of new articles[edit]

Hi David. This year's conference was small (and slightly disorganised), but because it was small it was an excellent opportunity to press home some of the issues concerning the quality of new articles - and controlling the quality of the patrollers and reviewers. It was possible to meet and have in-depth discussions with the enablers and developers who (I belive) are now finally aware that these issues should be a Foundation priority. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

well, I hope you post some details about who said what, so we can hold them accountable this time next year after they will have done nothing useful,
But actually, it's not their fault, but intrinsic to the current stage of WP: there are three simultaneous factors: 1/ the more people rely on WP, the higher is the demand for quality 2/ the more important WP gets, the harder is to to maintain quality, because everyone will want to use WP for promotion 3/ The longer it is since we started , the earliest people with the most enthusiasm will have moved on to other things and it will no longer be as exciting for those who join now. None of these three factors can be alleviated by anything the foundation does, or that we can do here at WP.
The hope, is that we will get a new generation of editors, who rather than trying to play with something new, are people who want to produce something as useful as they can make it, without the casual attitude the pioneers did about actual quality and freedom from promotionalism. if we can do that, deficiencies of infrastructure will not matter. Good people with the right approach to the right goal can master any system. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Well said, though it is not the quality of new articles that should mainly concern us, but that of old articles. Hope you are all having/had a good time. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


Dear Sir. Long time no greetings! Thanks in advance for your view on this [5]Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

we have always accepted an entry in Gale's Contemporary Literary Criticism & their similar series as notability , even if they call a figure minor. The article is in need of some cutting, which I will do tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
THanks for the reply. I guess I'm missing something, because he's not coming up on Gale, and mentions in NYT, etc. are not substantial. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I will double check that, probably tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Sir, thank ye in advance.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know[edit]

You have been (indirectly) mentioned here: Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Notability_is_defined_entirely_by_presence_of_reliable_sources.22.3F.3F.3F_-_Reply_to_Bearcat (I know you are busy - so I am pointing you to the middle of this very long text). XOttawahitech (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

actually, it's the whole general question I find of interest, & therefore I commented at considerable length myself DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

notability check[edit]

Hi David This artist’s entry needs to be rewritten,, but as it has the notability flag, does someone other than myself need to review it? The artist is very well-known in critical art circles and in art school set, but not in the commercial sense. Her work illustrated the 2009-10 season brochure and eighteen posters for the Théâtre français at the National Arts Centre (NAC) in Ottawa where it was also exhibited. It won the award for documents at the APPLIED ARTS Design & Advertising Awards Annual 2009 (Toronto). She has had solo exhibits at these public galleries: Richmond Public Art Gallery, British Columbia, Musée d’art de Joliette, Québec, Ottawa School of Art, Ontario, National Center, for the Arts, Ottawa, Ontario, Maison des Arts de Laval, Laval, Québec, Connexion Gallery, organized by University of New Brunswick Art Centre, Fredericton, New-Brunswick,McClure Gallery, Visual Arts Centre, Montréal, travelled to Nanaimo Art Gallery, Nanaimo, B.C, and solo exhibits in Montreal and Calgary and group shows in Praque and New York with commercial galleries. She also has been a guest lecturer at art schools in Montreal as well as:Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, Fontbonne University, St-??Louis, Missouri, Minneapolis College of Art & Design, Minnesota, North Park University, Chicago, University of Calgary, Alberta, Plattsburgh State University, Plattsburgh. There are also biographies of her on university sites and she mentioned in the entertainment section of several newspapers . There are also about ten favourable critical reviews from Canada's top art journalists. There is no hurry for a reply if you are on vacation. Thanks HeatherBlack (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to rewrite it, there is no reason why you should not do so: anyone may and should improve an article, if they do it properly. If you do so, and think you clearly meet the objections posed by a tag, you can remove it. If you remove an otability tag and someone wants to challenge it, the best way for them to do so is at AfD . The best information, as always, is not just exhibitions, but artwork in the permanent collection of major museums. If this cannot be shown, major reviews are desirable. A long list of appearances in group exhibitions in my opinion adds little: I would limit it to the few most important. I'm not sure being a guest lecturer means anything unless it is a full term appointment, not an occasional lecture. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks David, I think I have a better idea now. So if I look at the "notability for artists" criteria "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.", there is in fact the following hierarchy with the possibility of 4 or 5 being challenged as "open to interpretation":

  • 1. critical attention and museum collections with a list of "notable works" at each institution
  • 2. critical attention and government distinction/awards, art at expo pavillion or Governor General's Award or the Order of Canada
  • 3. critical attention and peer recognition ie elected member of the Royal Canadian Academy of Art (RCA)
  • 4. critical attention outside region, regional museums, plus newspaper bios, interviews
  • 5. critical attention outside region, regional museums, plus minor awards

Is this a reasonable assessment? I'm finding that these take me a fair bit of time to do, so I appreciate your input. Thanks HeatherBlack (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  • You're trying to be rational. But the only practical definition of notability is what the consensus at a particular time considers important enough for an article in WP: it's an entirely empirical standard: whatever succeeds. Most of the rules are ambiguous & ill-defined, & we are in any case under no obligation to follow them. People at WP are not good at making fine distinctions or balancing multiple factors. Considering the various degrees or rationality and knowledgeability of people who engage in discussions, simple rules of thumb are better. It doesn't help to pass a formal standard if the net effect is not convincing. The goal is for a subject to be what I call "undoubtedly notable ", notable to the degree that no reasonable person who understands the field will challenge, or even better, obviously notable, that any one challenging it will not be taken seriously by anyone.
Having multiple works in major museums is in practice sufficient. Having these works get independent critical commentary is even better. For the sort of work that doesn't typically get into museums (such as street art or architecture), awards and commentary and official recognition are the equivalent.
The practical difficulties for the sort of articles you've been writing are 1/whether the museum is in fact a major collection, rather than the sort of civic collection which is not particularly discriminating with local artists 2/ whether the critical discussion is in fact substantial and independent. A museum's description of its own collection is not independent, unless the level of scholarship is universally recognized. Almost no commercial gallery's description of anything is reliable. Too many articles here depend on such descriptions, & it would be very easy to challenge them. (The classic example is the degree to which the association with Duveen might cast doubt on Berenson's objectivity). 3/ (which I think you recognize)--no provincial or municipal level award is meaningful. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Got it! I'll go back and improve the ones that I've already written. Thanks again HeatherBlack (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


Hi DGG, You've nominated several of my articles for deletion or speedy deletion. I'm always careful to write neutrally and cite everything that I write. Obviously, I think the topics that I choose are notable, but you disagree with me on some points. I find the notability guidelines to be somewhat vague, so if a topic has enough information written about it in newspapers, magazines, or similar media to create a short article, then I go ahead and create one. Is there some other measure or guideline that you're using to determine notability? Are there a certain number of sources that you look for, or does a magazine need a certain amount of circulation? Guidance is appreciated. Thanks, HtownCat (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I rather expected to hear from you, and I've delayed nominating further articles until I could see your response. There are two separate but linked problems in articles about organizations, their leaders, and their products: notability and promotionalism:
The basic problem of promotionalism is that WP is addressed to the potential readers, giving them the information they might want to know upon seeing mention of a subject (for example, at the most basic, where is that company and what does the company do?, or which organization is that & what do they advocate? ). A promotional article is addressed to a prospective user or purchaser or supporter: This is what we do, and here is why it is valuable that you buy our products or support our endeavors. Encyclopedia articles are characterised by plain description, promotional ones by praise, or the sort of detail one would need only if one is considering a purchase. Promotional articles are intended to give a favorable image of the company, such as describing its ostensible social purposes or community contributions.
the basic problem of notability is deciding whether something is worth describing in an encyclopedia at all. It doesn't correspond to importance in the world, but to whether it should be included in WP--we can;t after all judge the world, but we must decide what we want to put in our encyclopedia. . In a few cases we go by a general decision--for example, the decision that all named populated places are appropriate for articles. In some others, we go by outside evaluation: for example, that a holder of a distinguished professorship at a major university is notable, or someone chosen to compete in the Olympics. In many cases, there are no such firm standards, and we go by the WP:GNG, the general notability guideline, which requires substantial coverage by multiple independent third party reliable sources. (some people say this is the only real standard, and everything else is just an assumption of what will meet it). the key words there are "substantial" , "independent" , and "reliable." A substantial source is more than a product listing, or a mention of an event taking place, but a significant discussion, such as a full product review. How substantial it must be is of course a matter of judgment, which is decided by consensus at WP:AFD. An independent source is one not derived from the subject--not the subject's web page of product literature, or what its principals write, or the press releases the put out. A reliable source is one using editorial judgment, rather than simply publishing press releases or gossip. Again, these terms are matters of judgement to be decided at consensus.
In all but extreme cases. nobody can predict accurately how consensus will go--I will nominate an article for deletion if I think there is a substantial probability that it will not be considered suitable, --but even after 7 dears of experience at it , sometimes I am wrong, either because I made a misjudgment or because the community wishes to interpret things differently. The community decides, and another administrator judges what the community has decided. Guidelines are necessarily subject to interpretation, and what really matters is how the community decides to interpret them--after all, we make our own rules collectively, and we can decide how we want to use them , and if we want to make exceptions. The best way of learning this is to observe afd discussions on similar topics, to see what arguments succeed, and what the practical standards are.
Some things are deleted immediately, by the concurrence of two administrators, rather than an AfD. One relevant example is blatant promotionalism, which is an article so much devoted to advertising or promoting something that there appears no way to fix it without rewriting. (As an admin, I have the technical ability to do it without concurrence, but I rarely use it unless there is some immediate hazard, such as libel or copyvio) . We also immediately remove articles on people or companies where it seems obvious on the face of it there is no possible indication of any importance or significance, --a much less demanding standard than actual notability,. Again, normally two admins will concur in this. If such deletions are seriously disputed in good faith, most admins will reverse the decision and send the article to AfD for a community opinion.
I said there was a connection between the two: A key reason we have a notability standard is that for most things that are not notable, there is nothing much to say except directory information or promotion. It is critical to WP that it not become a mere directory or a place for advertisement--we want to provide information that people can trust, so we require sources and objectivity and some degree of significance. There are many other places on the web for advertising, and google does very nicely as a web directory.
There are additionally some factors that can affect how people here view an article. We tend to regard an attempt to write simultaneous articles about a borderline notable company, its products, and its executives likely to be an attempt at promotion--it is much better to have one strong article. Also , it is considered possible that someone writing articles about a wide range of barely notable subjects may be doing so as a paid editor. We do not absolutely prohibit this (though many people here would like to do so), but we strongly discourage it, because it is extremely difficult to be objective about what one writes with such a strong conflict of interest. If by any chance you are such an editor, I can explain to you how best to deal with it so as to get the articles accepted--I am one of the relatively few admins here who are willing to assist paid editors who come here openly in good faith and are willing to learn our standards. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your detailed response. If I am not completely sure whether a subject is notable, should I submit it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation?
I really thought I was careful about keeping promotionalism out of my articles. I would like to improve them, if given the chance. Is there a way that I can edit the deleted articles and then submit them for approval to be posted? I've read something about restoring articles to a userspace, but I'm not sure what the procedure is for that. I absolutely do want to contribute quality articles and nothing that other editors might view as promotional. Thanks for your help. HtownCat (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I will take a look next week. You should first check if there are good references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, because otherwise a rewrite is useless. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


With regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emad Rahim, did you see "Is wikipedia for sale"?

Apparently Emad Rahim paid a PR firm to manage his wikipedia article.

Rahim paid Wiki-PR $1,500 over two installments to create a page for him on the site. “After reviewing all of my information [Wiki-PR] assured me that my profile would get published on Wikipedia without any problems. We wrote a short bio, included quotes and links to credible sources, publications, employment history, and a picture.”
At first he was happy with the result, but within two weeks the page had come to the attention of other Wikipedia editors. Email exchanges show the extent to which Wiki-PR spun and obfuscated the issue. On July 17, Rahim emailed the firm after noticing that his page had been marked for deletion for not being notable enough. CEO Michael French replied, “You're covered by Page Management. Not to worry. Thank you for your patience with the encyclopedic process.”

So, how much does being outed as someone who paid to selfishly subvert the wikipedia add to his notability? Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Can one become notable for not being notable? Interesting concept... Peridon (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
we have had some AfD discussions on people & organizations whose notability arises in large part because of either criticism or attacks they have made upon WP; results vary--my own view has consistently been that as part of NPOV we should always in case of doubt be careful not to remove information about those who don't like us.
But in this particular instance, this is a person who has without malice towards us made the error of hiring a firm whose practice it is to evade the principles of WP; This would fall under BLP policy. This is minor negative information, not relating to whatever actual notability he might have. Even if he were to have an article, I would not include this material--it's a basic BLP policy that we do not include the misdemeanors of basically private individuals, let alone use them as the basis for notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria was excellent and what we obviously don't want is poor reviews being pushed on to NPP where the reviewing isn't any better or faster. Based on comments from Foudation staff (whether posting from their WMF account or not), software help is unlikely to be forthcoming from MedWiki and I think our volunteer programmers at AfC are quite capable of finding a local solution of some kind or another. It just needs the community to decide on a simple set of of permission criteria instead of attempting to re-debate the whole thing, or completely missing the objective of the discussion proposal. I think, based on the discussion, most of which is objective, I'll start a straw poll there on some of the realistic suggestions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Rick DePiro[edit]

The search terms on the reward board are actually excellent leads for promo articles that need cleanup. I've been working down the list. For this article, a "Media appearances" section is promotional and most of the article is unsourced. It could be cut in half. I noticed there is an active disclosed PR rep on Talk from A&R (which I use to work for about 10 years ago) and I wish to avoid the usual accusations of sniping other COIs. That narrative is apparently convincing to at least some editors. I'll keep working down the search results, but thought you may have an interest in cleaning up this one. CorporateM (Talk) 13:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not comfortable working in that field, because I know so little I cannot tell if what I cut out is unimportant, or whether when I rewrite, I have rewritten correctly, But I too have been looking at articles previously advertised there. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Library holdings[edit]

Hello DGG! Thank you for your note at my talk page, I appreciate the feedback. I will look at those articles you listed this weekend and do some cleanup on them. I'll also try to be more mindful of promotionalism in the future. I'm curious about your technique of judging notability by library holdings, as in the Jedediah Bila AfD - it seems useful especially for pre-internet authors. Do you use Worldcat to find that information? How many libraries do you think are necessary for notability? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I use WorldCat most of the time. But WorldCat requires interpretation for 5 factors: First, it covers mainly US and Canadian libraries, with a lesser coverage for the UK and Australia and New Zealand, a very scanty coverage of Western Europe, and little else, so it requires careful interpretation when used elsewhere. Second, it covers almost entirely English language books, for in the US only the largest academic libraries buy anything else. Third, it covers current holdings, so what libraries had 50 years ago is not represented, so for older books of shorter spans of interest such as popular fiction it requires correction also. Fourth, how many titles count for a book to be likely notable depends on the type of book-- mainstream novels and important nonfiction are much more represented than esoteric subjects. I go by the experience of having looked for many books of all sorts, and one can do the equivalent by comparison with books known to be notable. (I have sometimes used comparisons to say that a work is or is not a major work in a field) As a fifth factor: editions must be combined to get a true picture, and the way libraries report holdings this is not always easy. As a result I usually report holdings as approximate figures. For major current works in popular interest academic subjects like economics, a notable book would have at least several hundred. For experimental fiction that fits no standard genre, only a few dozen libraries might buy it, but it can be just as important. For fan-oriented books on games, libraries usually buy very little, because they get outdated very quickly. For some of the kinkier sexual topics, libraries don't buy at all. A scattering of small libraries often indicates author gift copies.
The official WP standard is book reviews. But library holding correlate nicely with book reviews, because libraries buy largely on the basis of such reviews, especially for public libraries.
Outside the US, holdings can be gotten from the catalogs listed at WP:Booksources But none have nearly the depth of coverage in their own countries that WorldCat does in the US. -- but there is the very powerful consolidated search facility of Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog at [6]. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP: Exhibitions[edit]

In light of the increase in GLAM projects internationally, I'd like to start a new WikiProject, WP:Exhibitions to help coordinate activities around major museum and gallery exhibitions. If you are interested in the project, please contact me here or on my talk page. I'm hoping to establish guidelines for creating, editing, and tagging articles on major exhibitions and to begin improving articles in this area of Wikipedia. OR drohowa (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

See conversation at User talk:OR drohowa#WP:Exhibitions for my convo with JohnBod on this Project. Hoping for more responses also on the various other WikiProjects I posted on asking for comments/support.. OR drohowa (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the effort you put into the close at WT:MOS#Bird common name capitalisation. There were a lot of words to read and to write. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 03:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It was a sprawling debate that'd been going on in multiple forums for so long it's hard to get a complete sense of it without a lot of reading. Thanks for putting in the time and thinking it through.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hear, hear! A very generous donation of time to get your mind round a long-long-long meandering debate with loads of distractions, and very brave to tackle one where people feel so strongly. I think you did an excellent job. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Right, you're off my Xmas card li- As much as I hate the result, I appreciate with the time and effort put in to possibly one of the most detailed closing rationales I have read. Despite apparent appearances to the contrary, I do support the idea of a global Manual of Style and conformity and am content to abide by the decision. Agree with the idea of some sort of bot to enact this. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I would have preferred a different outcome, but your arguments were really well-done and respectful to all positions. Kudos for you. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, DGG. You've put a very contentious issue to rest, and probably for good. As ever, I'm flattered when people think I'm you. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A very most excellent example of gentle mop-wielding, though I am sure that some members of the species Gallus domesticus minoris will consider that the end of the Wikipedia is nigh. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ditto, I just wanted to thank you as well although I followed the discussion from a distance (I think it had more than enough active participants). Admins can get a lot of flack but when one takes on settling such a sprawling debate, knowing that no matter what one decides, there will be some very unhappy editors, I can only say thanks. And providing such a thoughtful rationale (rather than a sentence-long decision), is admirable and helps the decision "stick"...ambiguity would have only resulted in further challenges to your decision. Instead, if individuals do want to overturn this decision, they know that the burden of providing evidence resides with those wishing to change the status quo, and there has to be a substantial case to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I am hoping that you won't need to clarify that the consensus finding doesn't only apply to birds, but you might; there's a (smaller and quieter) camp who want to always capitalize moths/butterflies and dragonflies, and another in favor of doing the same with common names of British (and I think Australian) plants. The debate may have focused on birds, but that focus should be scene as license to capitalize non-bird species common names.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

the opposition to this and the other parallel "Jews in .." articles that were deleted is so opposite to everything I hold important in the world, including the idea of a NPOV encyclopedia, that I can only with difficulty participate in these discussions. I have elsewhere ascribed it to the desire to hide the significance of Jews in the world to avoid arousing the anti-Semites. It is not possible to logically argue against fear and irrationality. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a note[edit]

I don't think I did justice to your very acute wake-up comments at the AfD, particularly striking because, in the drift towards uniformity, you took a stand marked by complete independence of judgement. Deeply appreciated. When I read, particularly,

There is no reason why anyone--in particular any Jew --should find anything shameful about the association of Jews and Communism in Russia, except the inability to foresee the future.

I thought of Vasily Grossman's outstanding Life and Fate, which manages, other than the direct horror of the context, to write astonishing vignettes that embrace all the complexities of identities, Kalmuck/Tartar Jewish swept up in the Communist cause, with, among comrades, the various prejudices, ethnic/antisemitic, coming to the surface, only to be talked out. 2% of the officer class of the Soviet forces that effectively won WW2, despite our films and lore, were Jewish. The great vice of superficial eyes is to judge with the facile wisdom of hindsight while ignoring the hard and sometimes tragic options fronting real people in earlier generations (it's true, for me, also of 1948). After the trench warfare attritions and military command's quasi genocidal military tactics in WW1, choosing to be Communist was one of the few ostensibly rational or ethical options left, something events in Italy and Germany in the succeeding decade could only reinforce. Thanks, anyway, and sorry for this soapy intrusion.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You may appreciate in connection with the novel the edition of his wartime notebooks,A Writer at War : a Soviet Journalist with the Red Army, 1941-1945 edited and translated by Antony Beevor and Luba Vinogradova. For another account of the appeal & disappointment of Communism, see the final volume of Victor Klemperer's diary, The Lesser Evil DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with something?[edit]

Hey DGG- I was wondering if you could help give your input in something I'm trying to propose. Basically what I'm trying to do is add something to WP:NOT about articles claiming their topic to be the first of their kind, a pioneer in a specific field, or so on without any coverage to show that this accomplishment is automatically notable. Some of the arguments I've made in the proposed section come across a little vague and I've done a little TL;DNR in the comments section trying to explain what I'm trying to get across: basically that we've had a lot of people whittle down genres and accomplishments to where it's easy to claim that they're first but not show anything to verify that it's notable or even really true. It's at Wikipedia_talk:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Another_argument_to_add.3F, if you're interested. You're fairly concise in your arguments so if you could find a better way to phrase this and make it clearer, I'd be all for it. I know it could sound contradictory to some things in places such as WP:AUTHOR, but mostly it's just that I'd like something to point people towards when they say that someone should be kept without having the coverage to prove their claims about being a rare example or pioneer in their field. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

it is a matter of judgment in any particular case, and judgment around here is spectacularly inconsistent. I'm particularly concerned about the articles relying on first of a particular nationality or in a particular locality to do something. Perhaps the best approach to this is the one you suggest: it can be a very difficult thing to prove, and even ordinarily "reliable" sources like newspapers are not very reliable about this. I'll comment. (But where there is no source at all, it's easy: WP:V prevents us from including the claim at all.) DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Questionable notability page for WikiProject:Women Artists[edit]

Hi! Here you go Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_artists/Notability_concerns. SarahStierch (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi, David,
It was a pleasure to meet you, face-to-face, and hear your presentation. Are your slides posted on the Wikiconference page? I'm really interested in the stats you shared about the state of AfC in 2007 vs. 2013. I think it's so important to be aware of the changes occurring on Wikipedia as it evolves over time in order to gain an accurate long-term view of where things are headed. Thanks again! Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#AFC Backlog Drive[edit]

Hey DGG, since you gave that talk at WikiConference USA, I think my recent post to the WPAfC talk page is relevant to you. I offer some concerns about how reviews are being done and whether the processes we've instituted are really doing the work we want them to do. Blurpeace 19:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I did comment, tho perhaps I may have been a little over-enthusiastic. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly of interest[edit]

If I remember rightly, you're at the Lincoln Center library? Would you be interested in helping us get an article on Benjamin Steinberg? He has an NYT obit (which I cannot read in full right now; I'm hoping they will let me see it in July) and a short AP obit, and according to his daughter there is oodles of material at Lincoln Center. See User talk:Yngvadottir/Archive 6#My father, Benjamin Steinberg; Xanthomelanoussprog and I gave her some help with Symphony of the New World and that led me to the conviction that we need an article on him. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ill get to it , but it may be a week or so. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It can definitely wait that long :-) She mentions her intention to be at the library during a week in July. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Want to collaborate on an essay for Wikipedia space?[edit]

Spotted your remark that it took about 6 months to learn to edit here, and was inspired to start an essay, Getting through the beginning stages of editing .... Want to collaborate on making it into an essay for Wikipedia space? Djembayz (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look--- of course, i meant it takes 6 months to learn most of the aspects of not just editing, but of working here in general, including effectiveness in discussions. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Self/vanity publishing[edit]

David, could you perhaps have a look at this? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I commented, and will follow it up. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 19:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi DGG, if it isn't a bother, could you take a quick look and review - Robert E. Olds, Joseph P. Cotton, Marcus M. Haskell, Osgood T. Hadley and Henry A. Hammel These are my first five article creations, I'm in the process of creating rest of the missing Civil War recipients of the Medal of Honor. There seems to be quite a backlog at New Page Patrol. Regards,  NQ  talk 22:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

1 point: in addition to saying in a general note that the material is copied from the US govt site, it's best to indicate by quotation marks exactly what has been copied--is it just the quotation in the box? then add it in the footnote there. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Only the MOH citation is copied verbatim from the Public domain material. The general note added is a template {{ACMH}} . I am not sure there is a parameter to include exactly which portion is copied.  NQ  talk 02:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I will find a way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Detecting copyvio[edit]

My approach to copyright is not to rely on google, but to check the person's web site, and any other posssible relevant external link or reference. In particular, many universities use noindex on the web sites, or on the portions of it which is a people directory. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft:David E. Sellers[edit]

There multiple ways to solve such a problem. Yours leaves the copyvio in the edit history. Since this is a draft article with a single author, there is no problem with deleting the draft, having the author get the text refunded via email, and then have them report it without the copyvio. There is also no problem (if the editor logs in before it is deleted) having them make an edit to restore a version before the decline was made, with the copyvio edited out, and then revdeling the in-between versions.

Either way both preserves attribution, and removes the copyvio from the edit history. You way leaves it in. I've been scanning large numbers of draft articles for copyvios, and G-12'd over 100 of them with various levels of problems. Out of the half-dozen or so admins who've taken action on them, you are the only one with this particular solution to the problem, and the only one who seems happy leaving the copyvio in the history. Reventtalk 16:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The choice of which way to solve problems of copyvio is not purely a question of administrator idiosyncrasy, but involves many factors.
The general principles are found in both WP :COPYRIGHT and WP:Deletion Policy and its subpages. First, Deletion policy is that "Reasons for deletion [are] subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page)" and "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" Section 3.1 for copyright violations says "remove the violation if possible, or edit the page to replace its entire content with {{subst:copyvio|url=address of copied material}}. For blatant, whole-page copyright violation, you can simply tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio|url=...}} after checking that there are no non-copyvio versions in the page history." Second, with respect to copyvio, WP:CSD says it applies to "Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. " Third, at WP:COPYVIO, it says "Handling of suspected violations of copyright policy depends on the particulars of a given case" It then says "If you have strong reason to suspect ... some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. "and " If all of the content [is]... a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable, if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch, but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted. "Fourth, looking at WPRevision Deletion, one of the permitted uses is for "Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion." The word "Blatent" is obviously open to interpretation, but a small paragraph copied from the persons website is not "blatant".

:I interpret this as follows:

I. removing a whole article because a nonessential part is copyright is not supported by policy. None the less, policies have some flexibility, and admins sometimes do that, and I have done something a little like it on occasion, based on the phrase in G12 "when there is no non-infringing content worth saving". If the articles is inherently promotional, I generally delete saying both G11 and G12, and I think of "entirely promotional" in a more more flexible way when there is significant copyvio. For articles, I'll sometimes do the same with A7/G12. For draft where A7 does not apply, and which the person has been repeatedly submitting without improvement, I'll try to find some reason. I will be more flexible in helping those.
II. As a general rule there is no reason to revision-delete, as long as the copyvio text is removed from the current version. It is not even permitted unless the violation was "blatant".

I intend to pursue both of these issues elsewhere (with some of the admins, at WT:CSD, and, for any worth the trouble, deletion review); the primary fault is with deleting administrators who exceed policy. From a quick look, some of your deletion nominations seem reasonable, some less so. (It's fair to tell you I intend to look more carefully at all of them, past and future) I just deleted one where the essential material was in fact copyvio. I follow policy, and I try to use a middle-of-the-road interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to this in bits, since you wrote a lot. First, you say that it's not a matter of administrator idiosyncracy... it shouldn't be, but unfortunately it is. I've talked with several administrators about going this, and gotten varying responses depending on who I was talking to. I'm just trying to help with the backlog by dealing with the huge number of copyright violations, and other easy speedy declines as I see them.... it's not my favorite thing to do, and honestly, I would rather be working on other things, but I'm trying to help, and I'm talking with other people as I do so, not just randomly deciding what I think is right.
To be honest, though, I think your interpretation of what is a 'blatant' copyright violation is, as you describe it, far too lenient, and based on your interpretation of Wikipedia policy rather than the legalities. Not that I am claiming to be a copyright lawyer, but yes, a single paragraph copied verbatim is blatant copyright infringement, and it's illegal. Even a single sentence can be a copyright violation, if it is verbatim, or if the rewording is minimal (like changing a pronoun to a last name) and preserves the structure of the original. "Blatant" in this context means, or at least should legally mean that the copyright violation is obvious, not that it is extensive. If a sentence is phrased in a way that is 'creative', as opposed to one that is the only obvious way to make the statement, then you can't simply copy it. It's wrong.
You need to read, very, very carefully, the last paragraph of WP:COMPLIC, and the Wikipedia article on Substantial similarity. To be specific, "Under the doctrine of substantial similarity, a work can be found to infringe copyright even if the wording of text has been changed or visual or audible elements are altered."
You are right, however, that I have probably G-12'd drafts that 'could' have had the material removed, and as it stands now, after more discussion with other admins, I'm actually being more lenient about doing so. This has nothing to do with your understanding of if it's 'blatant', though, it's merely that my previous 'suspicion' that an attribution stated by a hyperlink in the edit summary is sufficient to fulfill the CC-BY-SA licensing requirements is correct, and so the problem can be 'fixed' by an edit followed by revision deletion. Previously my understanding was that such a deletion would have to be done after the 'author' made an edit, so as to preserve attribution, but with links in the edit summaries that's unnecessary. I'm now only G-12ing things where there would basically be nothing left after removing the copyvio, or where the text would be useless, and instead getting them fixed by revision deletion.
Your idea that leaving the copyright violation in the edit history is ok is simply wrong, for a couple of reasons. One, the copyvio could be restored by a later edit, and second, the WMF distributes database dumps that include edit histories. Distributing them with included copyright violations is just as illegal as leaving them visible. I suggest that if you think I'm wrong here that you ask a WMF lawyer. I'm quite certain you'll find I'm not.
As far as you 'reviewing my CSDs more closely,' I have no problem with that, and have in fact said before that I hope that admins do look at them closely before actually deleting them. Not that I doubt my ability to tell what is a copyright violation, but everyone makes mistakes. If some admin is just approving G-12 CSDs without looking at them, they should be yelled at. Reventtalk 17:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Stale AfC , recreated directly in article space[edit]

Hello, I am not sure what should be done with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teodoras Daukantas. The user had gone ahead and created Teodoras Daukantas directly in article space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, I see nothing wrong with the article. As a Minister of government, he's clearly notable, and the article has sufficient documentation, tho not expressed as formally as we would ideally like it. It's considerably better than the AfC submission, so the afc process was successful in getting a decent article, even if the procedure used was a shortcut. I've redirected the afc to the article. (It could equally well simply be deleted, since the new article is essentially independent--we don't really have an unambiguous procedure for this.) DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thanks, I was not sure if there was some standard merge / redirect / delete that was followed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If it is clear it's a precursor, we sometimes redirect to the article talk. If they're independent and the text can be used to fill in the article, we can merge in one of several ways. There's no standard. DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

New York Public Library for the Performing Arts[edit]

Hi, are you still serving as WIR there? Was a project page ever set up? In any case, please update outreach:Wikipedian in Residence. I'm a WIR too now, so it's useful to know of past experience. :) Nemo aka Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen M. Sheppard and revising faculty academic bios[edit]

One more distinguished professor for you, DGG. I added a Google Scholar Report, which is rather low. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Basic cleanup steps for professors (and much of it applies to all bios):
  1. Remove all "Professor", "Prof.", "Doctor" and "Dr.", Ph.D, or M.D except in the lede sentence or as actual titles of positions or degrees. For every use of first name alone, substitute the last name. For every use of full first and last name, substitute the last name, except in the lede sentence or if needed to avoid confusion.
  2. Then, for every use of the name more than once a paragraph at the most, substitute "he" "she" or the equivalent.
  3. remove all adjectives of praise: famous, renowned, prestigious, world-wide, transformative, seminal, ground-breaking, etc. referring to either people or institutions or discoveries; even "well-known". In all of these, nothing needs to be substituted.
  4. Consider replacing "expert" with "specialist". Replace "across" with "in" or, if documented, "throughhout" Remove all similar jargon. "
  5. "best-selling" etc. needs to be justified by a third party quotation. Just remove all these throughout the entire article, or add a {{Fact}} "First" similarly needs a third party source.
  6. Move the most important factor of notability to the very first phrase of the first sentence where nobody can miss it: not "A.B., an expert in something, who has taught at Wherever for 23 years, is the Distinguished Professor of" , to "X, the Distinguished Professor of ... at Wherever, is a specialist in something....
  7. Remove complicated sentences of birth place and date to the section of biography. The lede sentence should just have the dates, eg: "(born 1945)"
  8. If they have written books and work in the humanities or history or Law, or any field where books are the main factor of notability, remove journal article section entirely. If there's a section on conferences, etc., remove it in all cases.
  9. The list of degrees received and dates is critical information. It goes in a section labeled ==Biography==, right after the lede paragraph. If you find it at the end, the article was unmistakably written by a press agent, and will need careful checking for copyvio.
  10. In fact, the likelihood of copyvio is so great that I usually prefer to rearrange or alter most of the text.
  11. Books need to be sourced to Worldcat, not Amazon or the publisher. Bio facts are sourced to the person's official page at the university. These should all be formatted as references, so there will be a conventional reference list DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just noticed this useful list. One comment (in case you've got this chunk of text ready to paste in elsewhere in future): in point 7, about dates, I think the standard format for the lead sentence is "(born 1948)" not "(b. 1948)". Your point 6, about moving the main claim to notability to the very start of the article, is really important - so many poor articles start by telling you the subject's parentage or other irrelevancies so that you have to plod through a lot of verbiage to find any assertion of notability. PamD 14:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
fixed, though perhaps even just the date is clear enough for everybody. thanks. (as for 7, press agents writing an academic cv tend not to realise what we consider the key factors. Hidden in the last paragraph among society memberships, will sometimes be "National Academy of Sciences". DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


Georges Abrial: No sources here. No sources in French Wikipedia. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be extremely easy to add sources, and I see there are some at the ruWP article DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

General advice, repeated here so it will be visible:

Please don't be deterred by the bureaucracy here. This is after all a very large enterprise, with thousand of people working independently at the same time with almost no formal coordination, almost no supervision, and very little training. to help deal with it, a number of formal conventions have been established. Unfortunately, the sort of people that like to work here are exactly the sort of people who are not very skilled at drawing up formal conventions or procedures, and the net result is a mass of partially contradictory instructions and rules, some important, some not; some enforced, some not. The response to a rule that has proven impractical is usually to add several supplementary rules, rather that to revise the original, and after 11 years, it produces quite a jumble.

Some of us find it fun to manipulate the rules to get a reasonable result. But the true purpose of working here is to build an encyclopedia, and I will normally try to get to a reasonable result as directly as possible. Some people though insist on their interpretation of the rules regardless of the result, and I have also become rather experienced at countering them in their own frame of reference when necessary. As I'm pretty much an inclusionist on most topics, I tend to concentrate at AfD and AfC.

My advice is to concentrate on providing good sourced articles. If you want to learn process, don;t be afraid of making errors. There's no other way to do it, because you need to learn not the letter or the rules, but the way we use the and the accepted boundaries. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Kilroy was here Face-grin.svgATinySliver/ATalkPage 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed please[edit]

Eyes needed please on Gernatt Family of Companies and Talk:Gernatt Family of Companies. An editor has taken the time to trim some of the bloat of the article, and what's left is not very notable. Another editor has brought up the notability issue on the Talk page, but the discussion has been aggressively and voluminously hijacked by the article's creator. Could you take a look and see if a notability tag (or an AfD) is in order? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I took a look. The way to decide notability is to bring an AfD and see what the consensus is. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Scientific World Journal[edit]

David, both sections on this talk page could benefit from your input. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Several ongoing discussions could use your input[edit]

Hi David, please see Talk:Academic journal#"Usually" peer-reviewed? (triggered by Template talk:Infobox journal#"peer reviewed"), Talk:Predatory open access publishing, and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#List of scammy academic journals. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


see [7] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've commented. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Congratulations on your election to the Arbcom, DGG. Well deserved. - NQ (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome aboard. NativeForeigner Talk 03:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
"a Checkuser, which I am not" - Well, you will be soon. Congrats! Altamel (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Mazel tov! HG | Talk 07:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether to congratulate or console you, but I am glad that you were elected. Thank you for volunteering for this difficult, yet critical, work to keep the project running. -- Avi (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I came also for congratulations! So far arbitration was (for me at least) a synonym for waste of time, and ideally it shouldn't even be needed, - let's work on that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Well done - highest number of positive votes shows your wide-spread respect. PamD 10:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's going to suck you absolutely dry for contributing anywhere else, but I can't think of any one more suited to the task of Arbitrator. Thank you for running for election and thank you in advance for all the good work you will be doing there. Warmest regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Coming off my wikibreak to say congrats. I'm confident you will do good things. I'm also confident that Kudpung is correct; it will be an all-consuming and thankless task for the next two years, but my impression is that you were ready for a new challenge, and I know you are fully capable of handling it. Farmer Brown 12:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Congratulations and good luck. You're one of the people on Wikipedia I have always respected greatly, and hope the other great work I've seen you do translates well to ArbCom. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Take it easy, please. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Congratulations DGG :) –Davey2010(talk) 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Congratulations DGG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wishing you all the best during your time on ArbCom. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Another voice to applaud your success in the recent popularity contest. I hope you find your new role satisfying and may it bring you contentment. Dolescum (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • And another - it seems to be less of a nightmare job than in the past, but take it easy. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • So cool. Congratulations. JSFarman (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Congrats my friend and mentor. I totally missed the elections or you could totally have counted on me for a Support. Happy HOlidays StarM 01:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Induction to the 2015 Arbitration Committee[edit]

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome onto the 2015 Arbitration Committee. In the next few days we will induct you and the other new arbitrators. Please email from the email address you wish to use for registration on the various private wikis and mailing lists. Please also indicate which, if any, of the checkuser and oversight permissions you wish to be assigned for your term (if you don't already hold both).

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails. Please carefully read them. If they are automated registration emails, please follow the instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or GorillaWarfare (the designated newbie contacts) directly if you have difficulty with the induction process. Lastly, you must identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to being appointed. Please promptly go to the Identification Noticeboard and follow the instructions linked there if you are not already identified.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 08:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Now just waiting on you, DGG, if you wouldn't mind emailing as soon as possible! Best, AGK [•] 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
email mail sent. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
If it is permitted, and I know some initiation ceremonies by definition require an oath of secrecy, it might be nice if you can tell us what all is involved in the formal initiation ceremony. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Where should I aim the magnetic pulse field at to help jump start the Inductor? /silly Hasteur (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Congratulations and best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Congrats on winning the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Ditto! --EEMIV (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Two professors[edit]

Hi DGG. Here are two drafts about professors: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Lowry and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Josef Bigun. I am not going to have time to work on them - my Anne Delong/Afc submissions for improvementlist is getting too long and they would need to much work in areas about which I know nothing. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Long's [8] shows authorship of major textbooks, Bigun is named chair and IEEE Fellow. It can be enough to remove the inappropriate lists of publications from Bigun and ck both for copyvio in Google and on the university web site. I'll do it. It's better to rewrite in standard format, but not necessary--I have sometimes been letting that go, for if something is notable and non-copyvio and non-promotional and readable, it's good enough. However, I understand about backlog; yesterday I deleted as copyvio an obviously notable person that I would previously have rewritten.
Looking at your list, I see I too have had doubts about how to handle many of them. I will however go through it also. OK if I mark what I do? My (several times longer) list is currently off wiki--I may put it on if I can think of a simple way to do it.
But we need to recruit someone else also--I expect to have substantially less time for this over the next 2 years. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead an add anything you want, or delete if you find a copyvio or something. I have been trying to keep the list short by moving anything finished to User:Anne Delong/AfC content rescued from db-g13, and you'll see that I have been noting ones that were handed off to you or others. I have also deleted a large number from my list and let them go for one reason or another. I think 550 saved articles plus a whack of content merges is a good start. I know Rankersbo has been working on some of these too, and a few others have stepped in occasionally, but you are right - I thought it would taper off after a while, but there are so many old ones that keep reappearing because no one has had time to work on them. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Not that nobody has had time to work with them, but that very few people are devoting any time at all to them. 100 people each doing 1 a day would remove the backlog. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

RM Hogg[edit]

Hi DGG, wanted your input on an academic without an article, RM Hogg (Scholar search). First author on several highly cited books (G Scholar h-index ~17), but otherwise no specific accolades. czar  16:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

h index is useless in the humanities--it is only applicable to fields where notability comes from the writing of articles. Google Scholar is not of that much help, but the thing to look for in GS is materials that are very highly cited, which usually do show notability. It seems he is the the editor or author of some major works. The best database for a quick check in the humanities is WorldCat,[9] and this confirms it: he is the editor of one volume of the major encyclopedic history of the English Language, the co-ed of the standard one volume work on the subject, & the co-author of the major work on the Grammar of Old English, and a good deal else. Next step is to find his academic position, which from the LC authority file [10] was University of Manchester , and gives his north and death dates. There will almost certainly be major obituaries and the like. First place to look is TLS. One of the VIAF subpages[11] give a ref to the Guardian obit, with a quote, Sept. 20, 2007. This information alone is enough for an article stub. (I've gone into the details as an example of the way I check these things) DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thanks for an amusing article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks; but which? DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You're not going to believe this but ...[edit]

Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. just got added to wiki. Even after your two warnings last month: [12] and [13]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I redirected. I can not take admin action here, so if there continue to be problems, unless some other admin chooses to act, it will be necessary to take it to ANI. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. I reverted the promotional mentions the editor added to the rest of wiki after (re)creating that article. The article (re)creator, Daniellagreen, has created 13 articles/templates on the Gernatt family, 7 of which have been AfDed. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Of possible interest[edit]

I've been puppy-guarding a few articles related to a very persistent set of COI accounts, but have since then acquired an IT security client and most likely will be working with another one within a month or two, so I don't think it is appropriate for me to be involved anymore since the article is on an IT security company that may compete with them.

If you have an interest in picking up where I left off, the details are available here. Or if not, well, oh well. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen them, and will try to organize. I've said elsewhere that wiring articles on a company and each of its products is a pretty sure sign of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Requested on Copy and Paste Articles[edit]

To what degree is it permitted to create an article that is entirely, or very near so, a direct copy and paste from a single source now in the public domain? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is permitted, but it has to be specified exactly what part is taken from the source, and future edits must keep this distinct. Some of our templates, say "some or all" has been taken from particular source. In my opinion, this is inadequate attribution. Exact quotation marks or some other equally clear indication is needed. There are I believe several thousand articles in this unsatisfactory sate, and as editing continues over the years, the result is very confusing both in terms of attribution and in terms of keeping material up to date and not based upon totally outdated views. This has bothered me since I've come here, but it hasn't bothered enough others to make any progress.
The real problem is not just attribution; the more insidious problem is accuracy. The article you cite on Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine (1524 – 1574) shows this. The source, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is accurate as a summary for the facts as known at the time, but was never known for balance in the coverage, or for clear NPOV interpretation, and lacks adequate explanation of what to them was fundamental (That does not mean I do not think highly of it for many purposes--I even own a printed set.) The knowledge of sources, the interpretations of scholars, the interest in particular aspects, will be very different on every topic, no matter how old, from the state of things 100 years ago; even when religious orientation is irrelevant, cultural bias is usually present. (I do not know enough about this particular topic to give a detailed critique, because my own knowledge of the period in France is based primarily upon historical fiction, whose biases can be very similar to that of outdated histories.) DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that summary. It confirms most of my concerns and adds a couple. I am unsure how much I can correct, but I will work on it a bit and add some tags as needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crime Opportunity theory[edit]

Hello DGG. This article was pasted into mainspace in 2012 by the same editor who created it, and the only other contributor to the draft is you. Perhaps you could check to see if any of your edits would benefit Crime opportunity theory, after which this would be a G6 . —Anne Delong (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll get there tomorrow--thanks. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


I expect you've noticed how I have practically stopped participating in discussions on reform of AfC. I've done a lot for that project, such as coaxing the 'draft' mainspace into existence and getting a set of competency criteria established for reviewers, and vetting 100s of G13, etc., but there comes a time when I lose interest in projects that have become basically a lot of talk with nobody listening. In contrast, there's nothing wrong with the NPP system, in fact it's a brilliant piece of engineering. The only downside to NPP is that in spite of being by far the most important new-article filter of all, totally ironically it has no recommended levels of experience for patrollers at all, no work group, no mother project, and no interaction whatsoever between the individual patrollers. That's why it's often called the lonliest maintenance corner of Wikipedia - and that's why the qualty of rewiewing there is pretty awful, and has a backlog of over ten thousand pages.

So at NPP we're still stuck with a lovely suite of tools and very few users with sufficient clue to use them. AfC on the other hand, although it has the 'Draft' namspace, has an incomprehensible mess of script which is a constant work in progress, a permanent stream of questions from users who don't know how to use it, raw newbies just hovering with their mouses over AFC Particip to add themselves as soon as their count reaches the magical 500, and programmers plying and vying for recognition of the best script; add to that some who with the best will in the world can't discuss things calmly.

The best solution would be to scrap AfC completely (you and I have discussed this before), merge AfC drafts into the New Pages Feed, add the AfC Helper Script's essential features to the Curation Toolbar, and create a software defined new user group for the reviewers. I've had several real life discussions at various venues with senior Foundation staff who all agree in principle that it is technically feasible and that it might ultimately be the best solution rather than reinventing a wheel for AfC. Ironically again, probably because there is no collaborative project surrounding NPP, it doesn't play silly stick-and-carrot games of backlog drives with users MMORPGing for barnstars and baubles. Such initiatives IMHO only invite more of the wrong people and reduce the quality even further.

Perhaps if my dream were to come true, some of the more reasonable AfC reviewers would migrate to NPP, and that would be a net positiver all round. I think I'm going to draft up a major RfC and challenge the broad community once and for all to offer their thoughts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Of course it is feasible--we did most of it for years; it's just redefining the group. Do you see any continuing need for Draft space? Perhaps it can be a place not for new submissions, but to which articles. including some new submissions, can be moved for improvement. I'd suggest not a broad afc to gather opinions, but a focussed one on doing the change. I think AfC as it exists has very few supporters. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the only supporters of AfC are the 'programmers' who use it as their playground. Just to underline my comment above, hardly had I spoken, than we get this. I do think there is a very pertinent need for the 'draft' namespace. Although the vast majority of AfC submissions are junk, as you have seen more than anyone, there are some rare rescuable items among them; it's also the destination for articles created using the Wizard - where I believe most of the drafts come from now. The draft namespace alows IPs and and editors who are not sure of themselves to create an article that will be kind of 'peer reviewed' before going live. You've got mail. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
so would you then continue to feed the Article Wizard articles into AfC? If we do, and use it for peer review before going live, we will have precisely the current problems. I don't think the "vast majority" are unsuitable--tho perhaps one could say "unnecessary" I estimate that at least half would survive Speedy, and half of these AfD , even on first submission. That's a 25% yield. When we were using NP as the only route, we rejected about 1/2, either at speedy or prod or afd. The difference is that because of the desire to use WP for promotionalism, we're getting more useless promotional articles, because more people know about us. Their number will only increase in the future. (& they're encouraged because a certain number do manage to survive afd , often erratically ) If we raise our standards a little we can keep them out, but somewhere we will still have to do the work of keeping them out. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering...[edit]

...if you saw Draft:Antano Solar when you tagged Draft:Antano Solar John. It's not quite so blatant as the latter, which is why I didn't speedy it out of hand or even tag it myself; but I thought you might want to take a glance at it while it's still fresh in your mind. —Cryptic 00:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks, I'll check. I should have searched, but we need a better way of automatically marking partial duplicate titles. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gospel According to the Mark of Silver has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Abandoned AfC drafts[edit]

I spent some time going through G13 eligible drafts today and was a bit disturbed at how many of them are notable (well over half). Since you are one of the few people who regularly work in that area, I thought I would ask you if this was normal or if the obviously non-notable stuff has largely been deleted already creating a biased sample in the remaining material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends wether you mean clearly notable, or just notable enough to be likely to be found notable at AfD. And notability is not always the problem: there are those which are notable, but are so promotional that it would be more trouble to rewrite than the importance would justify. Then there are copyvios. Then there are the substantial number that have already been moved into mainspace. Looked at from the goal of rescuing everything possible, then there are probably well over half that could be turned into some sort of passable article; but there are probably only 1/4 that are passable as they stand or with minor fixes.
In the past, I accepted about 20% and postponed another 20%, in order to make reasonably certain nothing I passed would be rejected. (and so far, I think essentially nothing has been, except when I've missed an occasional duplicate under another name, & a few copyvios I didn't catch.) Now I'm trying to accept a somewhat larger amount. The main group that I don't want to accept but I don't want to se rejected are ones which look like they need careful checking for copypaste from sources I do not have available, or unreferenced articles on geography or the like which probably could be verified, but not easily. Some of these are detailed articles on narrow subjects, some are suspicious because of the manner of referring or indentation or line-width.
However, I rarely go thru a daily list unselectively. Each time I do this, I tend to be looking for something--often a topic I recognize. I also work on the lists of those declined for some particular reason. Sometimes I look primarily for things to speedy as G11 (I'm not sure anyone else is doing that in particular). I almost always skip athletes and popular entertainers unless I notice something obvious one way or another, as other people have a more reliable sense of importance here. I try to select ones that I more easily can handle among the people likely to be working on this: for example, book authors whose importance isn't obvious, or subjects that should be checked in other language wikipedias I can decipher. This sort of patrol of new submissions, either AfC or NPP, tends to become dull, and I try to vary it.
I'll try to take a look at what you worked on today--you could take a look at mine if you like. The move log is the place to look. But incidentally, I see I have been deleting many more articles and drafts than you--but then I sometimes want to conscious clear away the rubbish even if it will be deleted by G13 a little later on. Concentrating on NPP/AfC has been making me cynical, perhaps unduly cynical. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
My sample size was small, so I may have just had an unusually good sample, hence the question. I was mostly disturbed by CCDC47 which was essentially declined because the references weren't quite right and then untouched for the 6 months. CBS Watch was indeed unacceptable as it was written - an addition to being promotional-ish, the bad paragraph was actually a copyvio too. It was easy enough to fix though. The other two I delayed deletion on are (obviously) unacceptable as is, despite being notable. (And one of the deletes was notable, but a duplicate article.) ... I normally work the back of the AfC pending submissions. I'd say over half of those are acceptable-enough as is, but I'm easier on submissions than most. I always figured the oldest one were the toughest calls on average and the real acceptance rate was much lower because of obviously bad stuff being rejected quickly. (Although maybe not, I am always mystified at how many copyvios sit around for a month+, and usually they are not hard to spot - over half of promotional sounding stuff is copyvio too.) Thus, I was surprised I didn't see a lower average quality carried through to G13 candidates. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the oldest are those that are tough either because reviews don't feel comfortable either accepting or declining, or because they take some specialized knowledge. The problem with delayed deletion is it comes back again after 6 months--I used to do this a lot, but now I try do it only when I'm feeling really rushed, like tonight. So details tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/cultural identity theory has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  ( talk ) 06:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ameen Albert Rihani[edit]

Hello, DGG. This submission has a lot of information (maybe too much, and I already removed a list of conferences at which he "recruited" staff). The references aren't on line, and I can't see a way to determine if he's notable. I know that you have said to use WorldCat, but after multiple tries it never gives me any useful information beyond a list of books and which library closest to me has a copy. Maybe you can do better. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I made a further cut, and I may do further. For this culture area in the humanities, WorldCat is as you found useless, and there is no replacement. I think the only way to avoid cultural bias is to be liberal in accepting. But there is another problem. The text contained the words "back to top" and the end of several sections, which is an almost invariable sign of copypaste, in this case from his online cV, which I will try to find. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thought you should know that this user is now at WP:AN claiming you are harassing them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Delayed-maturation theory of OCD has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Douglas Harper[edit]

Me again ... I added some references to this one, but the text seems a little polished. Google doesn't find any copypaste, though. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

next place to try is his university, especially when the article does not give a link to his web site. It's not copied from anything I can find there, and, curiously, it got the name of his chair inaccurately, and he uses a middle initial. It might be from a publisher-- One indication of that is the bold face for book titles, though that is not infallible. It might be from the IVSA, considering the wording of the section on it, but I can't find it on their web site. This is an example of where I'd think necessary to rewrite. I see you did some--I'm doing it more drastically. It is also an example of a prior incorrect AfC decline by a fairly experienced user who apparently did not think about WP:PROF. What is now necessary is to check the reviewer's other work. And thus the amount of work to do increases exponentially. One of the best reasons to immediately remove the entire AfC process is to avoid reviewer errors. If it had just gone to new pages, the copypaste would probably have been seen sooner. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Erik R. Peterson[edit]

Hello, DGG. I came across this old draft. It says he holds a named chair, but I can't figure out how or of this fellow fits into an academic hierarchy. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anne, while waiting for David, I'll chip in. He seems to hold a "named chair" in a think-tank, not a university, and thus I don't think that would give him an automatic pass per WP:PROF, although the think-tank is a relatively prestigious and long-established one. The articles on both the tank {Center for Strategic and International Studies) and the consulting firm he works for (A.T. Kearney) both show the heavy hand of COI editing as does his draft bio. In fact it has the typical mark of a piece of paid editing—springing fully formed from a "brand new" editor, including the infobox, full of PR-speak and perfectly formatted but "padded" references. If I were prioritising which drafts to rescue, this draft wouldn't even make the bottom of my list. But maybe that's just me. Voceditenore (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
he is in my opinion notable. though it's not obvious ow to show it. The publications are joint authorship, as is customary for such groups.
The article is of course a press release, as are almost all our articles of people with similar careers. My approach to them is usually to cut down on repetition, name-dropping, and adjectives, and arrange the bio in our usually sequence.
A much worse press release is the one on his organization. A very high level of puffery and name dropping. I remove somed of this, and am trying to figure out how much more to remove. I agree with Voceditenore that these are particularly bad examples. But I think the center is in fact important enough to fix. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Roomi S. Hayat[edit]

Hi DGG, I've just thinned out some of the outstanding cruft at Roomi S. Hayat and generally cleaned it up a bit more. I was recently emailed by the main COI contributor there, who asked me to stop inserting 'wrong' information etc etc. I suspect we are about to get the biannual attempt to reinsert the fancruft and cult of personality type information we got rid of last time. Could you keep an eye on it as well? Regards. Bellerophon talk to me 22:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I did some more touchups. I'll place PC I if necessary. BTW, ever think of becoming an admin? DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Erm, yes, more so these days. Only because there are quite a few technical things I could do with tools. Foam Concrete being a pertinent example. I guess I still feel a little apprehensive after my first attempt at RfA under my previous username. Mr. Stradivarius did offer to nominate me about 18 months ago (somewhere in in my TP archives), but I had no appetite for it then. I guess I just figured I'd wait until a couple or so existing admins thought I was ready and offered to nominate me. I have two remaining concerns about running: firstly, I have no GA or FA class work to my name. Secondly, I can sometimes be inactive for for a month of two due to real-world pressures. Bellerophon talk to me 23:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just noticed this comment "I have no GA or FA class work to my name". That has never even remotely been a qualification for sysop. (In fact some users such as Carrite consider getting the GA and FA qualifications on an article an enormous time-sink.) I have no opinion on your qualifications for the job, but if that chimera is standing in your way, do not allow it to! Also, as long as you stay abreast of Wiki policies, having real-world pressures that take you away for such time periods should not matter either. Just my tuppence. Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I never did any GA or FA myself either. I intended to, when I first came here, but I got involved in the opposite end of the spectrum instead (and I also find the GA/FA discussions not particularly satisfying.) It is however true that the simplest way to become an admin is to cover all the bases & so I think its the safest advice to give. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Haha, I love the Chimera comment :) I'm working on an article at the moment that I came across as a delisted GA, I'm hoping to bring it back up to listed status, and along with some other modest endeavours in the mainspace over the next couple of months I hope it will give me the confidence to run again. Thanks for you tuppence. Bellerophon talk to me 09:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


Can you peek at my notes about "personal names" linking at the WP:Redlink article. It still is confusing to understand. I am not sure if I am interpreting it correctly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I am going to take a stab at rewording it. It still reads that we should not have red linked names.

Notable Alumni[edit]

Should these types of sections exist? I dislike them. I would think categories, List pages, or nothing at all would be better. I was asked about adding James T. Butts to the list, which is fine if they are considered acceptable, but I would rather delete the entire list... CorporateM (Talk) 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

They have always existed since I've been here. Perhaps they were in some sense a way to add content to school articles, but I see no reason to remove them. I don;think they;re meaningless: the extraordinary list you've linked to gives considerable context for the school's athletic record and the role of the school in the community . Ideally the sources should be specified, but we've in practice accepted the assumption they're in the sources for the article on the person unless challenged. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

AFC deadline[edit]

Hi DGG, how many time will take for we get a answer from an article for deletion? In this particularly case, I'm talking about Top Hat Trading. Thanks! Johnf1982 (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Carrigan[edit]

Hello again, DGG. I don't understand what this person's role is in the University. There are quite a few news reports which could be added as references, but most of them are election-oriented. Is this a notable subject? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a little odd--basically, he's chairman of the board of outside governors. In theory, in most US public universities, these people have an advisory and final regulatory role only, not an administrative role. More recently, they have in some cases been playing a major role --even a dominant role--in university administration, often over the bitter opposition of the university faculty. Of he does, there should be good references to that effect. It wouldn't normally fall under the provision of WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

19:16:03, 16 February 2015 review of submission by Sahuil[edit]

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the proposed page. I hereby would like to request a reconsideration of your position, as the Case School of Engineering, San Diego is a stand-alone unit that specializes in Wireless Health and Wearable Computing, distinguishable from the main campus activities. I strongly believe that CSE-SD is in a similar situation as the Tepper School of Business ( for Carnegie Mellon University ( The page of the Tepper School of Business has multiple references to the Main page of Carnegie Mellon University, but still holds an independent page. I am aware that the link with Case Western Reserve University is through the Case School of Engineering; but due to the impact and explosive growth of Wireless Health and Wearable computing, I believe the inclusion of a free standing page for CSE-SD will give this nascent and growing field the place it deserves. As a parallel note, the is an added uniqueness in our academic offerings, as there is no other university currently offering equivalent degrees. Please do not hesitate in contacting me if you have any questions regarding my request.

Sahuil (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sahuil, your purpose seems to be promoting the activities of the school. See WP:COI.
The present article isn;t the least parallel to the one on the Tepper School. Tepper is a major first-order division of the university, as are most business schools. We normally give them separate articles, as we do law schools and medical schools. We would not give a separate article to a branch of a medical school in another city. As for Schools of Engineering, we sometimes do make separate articles, but not necessarily. As you observed, we did make one for Case School of Engineering, which is certainly sufficiently important.
The information here, or some of it, belongs in that article. (Part of the information here is unnecessary detail and belongs on the school's website, not an encyclopedia, such as the amount of study time for each course. or the fact that exams and quizzes are given. Some of the information is puffery, such as "The resulting peer-to-peer interactions are mind expanding and an important part of the student's career development;" it adds no information and does not belong in an encyclopedia.
But I thank you for calling my attention to the article on Tepper, which is an pure piece of public relations, with outrageously extensive details of ranking, that'll need to be drastically rewritten. I've started. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobo Ice Cream[edit]

Hi, DGG, and thanks for withdrawing the AfD nomination that Ritchie asked about. I wonder if I could get you to also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobo Ice Cream? That one was NAC speedy-closed by User:Davey2010 after less than a day of discussion. I asked him to reopen it since I didn't think it qualified for speedy closure, and he did. Three discussants had said, keep due to improvement in the article. If you agree that it is now a keep, what would you think about withdrawing the nomination - which would make it eligible for speedy closure - and letting Davey know so he can close it? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, & I closed it myself. I know only 4 effective ways of getting a really promotional article rewritten: 1/do it myself 2/ask someone who specializes in the topic 3/ask someone like me who likes to fix articles generally 4/list for afd. Among the ways that do not usually work is putting on tags or asking the original contributor. So, expect me to ask you once in a while-- any particular specialty? DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Sounds like you are in the school of thought it should be called "Articles for discussion" rather than "Articles for deletion". AfD does have that kind of effect on an article - up or out (usually out). I do like to rescue articles when they deserve it. Special interests? I'd say academics, scientists, that kind of biography. Schools. California-related stuff. And an occasional nonprofit organization, if you think there's a real chance they might be notable (but we sure do get an awful lot of well-meaning nonprofit spam). Things I never touch: sports, musicians, entertainers - basically, popular culture is my blind spot. Ritchie is a very good rescuer - better than me - and I think he does know that area. Also, I am available when you have a newbie on your talk page, asking "why was my article deleted?" and seeming to want to make a sincere attempt to improve it. You can just ping me into the discussion. If possible I help them improve it; otherwise I gently explain to them why it doesn't qualify for an article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I helped propose calling it Articles for Discussion some years ago--the RfC actually passed, but nobody took the trouble of implementing all the guideline changes, and when it was next suggested, it did not pass. It remains a good idea. I generally think it desirable to consolidate as many processes possible, so they do not escape attention. Our interests (and disinterests) seem fairly similar, but they are so broad there's more than enough to go around. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This Book is Overdue![edit]

Hey David. I have just accepted Marilyn Johnson (author)... and trimmed it so that it's hopefully not excessively promotional now!... and I thought you might find the mention of one of her books interesting. This Book is Overdue! is apparently about how librarians can save the world. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Advice on AfC[edit]

Hi DGG, what do you think we can best do moving forward with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Relationship of the Tamils with the Chinese? The subject matter seems almost certainly notable, but I'm not confident to move into main space a subject that's been so plagued by POV interpretations of the importance and influence of groups if I don't sufficiently know the actual history and background. I would feel terrible letting this drop down the G13 memory hole if it's fine, but I'd feel equally bad if I move this to main, and it turns out I'm assisting in historical revisionism. What are your thoughts? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this field, but based on the article on the Chola Empire it seems perfectly reasonable, tho perhaps it should be merged there--there does not seem to be enough additional to justify breakout article. Just going by general probability , this does not seem like a particularly controversial aspect. I suppose there could be dispute whether the Chola or the Chinese were the dominant party, but the article avoids the potential issue. I moved it into mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikia licensing[edit]

Whoa. Surprised I haven't run into a copy/paste from Wikia before (re: Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc.). It's really ok for Wikipedia purposes, though? Their licensing default looks to require attribution, which seems a problem unless we're going to put the whole article in quotes and cite Wikia as a source. I understand that's a different issue from a copyvio, but still seems problematic, no? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the {{Wikia content}} should work and the docs include some suggestion on how to use the template. Ravensfire (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Even if the source is PD there is an attribution problem. In principle everything can be attributed properly by keeping the edit history, but in practice it will soon be unclear to the reader what part comes from where. This confuses the page history of all the EB and Catholic Encyclopedia and similar entries, and confuses it in a worse way, because the original source is out of date almost completely, and it is not easy to tell what may have been added by uptodate sources. (In my opinion adding that material was a serious mistake made in the early days of WP, when the expected level of accuracy for articles was much lower) There needs to be serious work done in rewriting every one of those articles, for there is no topic whatsoever where additional material is not known since then and anything implying a judgement has to be rewritten, Back in the first years of the twentieth century, it was seen as ... or it could be summarized as .....We also have scientific material from 10 or 15 year old US Dept of Agriculture publications, which now has a similar problem.
I personally do not add such material without using quotes. (They should normally have a beginning and quote on each paragraph, with an ending quote on the final one.) But I am not about to take on personally the correction of widespread sloppy practice. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Kirkus is no longer an RS?[edit]

After seeing your comment that Kirkus is no longer RS, I took a look at the noticeboard and saw this discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_180#Kirkus_Reviews. It's saying that "Kirkus Indie" is paid, but regular Kirkus reviews are not paid. Are you referring to this discussion or something different? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

yes. as a result of that decision, I no longer trust it for anything at all. I think that's the general view of most librarians I know. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I see. Obviously any "Kirkus Indie" review is non-RS. Do you think they are secretly paying for reviews on the "non-Indie" side? If so, how should the community handle this? Does it need to get any substantiation/proof that something untoward is going on? Have librarians written about the issue? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
no it's more that any publication that takes paid reviews is ipso facto non-reliable on any part of the site. this is similar to the way a newspaper that publishes advertorials tends to forfeit some of its reputation. There are indeed a few well-documetned exceptions: the NYT, WSJ, & Forbes all publish directory information on companies as well as genuine news. (I wonder how many of our articles use their directory information as evidence towards notability , btw.) So I agree this may be too harsh a judgement, but it is none the less the usual impression, which I share. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if a good way to deal with it is to consider Kirkus post-2009 a "less reliable" source. It can still be used, but if a particular book has a lot of different reviews and editors are trying to figure which ones make the cut, then perhaps Kirkus would not be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
yes, that's one reasonable way to look at it. Another is that it adds to notability if there are some there borderline sources also. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Great! That works well :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sageworks discussion[edit]

I have responded to your comments on the talk page of the Sageworks article. In particular, I think you are missing the key issues with their business model that need to be disclosed in the article. Please respond, preferably on Sageworks talk page so we can close the discussion. --Physitsky (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've replied. We can indeed close the discussion. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You have replied, but I disagree with your position. So the discussion will continue.--Physitsky (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps someone seeing this will take a look and close as they think best. I don't see the point of further discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

List of African American women with Doctorates in computer science[edit]

Do you think this article is appropriate for Wikipedia? I wanted to get your input before deciding if I should nominate it for deletion or not. It seems like a huge list of un-notable people (a few may meet WP:PROF, but not most), with a bunch of references to primary sources (although in this case the primary sources may be useable). I understand the whole affirmative action thing, but this may be a little overboard. Would we have a list of Caucasian women with doctorates in computer science? Does the fact that the percentage of African American with PhD's in the field is low, mean that they are notable and should have a list to recognize them? Finally, it seems like there is some COI editing going on, as the main contributor is User:Quincykbrown and one of the people on this list is one Quincy Brown. Maybe there's a policy or community consensus on this that I'm just not aware of? Thanks for your feedback. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

since we do not seem to have any precedent for lists of this sort as lists, perhaps it would make more sense as an article on the subject, so I moved the page to African American women in computer science . There would then be content that could be added. The source for the list is apparently the report cited by ref, , and it would seem reliable, tho of course it would be good to find a direct link for it. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good enough to me, not really sure what to make of this so I usually find it's best I just leave things alone if I don't know what to do. Cheers. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Law case article (G&B vs AIP and APS)[edit]

Hi there. It is a bit of a random question, but I was reading about the science publishers Gordon and Breach, and noticed this website near the top of a Google search. Do you know much about that legal case, 'Gordon & Breach v. American Institute of Physics and American Physical Society'? When I read that, I thought of you and a couple of others and was thinking that maybe that is one of those cases where an article might be possible. What do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly remember it well. I was Biology Librarian at Princeton at the time & I participated in the general effort to cancel all possible subscriptions to their journals, & commented on the web also to that effect. (I used the name for my postings.) For the final result, see [14]. The best way to handle this is to change the redirect to an article about the company, where this is only one of the things to discuss. It wouldn't be right to add this to the present page where the redirect goes to, T&F, since they had nothing to do with the matter--they only bought the surviving company. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I suspected you might know more about it. I agree the redirect should be made into an article, but might not get to that very soon. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll help, but I was involved in RL and don't want to be the primary editor. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft A demand for action[edit]

Hi i would like to work to create the page for "A demand for action". I might need some help at the end when I finish it, just a check up so everything is ok before publishing it. Therefore id like to work with it as a draft before publishing, could you help me with this and also approve it once I finish it? Thedavee (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

combined <ref> for multiple citations[edit]

FYI --Jeremyb (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I had never noticed it, but it's a fairly frequent technique in academic writing. I do not see how it is easily compatible with using wikidata for references. There would appear to be two directions: either to make a hack that would be able to parse such references, or deprecate this referencing technique and convert the existing ones manually, which will be easy enough, if someone can figure out how to find them. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Any <ref> that has bullets (unordered list), multiple CS1 templates, or multiple bare external links should be suspect. (but if a single CS1 generates multiple external links that's ok. e.g. url && archive-url) Anyway, if there's a discussion started I'd like a pointer to it. Thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

David M. Cote[edit]

Hey DGG, I wanted to thank you for your comments on David Cote's talk page about my proposed changes. I went ahead and made the edits that you, Edwardx, and User:Cullen328 suggested, and I was hoping you could take a look at my revisions if you're not too busy. I really appreciate the time you took to give me feedback; it's been immensely helpful in my wikipedian education, and it keeps me honest as a writer. Would you mind if I reach out to you again in the future on similar projects? FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DGG, thanks again so much for collaborating with me on revising and updating the David M. Cote Wikipedia article. I hope this can be the first of many collaborations. I updated my sandbox with your last comments; if you've got a minute, would you mind taking one last glance at the updated version and comment on David Cote's talk page? Your help goes a long way and is truly appreciated. FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversy categories[edit]

On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chabad-Lubavitch_related_controversies you claimed that having a controversy category is standard practice. Why did you say so? Debresser (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I may have been unclear--we usually do not actually call it controversies.If anything, we try to avoid the word if possible. I corrected my statement accordingly DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
edit conflictPerhaps you'd like to add that to your post there? By the way, as you can see there is a large controversies section on Eliezer Berland and still I don't see a category Breslov-related controversies. Or a controversies-related category on Elazar Shach, even though he was a very controversial personality. By the way, let me add that one. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought I did just now add that. .As for controversy sections, calling one "Political life" is a good title. But for the section there, perhaps though part of it should be separated as "religious disputes". As for the heresy sections, perhaps a brief explanation for English reads would help a little. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Weigh in on an AfD?[edit]

Hey, I need a bit of a favor. I'm in the middle of an AfD for Rebecca Donovan and the AfD is starting to get a little heated. I've asked Yunshui to weigh in since he's very good at diplomacy and I'm asking you since you are very good with determining if a source is a RS or not. I don't really want you to argue for a keep or delete, mostly I just want to get you to come in and look at how the AfD is unfolding. The author hasn't been covered that often in RS, which is the biggest issue here. She has a lot of trivial and primary sources (which I've outlined in the AfD), but so far she has yet to receive any actual usable review for her work. So far all she has to her name are three sources, two of which need to be verified in some way. One is a lengthy USA Today article about her, but the other two are a Boston Globe article that is only viewable through Highbeam for depth and a local free magazine. I can't really verify that the magazine is all that usable since it appears to be your run of the mill local free magazine and regular local coverage. The Boston Globe source is better, but it also runs the risk of being routine local coverage as well, despite the BG being a fairly mainstream newspaper. Essentially what we have here is an author who is close to notability but has yet to really achieve it.

Now the other thing that's going on is that I'm having a back and forth with an editor over comments that he's made at AfD. Long story short, he and another editor were making several comments that I saw as being made in bad faith about various AfDs. They were making comments about AfD nominations being "dumb" (thus indirectly calling myself and the other nominators dumb), about how the nominators didn't search right, and how AfDs like this were driving away female editors because we're deleting articles on women and so on. I tried asking him to assume good faith, as the comments could be construed as an attack against other editors- especially the "dumb" comment and the bit about the searches, since it actually came across (to me) like he was saying that nominators were deliberately ignoring search results because they wanted to delete an article. He responded by further saying that I was just proving his point about driving away female editors and so on. He's made similar-ish comments at other AfDs and I'd prefer that this not have to go to ANI. It's not quite terrible yet, but it's also past the point of ridiculousness. I don't think that he's going to pay attention to anything I say, so I think that it's time to bring in other editors. I figure that if you think that the sources are good enough to keep the article on, I'll believe you. I will say that you will likely have to explain the usable and unusable sources in the article just for future AfD purposes and to show that I wasn't just making up policy. The sources are a little difficult on this one since some of them do seem usable at first but a little digging shows that they're unusable, particularly the SugarScape article. The story with that one is that it initially looks good but looking at the site shows that it's run by one of the branches of Hachette, who is also publishing the author's work. Most of the other sources are trivial, but that's the big one that I had to point out. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

TP stalker here - I had looked at the page a year ago, changing the category after 'categorygate' and notice a string of edits from a username that seemed one a COI/publicist might choose (and put the page on my watch list). I left two messages at that user talk page, but got no reaction. I do have HighBeam, and will check the Boston Globe article (by midnight March 10, if I can be trusted). - Neonorange (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I've given my opinion on the article; I am not going to comment on the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I was kind of hoping that you would, since I do take a lot of exception to his allegations that I was being uncivil and driving people away. I'm not an uncivil person on here and I was also fairly upset that a lot of his arguments centered upon what looked like him assuming bad faith on my part (and other editors) and potentially taking his frustrations with other AfDs out on me. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I';ve tried to correct it. I can only say that first, I was more tired at the time than I should have been, due to involvement in something else here in a way that I find exceptionally unpleasant, and second, that I saw a specific content-based issue and left it at that DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I know that we usually disagree on almost everything, but I respect you as an editor. I thought your comments at the AfD were well-spoken and wise. However, I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of criticism that Tokyogirl79 is taking at that AfD. It seems like everything she says or does is being critiqued and dissected in bad faith. People have asked the instigators to lay off the nominator, but it's still continuing. It's very frustrating, and I don't think I can contribute to the discussion when it has that kind of toxic atmosphere. I don't know what I expect you to do about it, but I think this is the kind of situation that causes us to lose valued contributors. It's also the kind of discussion that causes people to avoid contributing to AfD, in my opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope my comment of15:37 today will have dealt with that; if not, let me know.But I'm not at all sure what previous disagreements you have in mind, for I deliberately try not to remember just who it was I disagree with on anything in particular. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Center for Internet Research[edit]

Hello. You closed the AFD discussion regarding Center for Internet Research, citing the article was a copyright violation. However, it appears that the owner of the content created the article and released it under the proper license, at least as indicated on the article's (deleted) talk page. Just making sure you saw that. --ZimZalaBim talk 05:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I did miss it. My fault entirely, and the attribution is currently a sufficient CC-by-sa license. Whatever objections there may be to the article, this is not reason to delete, so I undid my close and restored the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Delete[edit]

I probably should have included the following on the articles talk page. The previous deleted articles created by this editor and numerous sock puppets include Royal College (Panadura) Sri Lanka, Royal College, (Panadura) Sri Lanka, Royal College (Panadura), Royal College (Panadura.), Royal College - (Panadura) & Royal College, Panadura (Srilanka). This is a repeat offender who has been blocked but continues to create sock puppets to recreate versions of the same article. Dan arndt (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I deleted as A10. I suggest you now create redirects to Panadura Royal College from the various possible names, if that article is acceptable. . DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately everytime a duplicate article is deleted the editor, through a new sock puppet, re-creates the article with a slight variation, such as Royal College (Sri Lanka)- Panadura so that it appears as a new article without any prior history. Dan arndt (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please ask at SPI--I have checkuser, but I'm not yet competent in it. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

<sigh> yet another re-creation, this time at Royal College- Panadura. Dan arndt (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I redirected. The alternate namesake possible redirects. I also merged some relevant content. Ido not see what the point of all this when we already have an article. It would be better to merge content, and if there is a name dispute on the proper name, that can be discussed. (Thai language names are beyond my abilities), DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
{U|Dan arndt}}, why is it necessary to delete instead of redirecting.? Most of these are acceptable alternate names. I redirected again, and protected the redirect, and I hard-blocked, which may do doe good; but we need an SPI to see if there is a blockable range. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I need some assistance, and no longer know how to approach this subject[edit]

About a year ago, you were involved with a discussion on Involuntary celibacy, I've always had an issue with this close reflecting the apparent anti-fringing pushing bias rampant on Wikipedia these days. Upon viewing this version of the article I cannot find any guideline violating issues. Tone appears neutral and sources are not only mainstream, but academic. The contentious history regarding the article could only suggest that another DRV is going to be long and difficult. Alone there is nothing I can do, but with help I was hoping to overturn the deletion of the subject. It appears that the NFRINGE noticeboards have become a pool of anti-fringe canvassing whose editors decisions are confirmed and unchangeable prior to any debate. Wikipedia has never been a place where only mainstream views are accepted this in itself is a violation of NPOV we have long sought to establish yet it appears the trend is growing and correlates with the editor drain we have experienced. My gut tells me this article is the first step to changing the environment ... what can we do? Valoem talk contrib 23:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I've asked Coffee to allow the article restored with no bias for immediate renomination instead of DRV. Valoem talk contrib 23:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There is more than one question here.
As for Fringe, I never liked the way we deal it, where we insist from the first that it is non-standard and hammer at that repeatedly, We instead ought to present it as fully as necessary for understanding in its own terms, and then say what people think of it. We need to avoid giving any false indication that fringe topics are accepted, but we still need to avoid giving primarily hostile coverage. If presented fairly, people will understand the relevance--that's the basic premise of an encyclopedia. We do not have to slant or censor, even by implication. WhatI particularly dislike is our tendency to try to minimize the coverage of people associated with a movement we disapprove of (or alternatively of maximizing the number of otherwise reputable people involved to a trivial extent for the sake of denigrating the the individuals)
I consider topics such as this unusual, but not fringe. ("Unusual" is the most neutral word I can find.) Outside sex, some political and religious topics are strongly disfavored. Others, equally unusual or far from the mainstream, but that do have a constituency here, resist all tendencies to discuss them with moderation, rather than in a frankly propagandistic manner.
But sex is always the most difficult area. WP has for long as I can remember been rather hostile to some forms of otherwise unexceptional sexual expression. People have a remarkable ability to disdain those forms of sexual expression they do not engage in; there seems to be some human need to assign some sexual practices as acceptable, and others not, presumably in order to reassure oneself that one is oneself doing it "right" rather than being a victim of limitations, and the supposedly tolerant community insists on resisting serious treatment of things that are now but did not used to be considered subjects for open discourse. For example, there's been a surprising amount of difficulty with articles on even conventional sex toys.
The best way of dealing with such topics is first find as many additional references as possible. All difficult topics of any sort are best done by accumulating such an overwhelming body of references that he even the opponents realize. Tokyogirl79 has done a good job of it, but there's almost certainly still more to be done, especially considering the multiple uses. I think there are quite a range of different consensual and nonconsensual practices here, which have ended up in this one article because of the resistance to covering them individually. I unfortunately do not really have the time to work on it. I recall there was a 1973 book with the title "SM: the last taboo" ISBN 9780818401787, whose title I thought a good quick explanation of the problem in a few words. (the book itself is apparently a short anthology of stories, not likely to a usable reference) This is 40 years later, and everything in popular culture considered, I don't think the taboo really holds. Except, of course, in WP, which, while it should be the location for work on unusual things , is also the home of obsolete prejudices. People get very easily embarrassed about sex.
However, I do not think we have an editor drain. We merely have the expected transition from a exciting new project to something which may be still exciting, but is not particularly new. People will naturally stay here for only four or five years. Relatively few make it a career, or a life-long hobby. People try out new things, and then turn to others; our contributor base is always going to be dynamic. What I do hope is that we will come to attract a wider group than the typical post-adolescent white male geeks. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the encyclopedia has not reached or in someways regressed in terms of scope. I think removing subjectivity from the closing of AfDs is the optimal method. After the article is restored I assume Tarc is going to AfD it immediately, some input when that happens would be appreciated! Valoem talk contrib 18:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
RFC is up, comments would be appreciated. :) Valoem talk contrib 20:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
Well said. In particular that the community tends to use FRINGE to rationalize attack pages, rather than merely documenting that their viewpoint is not accepted by mainstream science/medicine, using reliable sources. I'll take a look at your RfC as well Valoem. I also recently noticed that more effort has been spent on Victoria Secret than all of the articles under Category:Feminine hygiene brands combined (with exception to the one I wrote on Playtex). I found this strange, even given the gender gap, because so many women are interested in women's health, so I wonder if it is because people are too embarrassed to contribute. I looked up the Durex page after they did a presentation at a marketing conference. One of the biggest global condom brands and just a stub on it. Marginally notable supermodels and pornstars have more robust pages. CorporateM (Talk) 16:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
DGG, I did some research and commented there, however I wonder if you would still oppose the proposed article-title, now that I've shown an abundance of source material that uses the same phrase. CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not oppose exactly, but I wonder whether it covers all aspects. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

HaitiCROWD help[edit]

Hi DGG, Thanks so much for all of your help during Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Afrocrowd/HaitiCrowd! I was wondering if you could prevent a deletion of an article which had no references on Saturday but that we have since beefed up considerably: Beethova Obas. Thanks in advance! --Aliceba (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I made another edit to remove some overly close paraphrase; we told people about this several times, but it seems it will need yet more emphasis--perhaps a slide. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please review new article[edit]

DGG, This is Mary from the LPA. Could you take a look at another article I wrote? Here is the link:

Thanks much! Mfrm123 (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

((U|Mfrm}} -- it's excellent except for some points of style --I moved it to mainspace as Eugen Halle. Some points of WP style-- (1) I linked writers and musicians that have an enWP article-- there are some who do not who may have a deWP article, which ideally should be searched for and if found linked in the form [[de:''title'']] ; I left a deliberate redlink where I think an article is needed. (2) We do not give a reference to a Wikipedia article -- we just link the term--please go back and fix this (3). We do not use "Mr." except in direct quotations. I fixed this. (4) for capitalization and italics of works, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. In brief: titles of operas go in italics, as do titles of musical works that are more than a single song. Song titles go in "quotation marks." DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

DGG, Thank you for your comments and for moving the page. I was going to make the corrections, but the page is now gone! What to do? Mfrm123 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I searched for the article in Wikipedia generally, and it was there - thank you! I will work on your suggested corrections. Mfrm123 (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

William Lawrence Saunders[edit]

I am the author of William Lawrence Saunders. Another editor cut and pasted my article instead of using the move function. My article is here at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/William Lawrence Saunders. William Lawrence Saunders needs to be deleted to make room for User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/William Lawrence Saunders to be move there, using the move function. Cutting and pasting lost the edit history needed to attribute authorship. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

done DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Randy Gage[edit]

There's a draft at AfC, Draft:Randy Gage Author, which I'd like to approve. It should simply be titled Randy Gage, but that title is create protected. You were one of the admins who deleted the page in the past. What do I need to do to get it un-create protected? Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I recommend extreme skepticism about articles concerning motivational speakers and authors, especially those who built their careers on multi-level marketing. Many of these people are experts at simulating notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, Cullen328 - I did not know that. Can one of you take a look at the draft then? I'll remove my comment until I hear from you. Also, would Nido Qubein also fall into that category? Thanks for your assistance. Onel5969 (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that Nido Qubein is in a whole different category, Onel5969, since he is the president of an established, accredited university and a board member of a couple of major corporations. He does not need to "simulate notability". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

A page you deleted was recreated[edit]

On March 21 you deleted Raju Menon. The article was recreated by a user account that was created after the deletion and is still, to some extent, promotional. Based on this information, the deletion reason may still apply and the user who made it this time may be a sock of the other. However, as someone who is not an administrator, I don't have the information that would be needed to check if the previous creator had any reason to make a sock (being blocked for example) or how similar the article is to the deleted version, which would indicate the creators were the same. PhantomTech (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

another admin dealt with it. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Harrassment RfC[edit]

Just a headsup that your apparent attempt to ping Risker in this edit will not have worked due to your typo. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

about this, "ping" only works if you have a fresh signature in the post. see [here, which says (to save you the click) "Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent. It must also be in the page text—-links in the edit summary do not create notifications." :) Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks. Everything considered, Im not going to do anything further. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Article indexed for deletion[edit]

Hi DGG, it was great seeing you yesterday. I am hoping you can help prevent the deletion of the below article which was created during AfroCROWD and which I am in the process of beefing up. Thanks!

--Aliceba (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I commented. The discussion will have to run its course for the 7 days. I expect it will be kept, but additional references will help further. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Restoring a deleted article debate[edit]

Prior AfD resulted in delete, but as far as I can tell the article-subject is notable and a proper article can be written[15]

Is it proper to merely boldly write the page or is there some discussion-building process that needs to be followed? CorporateM (Talk) 22:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

commented there DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Melany Barnes[edit]

O.K. I have tried to re prod it this time, with mentioning it in the edit summary. My main concern with it is that yes, perhaps she is notable, but in order to have a full stub the article should include education, date of birth (if available, etc). Saying Melany Barnes is a former Democratic member of the Kansas House of Representatives, who represented the 95th district. She replaced Tom Sawyer in the Fall of 2009 and served until 2011 when she lost her re-election bid to Republican Benny Boman. is not good enough. Where are the refs that can prove it? Since its a BLP we as editors should be careful not to put libelous information without verification. If I am wrong with the above statement, do feel free to correct me, but as it stands, if it wont meet deletion, then it should be merged.--Mishae (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly needs more information, but stubs a permitted, as longs there is information to indicate notability and a source for verification.I see nothing even potentially libelous here. That she is a Democrat? That she won an election? That she failed re-election? DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The last sentence need an additional reference, not just an external link, don't you think?--Mishae (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It mentions the person who did win, so that's should be easy enough for you to do--and I see someone else just did it. I am puzzled about your attempts to delete this page, considering the excellent work you have been doing on pages for other legislators. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Since someone already edited it, I have no complains. I just saw this edit when I went to the library this morning, and already sent a Thank you to that editor. I had an issue to find the source and for the sake of it, a prod was legit. However, perhaps a ref improve template would have been much better. Keep in mind, I don't prod a lot of articles, and I don't prod because I don't like something. I however do prod them if there is no refs other then external links, which after 2010 should mandatory. Either way, I was wrong in doing so, and I think I should get back to what I do best: write articles, add dates and accessdates, and archive ones which are dead.--Mishae (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
agreed, isolated example. Sorry if I seem to have made an issue out of it. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In need of advice[edit]

I am in need of advice from an administrator. I am currently participating in a request move discussion. One of the editors cites Wikipedia policies that, I think, are misapplied or misunderstood. Or, perhaps, I am the editor that cites Wikipedia policies that are misapplied or misunderstood.

I am not sure how to handle these conflicting interpretations of Wikipedia policies. Do or will an admin examine discussions for faulty use of Wikipedia policies to ensure that all participants in the discussion properly understand them and adhere to them - particularly the Wikipedia:Core content policies - like a referee?

I am seeking a way for the request move discussion to continue in its current forum, but with someone with experience and credentials to evaluate points of policy and to explicitly declare when a policy has been misapplied or applied correctly. I think the discussion I am participating in has the potential to devolve into a formal complaint - largely with a single editor. I am trying to avoid that scenario.

Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The application of all WP policies is decided by consensus, and thus a certain degree of variability is to be expected. In this particular instance, the question is apparently whether African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) should be moved to Civil Rights Movement. I'm not going to pas judgement on this; no one person decides these things. But I suggest you reconsider whether this move would display too much of an US perspective: WP is international. A reasonable case could probably be made for the move, or against it. My advice here has always been to concentrate on improving page content and not worry too much about page titles. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the claim, "The application of all WP policies is decided by consensus" a contradiction to the statement, "The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus" from the lede paragraph of Wikipedia:Core content policies that describes the "three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research.". Thank you for responding. Mitchumch (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The fundamental principles are not affected, but the application of them is always subject to consensus. Each of the individual policies has extensive talk pages discussing the proper application of them, as every single key word in them is ambiguous to some extent and the exact meaning of every one of them has been disputed . Tens hundreds of thousands of individual applications have been discussed on various WP and article talk pages. If there is disagreement on how to apply a policy, only consensus can resolve it. (And it isn't clear at all that your argument falls under any of the three policies, listed) We have no dictators; even arb com cannot decide on content. This particular question should be discussed at the proper place, and I'm not going to get involved int that discussion. If consensus holds against you, you will need to accept it, because that's the way we work here. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank your for your advice. I appreciate that you took the time to answer my request. Mitchumch (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

your edit of Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art[edit]

I consider your deletion of exhibition sections, marking it as "inappropriate content, as almost all the artists are not notable" is not appropriate action itself. The museum is an international venue, not private, but a state funded, hence it chooses only notable artists to be exhibited in it's walls. Many of the artists you removed from the section are renowned and has their own wiki pages. Hence, I'd like to inform you that I am going to reinstate the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthistorian1977 (talkcontribs) 15:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

perhaps it would be acceptable to add it back, including only the artists who are notable enough to have articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Some artists are notable enough without having wiki articles. And this is the beauty of Wikipedia, that we have time and means to create an articles for them. My assumption that if an Artist is chosen to be exhibited in Museum, he or she are notable enough to be included into article about this specific museum and I am slowly creating articles about those artists as well. Please, note, most of the artists are from small European, African or Asian countries and hence they don't have English articles. So, I think it still worth to mention them. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That they were included in a exhibitions not enough evidence of that.the standard practice is to include only those with articles or clear referenced evidence of being clearly qualified. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
In the art world, being included into Museum Exhibition is the sign of notability. So, I suggest to leave them in the article, since the article is about Museum and not specific artists. Those who have english wiki pages, will have the hyperlink and those who do not, will not, which is in time will be fixed with having a hyperlink. Still, all of them have dozens of reference in the Internet, which will be filled in time in the article. If you still not agree with this approach, I can mark the article as a stub, showing that it's still being work in progress. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Not at Wikipedia. See WP:CREATIVE. It's being included in permanent collections, or being the subject of substance critical work. Some of your articles do, quite appropriately, assert permanent collections, but in each case you need to prove it--if at all possible, from the museum's web site or a comparable third party source. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

COIN discussion, related to an AfC that you approved[edit]

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Scholars_who_appear_to_be_anonymously_self-promoting... Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Haiti[edit]

Flag of Haiti.svg

You are invited to join WikiProject Haiti, an outreach effort which aims to support development of Haiti related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. If you'd like to join, please sign up here. L'union fait la force! Thanks!

Hi DGG, I saw your participation in the "Meetup/NYC/AfroCrowd/HaitiCROWD" and thought I'd extend the invite to a completely revamped WikiProject Haiti. Cheers! Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Help needed to monitor Sweet Briar College, please[edit]

Hi, I'm putting the word out to (you and) your Talk page stalkers that help is needed to monitor the wave of brand new WP:SPA editors and IPs that are making either possibly promotional or clueless edits to the article. Due to the college's sudden pending closure, alumnae are out in force changing stuff in the article. While some edits have been decent, they are mixed in with a dose of promotionalism and wiki-cluelessness that is becoming exhausting to monitor. Any help appreciated. Softlavender (talk)

will do. thanks for the reminder DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Pluralsight[edit]

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Pluralsight, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has good referencing, a cleanup would be enough for removing the promotional tone. Thank you. SD0001 (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Paytm[edit]

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Paytm, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because I have now established notability through a few further reading links. Thank you. SD0001 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, i am new for article creation. Just help on how to fix the issues instead of deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There is enough there now to prevent speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Chitra group of institutions[edit]

sir/madam the work in website is going on and it will be finished as soon as possible, then all the images of various schools will be uploaded. I request you sir to kindly just wait for some time please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsachan12 (talkcontribs) 18:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(This is relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitra Group of Institutions--its website is well worth seeing). Sagarsachan12, perhaps you should wait unit there are not merely pictures of the campus, but some references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
DGG, thank you for a good laugh on a grey day. I particularly like this page. Now I know where to apply when I want a degree in Lorem ipsum. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Recreation of previously speedly deleted article by company representative .[edit]

Hi DGG, 3 hours you speedily deleted an article on a company LinkstreetLearning, the article has been recreated with some new reference to support its notability claim but the article appears to be created by a company employee working as a Marketing Associate LinkedIn account of the empolyee and off course she lied about her identity on my talk page (i didnt ask). i just wanted to let you know that .thank you :)Nicky mathew (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

it is slightly better--at least the adjectives have been removed. Let me see if some other admin deletes it. I don't want to seem like I am pursuing someone. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@DGG:Hi again, thank you for taking appropriate action.:) Nicky mathew (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Afrocrowd Inspire[edit]

Hi DGG, Was hoping to get your feedback or support on this Inspire Campaign Idea Lab proposal. Thanks in advance! --Aliceba (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Flag on TalkLocal- what should I know[edit]

Hi David,

I went to check out TalkLocal on Wikipedia after speaking to one of their sales representatives. I never sign with a company without checking wikipedia first. Anyway, the flag for deletion raised concerns for me, but other than that they seemed legitimate. May I ask why they were flagged? They have about as many sources listed as their competitors Porch and Thumbtack which aren’t flagged. So it seems like uneven treatment. Hoping to hear from you as I’m leaning towards signing up for the service, but don’t want to ignore any red flags.


Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timlbiz (talkcontribs) 22:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Porch is 10 times the size; Thumbtack (website) over 30 times. They therefore have references which are more than press releases about initial funding. (Though those are also promotional, possibly enough so to be deleted also.) When I see an argument for a startup being notable because much larger firms in the field are notable, I conclude they are trying to use WP for publicity. WP does not do that.
I would strongly advise against using WP for advice about business decisions. The prevalent tone of at least half our articles on businesses is promotional, usually written by editors with a conflict of interest that prevents unbiased writing. We need to get rid of such articles, but it will take a while. because there are tens of thousands of articles that need to be removed one at a time after discussion. In the meanwhile, the last thing we want to do is to add more of them. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Recreation of previously speedy deleted article by company representative again :([edit]

Hi DGG, Another page with same issue came up but this is little more complicated. this is the article .global, please read this first Talk global and then my talk page to understand as can you seen that Another admin already reviewed and declined speedy deletion request and I am not presuming one anymore, I just want your opinion what to do about the matter. In my talk page I put forward a suggestion which is merging and creating a new article for all 1300 new extension made by ICANN and I believe giving an individual each domain extension will only serve as a promotional tool for these companies,we can do a better job by combined articles into one large well explained one through AfC process.what is your opinion?. sorry, if I am disturbing u, I believe this problem will occur again if not sorted out now.In future will try to avoid these conversations if it's not appropriate.thank you for your time :) Nicky mathew (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nicky mathew in my view your comment on violates OUTING. I've removed it. DGG would you please revdel it, and my deletion of it? (if not I will email oversight - just let me know: Nicky's set of diffs is here and my deletion is here). I am sure it wasn't knowing/intentional Nicky and that you won't do that going forward. I work on COI issues a lot and we really need folks looking at articles being created, but also we need to be really careful of OUTING. I can show you examples (if you want) of how I approach editors who look like they have a COI without crossing that line. (I just approached the editor you are concerned about - see here) Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Nicky mathew, I think Jytdog is right about this. I oversighted the content, which I now have the ability to do. We avoid discussing in public who the real life person is who created an article, and certainly talk pages are not an acceptable place to look at this. If you think the matter warrant a SPI, post there, but without giving individual names or links to their web sites. (Myself, I rather think it isn't worth the trouble in this case). DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
As for the issue of whether such a a page is justifiable. the first place to discuss this is AfD; there may need to be a more general discussion somewhere DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

DGG Jytdog Thank you for your advice, I will avoid discussing in public who the real life person is who created an article.In AFD should i add those web links to show col of the creator ? i am writing my final exam in the coming days and i was trying to not edit or patrol new pages but in between this came up while checking watchiist before leaving. can i apply for AFD after 2 weeks or can you do it ?

please, please read WP:OUTING. You cannot try to find out the real life identity of any wikipedian, and you really cannot post information within Wikipedia about the real life identity of a wikipedian. DGG "oversighted" the mistake you made, meaning he obliterated it - it is gone forever. This is very sacred stuff, deep in the guts of Wikipedia, and you can get site banned for OUTING someone. Do not go there. Really. I understand you are busy now but if you like, when you get time i will (or maybe DGG will) tell you about how i (or he, in his case) spot possible conflicted editors and how i (or he) deal with them. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The first step is to realize that most people come to wikipedia with some degree of conflict of interest, to write topics about which the really care. The problem is not to keep the out, the problem is to see that what they do contributes positively to the encyclopedia. People who are firm believers in a cause , for example. can be great problems, because they care so much about something (hat may well be in fact really important) that they recent the writing of NPOV articles. Fans of an artist or sports team can be problems also, inserting all sorts of unjustified material in their praise, worse than a publicist would dare even try. Even for products or companies, there are great fans who want everyone to share the POV--those fixated on particular brand of camera or computer or automobile, or on a restaurant or type of clothing, of great believers in the wonderful work of a doctor or financial advisor or charity.
But the problem here is the people with a commercial interest. The come in all sorts: the owner of a business or professional practice; the press agent in a company, and the persona with a small or moderate knowledge of Wikipedia who advertises their services, or now especially those freelancers who answer advertisements on elance and similar websites, Most of these people do not know how to make a decent article even if they wanted to; but few of them want to--they or their clients will not be satisfied by a NPOV articles in proportion to the size of their business with adequate references--they want a web page here, not seeing us a s different fro mother places for posting advertisements. they do not care about our notability requirements--they all at least hope to be notable some day,and want the public to know about them. I and several others have estimated that at least half our article on commercial and noncommercial organizations and their leaders are the products of this kind of editing. t this point WP is so well known ,that it is hard to imagine an organization anywhere that would not want to have a WP page, and it takes a true understanding of the way in which WP is different, to realize that this is not he way to achieve that.
There is thus no reason to get angry at particular instances. The critical thing to do is to remove the pov articles; assuming we have half million, and if a hundred of us set out to do it for an hot a day, , and supported each other , we could mange to keep up with the inflow and clear up the background in a year or two. We did it for unreferenced bios of living people; we can do it here. If this seems unrealistic, for what is possibly the highest-priority category in terms of unjustified advertising, internet businesses, 4 or 5 people could do it.
In the meantime, we do have to pursue the chains of paid editor, who are responsible for perhaps 10 to 30% of the problem. It's not worth the trouble to work on an individual example. What is worth the double is to look for a group of accounts writing articles in identical format in a particular subject, or an individual account using a similar format for miscellaneous totally unrelated minor articles. In the first place, if the writing similarities are close enough , a SPI can be justify.d In the second, a firm explanation can usually stope them. More of the similarities to be looked for will follow in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
here is an example that is very, very likely one these throw-away sock accounts, used by a paid editor: [16]. I agree, that the key thing is to identify the network and get them all blocked as socks. Others, for example Doc James, have been trying to work with elance directly to get them to delist accounts that are doing undisclosed paid editing. we need for folks helping for sure Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
DGG, is that "half" an impression thing, or is there some data behind that? I've asked about data on paid editing, and at that time, there were rough guesses at best... Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


That "half" as "at last half", a deliberately conservative understatement. (based on impressions--one of the things we necessarily lose with anonymous editing is the ability to collect data.) DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
gotcha. i always ask when people make those claims.... Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog thank you guys for helping and guiding me, I really appreciate that and I am taking your WP OUTING very seriously. I worked on some col cases and I believe I handled those cases very well without violating any Wikipedia guidelines even though I was not aware of WP:OUTING. I usually kept my distance when dealing with such cases and never asked them to reveal any personal information other than their affiliation with the entity without asking any further explanation about their nature of work or name. I major in marketing and I can easily spot when someone is trying to promote something and I strongly stand against advertisement in Wikipedia.
we have to take advertisement in Wikipedia more seriously, some marketing courses are now teaching how to edit Wikipedia to promote companies coz they see it as important channel for public relations and product promotion, the only reason why we don't see well-written articles about these companies from new editors is becoz of their inability to navigate through Wikipedia and old web Wikipedia editor is still confusing for most of the people,as Wikipedia becomes more and more user friendly with addition such as visual editor, we will see more advertisement and vandalism .There are off course positive sides to these improvements but we should also focus on negative side too. Nicky mathew (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Professional press release writers can and do learn html and the very similar wikicode, and even our peculiar referencing conventions.Their see of expected skills encompasses that. What they have much more difficult in learning is now to write in a different style for different purpose. Their training and experience is in how to write effective press releases and advertisements,and they are lost in an environment which does not accept their well-learned glossy promises, convincing rhetoric, appealing personal claims, vague statement of benefits ,and carefully selected is not wanted, Tbey do not have experience writing where plain neutral presentation is w\excpected, where only a set of narrowly defined reliable sources are accepted, where testimonials and name-dropping are harmful, and where extravert claims are signs of puffery. The best preparation for working in WP is journalism, tho teaching and librarianship and technical writing also do well. can also be successful
So of course , is any intelligent member of the general public-- but unlike professionals, unless the are students who know html, they have great difficulty with our current format. it is these people whom we will be able to better reach when we have a rule workignand non confusing wvisual editor that does not require manual post processing to verify that it; has avoided bloopers. Perhaps we'll get there they year (I seem to remember saying that for several years now.)At theta point, our outreach programs can extent more practically to a much wider range of non traditional editors, many of whom maybe interested in the everyday topics we have such trouble with. and those they may be able to drive out the professionals DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


I was reading your page on a mobile (or trying to). Is there something wrong with the archiving? It looks at the top of the page like you're up to date with archiving but ... <ahem> --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Hypocrite here is off to archive his own talk page now --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I consider the posts at the top of DGG's talk page to be the most valuable talk page content on Wikipedia. I assume that the content remains there because others have told him so! — Neonorange (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)::Yes, I do keep the material at the top deliberately. But I'm behind on archiving. I should get back to normal in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies 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/Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies 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. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


Of course you can point out that the argument may benefit me, but I don't think increasing notability requirements is the right way to go. Well, if I had my way, I would consolidate all of them into a single notability guideline of just a few paragraphs, rather than creating unique guidelines for different subject areas. The myriad of guidelines for different subject areas tend to reflect the biases of the community, setting a low bar for reporters, authors and academics, and a higher one for org's and business executives. I rolled my eyes at the reaction when I tried to delete an over-the-top promotional page about an open-source project.

But in any case, what I would suggest is instead that the burden of proof for notability be shifted to the submitter. Right now the AfD nominator is expected to investigate the article-subject's notability before nominating. The burden is that evidence of notability exists, somewhere out in the world, which means tons of research to delete every spammy article about a trivial org. Instead, the requirement should be that the article itself contain evidence of notability and that it be deleted if evidence is not provided in the article, shifting the burden of validating notability to the author, rather than the community. CorporateM (Talk) 20:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The basic WP:GNG guideline is the same for most types of reticules, the way it is applied is what varies widely, and it is those differences in appliation which reflects the biases of the community. That's all that I am suggesting: that in dealing with commercial organizations especially we interpret the term reliable sources to not include sources which are dependent on PR. (sources that are straight PR are of course excluded from all areas). I'm not even proposing this as a formal guideline at this point, but I intend to argue at individual cases that some sources, such as local business journals, or reports on funding, be disregarded for showing notability.
Most of the special guidelines are attempts to correct bias, not increase it further: the Athletes guideline, for example, is a way to limit what would otherwise be the overcoverage of college and high school athletes. WP:PROF is away to limit what would otherwise be the great undercoverage of researchers.
What I am suggesting is merely an empirical adjustment in interpretation, not a fundamental revision. My view on how I would truly like to go is entirely opposite to yours: I would eliminate the GNG entirely as too dependent upon interpretation have have guidelines for subjects which truly reflect what is of encyclopedic importance. I am not suggesting this, for the general feeling is opposed to it. (and in practice, it would immediately create a immense number of arguments in particular areas--the virtue is that once it were settled, it would decrease them.)
Establishing the burden of notability is already on the contributors to the article in practice: we almost always do decline articles where nobody can find sources showing notability, except for the correction of parts of the world or topics where this is accepted as particularly difficult. Establishing the rule you suggest would increase our already strongly existing cultural bias. It would also be opposed to the basic principle of WP by which non experts work together to gradually develop articles, by requiring an article be sufficiently well established immediately. It would prevent the formation of articles on many topic areas, including most historical topics except by those with access to research libraries. It would also immensely bias WP in exactly the wrong direction: towards news events, internet phenomena, popular artists, and minor sports figures. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm.... - I do not have experience in areas like sports figures, so I am not privy to the circumstances unique to the subject area. I've heard that the German Wikipedia does have revenue requirements for companies to qualify. I think there would be more support for it than you would think. However, I would do something more along the lines of making the assumption that an org is not notable if they are below a certain funding/revenue threshold, allowing for exceptions when there are reliable sources to justify it - as oppose to a hard and fast rule. CorporateM (Talk) 23:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought about revenue requirements. These depends a great deal upon the part of the world and the industry. The deWP deals with a more homogeneous range of topics than we do. They have been mentioned sometimes in afd discussions for financial companies , for example to explain that under $1billion of assets managed is not a big deal. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources?[edit]

I have some problems with User: Rhode_Island_Red concerning art historical subjects. He admits that he has no knowledge of art historical matters, but constantly places superfluous tags on article pages I have created, questioning the reliability of my sources. See, for instance, [17], [18], [19], [20]). See also [21] and [22]. User Dr. Blofeld recommended asking you what to do. The problem is that the activities of this user haven't changed much for years. Just some examples: Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2012/August, Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2012/September, Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2013/April, and Talk:Gotthard_Graubner. Do you have an idea how to handle this case? Wikiwiserick (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If he adds an absurd notability tag again, let me do the revert. Otherwise this will get too personal. I can't figure this out, because he has done some good work also. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I have never said anything that even remotely resembles admitting that I have "no knowledge of art historical matters". The tags are not superfluous and I've explained very clearly why they were added. No user by the name of "Dr. Blofeld" ever left a comment on my Talk page -- this was Wikiwiserick masquerading as another user[23] -- a clear case of WP:SOCK. Some pretty serious user conduct violations taking place here on Wikiwiserick's part. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
it's not really a good idea to make sockpuppet accusations without evidence, especially when the people involved are long established wikipedians with excellent reputations, and the only basis for it is they both think some of your tagging is totally inappropriate. I think so also. You really need to read WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE, and understand the basic standards. And then examine the long archive of discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, WP:RSN. It doesn't matter whether or not you know art history; it does matter whether or not you know what WP means by notability and RS. You made a valuable contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helmut Diez. There are enough truly problematic articles to tag and delete and questionable sources, without having to deal with what actually is high quality academic content. We need more of it, and shouldn't discourage the relatively few experts who are prepared to content with the interface and the attitudes. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is currently another user adding tags to multiple articles. See, for instance, Warburg Haus, Hamburg and [24]. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

advice has been given by several people. If more is needed, it will be done. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Ottawahitech (talk · contribs) has drawn my attention to the size of this page. You have a variety of archives for it so why on earth do you need to keep threads dating back to 2011? OK, disk space is cheap these days but it still seems a waste of resources for every edit to gobble up 300k bytes on Wikipedia's servers. More importantly, please spare a thought for users with slow connections, mobile devices or creaky old browsers - why should they have to deal with such a ridiculously large page? I tried to add this message on my tablet PC and it crashed the browser. WP:TALKCOND suggests a maximum size of 75k bytes. My personal limit is 65,536 bytes.

You might like to add to this page a query box to search your archives - specimen code. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been doing it this way ever since I joined 8 years ago. I try to keep it to 200K. My principle is to retain material which is still of current interest or importance, even if the discussion was older. It's a little longer than my desirable size now, but I intend to remedy that: some of the AfC material is now of subsidiary interest. I have been told many times how useful the material here is--though I have a considerably larger amount of responses I think worth saving in my thematic archives (listed at the top of the page), people here as everywhere tend to just read what is in front of them. A query box,as you suggest, might be a good idea. I've thought about it for a while, but perhaps it is time I implemented it--thanks for the code to start out with.
more fundamentally, but not something I personally have any skill in dealing with, the problem of an interface suitable both for ordinary computers and hand-held devices is formidable. The Foundation seems to be making limited slow progress for articles, but talk space will be a harder problem. I admit I do have a bias, as I never use my iphone unless compelled to by circumstances, and I've always used the largest available screens on the desktop, with as much memory as I can afford or as fits in the computer. What might help as workaround for handheld devices is if someone could figure out some optional way to display just the table of contents, and link it to the text sections. As I've said, I'm no expert, but it should't be beyond the reach of javascript and css. Did adding this message crash your browser when you used the add new section tab? DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Blackall and Yaraka Branch Railways[edit]

I assume you didn't mean publish Blackall and Yaraka Branch Railways to the Main space? JMHamo (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

there's a printed source given. I can't see it, but we should assume good faith that it does cover the material. Checking for copypaste would however require actually locating it. If an article has about at least 60% chance of passing afd, I think it should go in mainspace. Or did I miss something obviously fishy? DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The article needs clean-up, categories, more wikilinks etc, just messy. JMHamo (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Certainly it does. As you know, there are several schools of thought: one is to get everything right before moving to mainspace; a second is to at least get them cleaned up to a reasonable extent extent before putting them in mainspace, the third is to put them in as soon as they have a decent chance of passing afd. I started out at the first, but then moved to an second, and am now close to the third. The part that takes experience is deciding if there is the basis of a sustainable article, & I try to look at that for as many AfCs as possible. I admit, tho, that this rougher than even my usual standard: I usually at least add article sections; tho adding links is a good exercise for beginners, I usually add enough basic ones to at least give the impression of a WP article. (But there are a great many people who like to add categories. I learned early on that the best thing for me to do about categories, was to let them do it.) I was going too fast here, and you were right to call me on it. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC) .
I subscribe to the get to as near perfection as possible before moving it from Draft school of thought. All too often the article is not found again (especially is there are no categories) and remains indefinitely in a bad state. A bad first impression for any reader coming across it. JMHamo (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason for my style is the experience that slow as it may be to get material improved in mainspace, it is even slower and less likely in Draft. As I understand it, the likelihood of survival in mainspace is the only actual guideline. It's good to do more, and each of us will balance whether we want to work in concentrated way with a small number of articles, or as a preliminary rescue of many. I've always done mostly rescue, with a few each week taken beyond that. I didn't expect it, but I find I like to work at the bottom. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted article post-protect[edit]

Hi DGG. This is in regards to Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation‎, which was deleted several times, most recently by yourself and protected for a month. It has just been recently created again; I cannot see the previous revs of course to determine how similar it is to the prior ones, so I bring it to your attention for evaluation. Related links of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milstein Family Foundation where it was deleted, and Draft:Milstein Family Foundation where the content was "draftified" to allow further work. CrowCaw 21:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I nominated in for speedy G11 as unambiguous advertising for their causes. As for notability, there are sufficient citation that it would need a new AfD. (And, FWIW, I do not think it shows a constructive approach when people rename in order to avoid needing to ask for approval. If another admin agrees on speedy deletion, I will protect this title also.) DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
There is another article, Adam Milstein, which seems to have week sourcing/notability as well. I wonder if it is an oversight that that article has not been nominated for deletion or if the article subject has been considered more notable than the organization? Iselilja (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I consider him notable. (it is even possible the Foundation is separately notable, but I usually support covering family foundations (unless famous) at the article on the person --where it fact it is covered.) Once the article on the foundation is deleted, I will place a protected redirect. There's lots of promotionalism to be removed, which I am about to do. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
the speedy was declined; I am trying to decide whether to rewrite of use afd. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

floating a balloon for COI disclosure at account creation or AfC[edit]

see here. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool[edit]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Request on 04:21:38, 12 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tomwaddington[edit]

Hey DGG,

I'm hoping to get some assistance on getting Draft:Cut Out + Keep published. You note 'everything here is essentially a press release'. I'm hoping that providing evidence of an established site, with significant readership, and a book released by a large publisher would be a good reason it should be in an encyclopedia. Is there any further feedback you could provide on why this isn't a valid submission?


Tomwaddington (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

According to WorldCat, the book is in only 5 libraries. [25]. Of course, it has just been published this year. If the book becomes sgnificant enough for reviews, especially reviews in magazines of newspapers of general interest, it would mean a lot more. We go here primarily by references in showing notability: See WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Another article like the one form the Dailey Mail would also help very much. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back so quick. I'm surprised WorldCat only shows 5 copies. As a quick check, New York Public Library has 6 copies[1], Baltimore County Public Library has another 15[2]. Does that help the notability somewhat? I'll work on some additional references!


Can we remove this article from drafts?[edit]

Hi DGG, one of the AfrolatinoCROWD goers today created an article for Duvalle, an important Garifuna leader, as a draft. I have enough info to make this article a very viable stub quickly. Can we remove it from drafts and make it a full fledged article? I can probably spiff it up by tomorrow. Thanks!

Here is the link: Aliceba (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. But, Aliceba, please check if it is DuValle or Duvalle. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

08:54:29, 13 April 2015 review of submission by Jmdby[edit]

Hello, which section(s) would you recommend revising? I have edited all of them and am not sure which part sounds promotional now. Thanks. Jmdby (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The extensive refs to your own site, the name dropping of people who have worn your clothes, the line at the end about your plans. . And , as I said, I suggest it would do better as part of the article on the parent company. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to the delete nomination of Universal Identifier Network[edit]


I have added some content in my article, wchich demonstrate the academic impact of the Universal Identifier Network. Combined with the engeering application, it may be enough to demonstrate the notability of the UIN. And in my opinion, the purpose of all the engineering disciplines is to be accepted and used by industry. So, the applicaion demonstrations is able to demonstrate the value of the UIN. Thanks for your valuable advices. Jiangzhongbai (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

New entry for Lois de Menil[edit]


I am trying to add an entry for Lois de Menil. This is the first time I have created a wikipedia article, though I edited many before creating a login. I understand from previous talk threads that there was a problem with my referencing the first time I created the article, because I only used primary sources. I have added a number of secondary sources now to articles in the NY Times, Vanity Fair and to websites such as the Council on Foreign Relations. In addition I have shorted the article and edited the content somewhat. I hope this addresses your concerns.

Thank you for taking the time to review this piece.

Vwikiv As you have seen, rewriting an article under an alternate form of the name, in an attempt to escape speedy as re-creation of a previously-deleted article is unlikely to succeed--people usually keep track. Personally, I think he is notable and she probably is, but an article written in a promotional and puffy manner gives a bad enough impression to affect the decision. I therefore re-edited some of both it and the article on George de Menil in a more concise and encyclopedic format, removing unsourced claims and expressions of praise. It's enough different from the previous articles that I removed the speedy deletion tags, but I expect it to be re-nominated for AfD. I've done what I can, but there needs to be a consensus. If you could add references to reviews of their books, in French or English, it would help greatly. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello DGG,

I appreciate your taking the time to tighten the language of my entries and make them more wiki-appropriate. I have added a reference to a review of Lois de Menil's book in Foreign Affairs and I am looking for one of George de Menil's book in French.

For the record, the name change was not an attempt to skirt around wiki editors like you. George de Menil has spelled his name in two different ways and currently spells it the American way without an S. I changed Lois Pattison de Menil to Lois de Menil by mistake, so then created the page with her maiden name and redirected it. As you can see, I am still learning the wiki ropes...

Vwikiv (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv

AfD Andrew West[edit]

I removed the Prod from the article saying the subject wanting to have their article deleted wasn't a valid reason for a Prod. Article is now at AfD and is using the same thing as one of the reasons to delete. As the subject is an academic, this is more up your alley on knowing if to delete/keep. Could you take a look. Bgwhite (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I remain undecided. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Atleast we agree on something as I too have no idea if to keep or delete. Could you also take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Books by John Hill. This is another academic issue. I started the discussion, so I'm involved. I'm afraid I've unintentionally hurt John Hill's feelings. I'm worried he may stop editing. If you can't give an opinion at the Noticeboard, a word of encouragement at Hill's talk page would be helpful. Bgwhite (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments at the Noticeboard. As always, I really do appreciate your comments irregardless if I agree with them or not. Bgwhite (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Locale (market)[edit]

Hi DGG. You speedily deleted the article Locale (market). On the article's talk page I contested the deletion and oen of my arguments (in addition to noting hte very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources) was that at worst it should be a merge to the parent subject of Sundial St. Pete. Would you consider restoring it so I can merge it there, at least for the time being? It is a major institution in the City of St. Petersburg, Florida which is why there has been so much coverage. Thank you for your kind consideration. AlphaJotaZed (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the article. The original speedy tag was placed by an editor subsequently and very quickly blocked for having placed numerous ludicrously unlikely speedy deletion tags in response to the appropriate deletion of his own article & I had not realized this. Although I continue to doubt the notability of the subject, it is not my practice to delete on the basis of A7 without a previous good faith nomination--I am as capable of making errors as any other human, and I therefore rely on the decreased likelihood of two errors by different people.
The problem with the article is the nature of the sourcing . Local bizjounals are essentially a place for publishing press releases, and we rarely accept the notability of a restaurantor food store based only on local reviews--and reading the articles myself, they seem like PR as well. But I am not going to nominate it for deletion, at least not right away. Perhaps you will soon find better sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration. For me it is the EXTENT of the coverage that makes pretty clear that the marketplace / restaurant is notable. Many extensive articles covering the celebrity chefs involved, covering anticipation of the opening, the size and scope of the business and its significance to invigorating St. Petersburg. But I am willing to merge it to the parent subject {Sundial St. Pete) for the time being if you think that's more appropriate. Just let me know. Thanks again. AlphaJotaZed (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter[edit]

Hi DGG. Would you move Kirby Delauter to Draft:Kirby Delauter and history merge the two? There is no policy-based reason to prevent the article draft from being returned to mainspace. No speedy deletion criteria would apply. See my post at Draft talk:Kirby Delauter#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter regarding the AfD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter (in which you were a participant) and the past discussions about the topic. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose this might be the way to deal with it on a pragmatic basis. But I explain on your talk page why it would be better to ask someone else. (A few months ago I might have done it nonetheless, but I do not feel I can now take individual action here in a matter involving a dispute between admins). DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I replied here at Draft talk:Kirby Delauter#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter. Do you know where an uninvolved admin can be found? This was listed at WP:AN for two months and no admin was willing to step forward to do the move and history merge. Cunard (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Time Nani[edit]

I deleted it. You wrote that the notability is uncertain, but I could find no good sources at all. Is that the fault of Bing and Yahoo search (Google is blocked in China.), or am I just not looking properly? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In search of your opinion[edit]

Hello DGG,

You advised me a few days ago about an entry for Lois de Menil and were kind enough to help tighten the language. As you predicted, it has been nominated for deletion, and a fairly involved discussion has ensued. The wiki editor (Biruitorul) took issue with the sources, so I made an effort to improve them. In addition, however, he selectively chose quotes from the citations to levy critiques based on the subject's wealth, for which wikipedia does not seem to me an appropriate forum. Three people in addition to myself have opposed the deletion, none of them however has the same wikipedia standing as you or the nominating editor. You strike me as a fair monitor, so I wonder if I could ask you to look at the page and evaluate whether you think it meets grounds for notability. My belief is that the basis for notability is primarily the legacy of her work in Cambodia, though citations in Cambodia are harder to come by than in the US.

You can find the discussion here:

I appreciate your time and commitment to holding Wikipedia up to its high standard.

Vwikiv (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv

The way we work here, is that my experience does not give me authority in any formal way. At AfD debates in which I participate, some go the way I think best, and some do not. The decisions are made on the basis of community views, not the views of experts. There are some types of BLPs (such as academics) for which people often pay some attention to what I say, but even there my view is sometimes not supported by those who happen to show up for the debate. This is not the BLP of an academic, however, and I did warn you that there was likely to be opposition. The one thing I can do on the basis of my experience is try to predict how the debate will go, and I think the chances are only fair that it will be accepted.
You should have asked me merely to take a look at it, on the basis I worked on it, & had removed a speedy on it. I prefer that people just notify me of a discussion, without trying to guide my opinion. And when people do notify me, my response may not be what they would have hoped for. (and the same is true of other people also),
There is something very wrong at the AfD. It seems obvious that you are contributing to it under multiple user names, or inspiring multiple users to comment. This is an violation of our user policy, WP:SOCK and could well cause all the accounts to be blocked. It will certainly cause whoever closes the discussion to discount the duplicative comments. We do not decide these debates by voting, partly to avoid problems of this sort. It changes my prediction from fair to unlikely,and will unfortunately affect other work you may do here. The best course for you at this point is to strike out the improper comments, and apologize. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

--- Thank you for offering your measured opinion about my entry. When I asked you to do so, I did not predict which way you would vote, but simply thought you would offer an opinion devoid of the personal attacks and anger that have pervaded the rest of the discussion board. To be clear, I have not created duplicate accounts of any kind. I have simply contacted other wiki users who know about Lois de Menil's contribution and asked them to contribute their thoughts. The accusation of hiring a paid editor is entirely unfounded. And I have no idea who Trout71 is. I have tried to respond as respectfully and neutrally as possible to the content of each of the critiques and don't know what more I can do, short of editing other people's text, which would go against wiki guidelines. Vwikiv (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv

Deletion review for Julie Ziglar Norman[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Julie Ziglar Norman. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

responded there. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nebraska Coast Connection[edit]

Please remove proposed deletion. Additional citations have been added providing justified notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtemisCE (talkcontribs) 06:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC) '

I do not think it shows notability, but the community will decide. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nebraska Coast Connection DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability is supported by articles in nationally recognized publications -- Variety, the LA Times -- and affiliations with Alexander Payne, Jon Bokenkamp (The Blacklist), and Marg Helgenberger (CSI), among others. ArtemisCE (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)ArtemisCE

The place to make the argument is at the AFD

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

Some ideas[edit]

I came late to the discussion at WP:VPR on discouraging the biting of newbies, but it brought some old ideas to the top of my mind. See WP:VPR#Another take on why newbies find Wikipedia unfriendly. I would be interested in your comments. JohnCD (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Ciminera[edit]

You G-11 speeedied this in 2010, and I'd like to bring it back... but greatly modified. The deleted version was poorly written and seemed to brag about his cooking without being properly cited. In searching I found he has enough coverage and recognition as a Chef to meet WP:BIO. Your thoughts on User:MichaelQSchmidt/working/Joseph Ciminera?? Thanks Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a promotional article ending up with "Ciminera is known to be very modest ". For his books, check here-- none of them in more than 6 libraries. I suppose you came across him because of his film roles--are the films significant? I do not consider the quotes on the TV shows reliable, but a case could be made we should include every restaurant and chef with a full NYT review; a case could also be made for treating them like any other local paper for local events. And frankly, in any subject at all, I don't like picking out a word or two of praise in a review out of context. Most reviews manage to includes a few of that sort. . DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

About Saygin Yalcin page[edit]

Hi DGG. I have seen your edit, however, it was not constructive at all. Could you please either add value by suggesting an adequate modification or just avoid "vandalising" articles, which have carefully been authored and documented? This is meant in a friendly manner. Please take your time and read the references given. Until then, please connect with the authors, then rather further editing or adding "tags". Thank you :o) comment by User: Alan Fillings

We will see what the community thinks, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saygin Yalcin DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


I pinged you about this user this morning (pings seem to be unreliable), but having a spin through his talk page and contributions, I've got a nasty feeling we'll have to topic ban him from AfC reviews - his writing style (when he's not using automated tools) appears to be borderline incomprehensible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

the ping worked--I just haven't been on WP since then.
I looked at it last night also, and I've looked at it again today, dealign with a number of recent articles that had been handled improperly . I have left a suitable warning, and asked him to stop. If he does not, the necessary course will be to go to ANI and ask for a topic ban. Current practice is that this cannot be enacted by an individual administrator. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your tireless new page patrolling. Esquivalience t 02:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi Douglas. Thank you very much for your advice. However I did not understand your suggestion. Could you please help me/give me an example of how to include such "quote parameter in the references to insert a sentence"? What you are saying is a bit confusing, because many of those sources are scientific papers, not possible to edit in any form... even more, to check the use of the term (i.e. technomass) in many cases you have to buy/access the article by a university account. But you know that, you are a librarian... btw I reallly like your page/description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynost (talkcontribs) 09:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law[edit]

You postponed G13 on this once, and did some editing on it. It finally fell to G13 in January, and I have just restored it following a request at WP:REFUND. Letting you know in case you have time to look at it again. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. In a situation like this, I shall probably accept it and let the question be decided at AfD. I've never been comfortable with a single person making decisions here. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Costa Navarino[edit]

Hello, you deleted an article on our company Costa Navarino due to suspected copyright infringement in 2013 We obviously own the copyright. Can you please reinstate? We cannot edit or create a new one otherwise. FYI link to our website Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dourida (talkcontribs) 11:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

1.That you own the copyright does not necessarily mean you are willing to donate it under a free license as explained at WP:DCM, which irrevocably gives everyone in the world a right to reprint and modify it. for any purpose, even commercial. 2.Had I not deleted it for that reason it would have been deleted a few days later as an advertisement. As a general rule, content on a corporate web page is intended as advertising, and appropriately so--it's the way everyone advertises. It's intended to promote the resort, and attract potential clients. WP is an encycopedia, and our purpose is to provide general information to someone who has heard of the subject and wants to know what it is. Content intended instead for potential visitors is not wanted. Advertisement usually contain puffery, proclaiming the merits of the subject, encyclopedia articles do not. The article here began with "Costa Navarino is a prime, sustainable destination in the Mediterranean ..located in the region of Messenia... one of the most unspoiled and breathtaking seaside landscapes. The Costa Navarino philosophy is driven by a genuine desire to promote Messenia". " and goes on to list the merits of the various hotels in similar terms. "he world's leading luxury-brand golf management company", "true eco deluxe site" and so on. None of this is usable in an encycopedia. 3. The area is probably notable by our standards of WP:ORG ,and there seem to be acceptable published sources. Thus, it might be possible to write an article. However, you should be aware that the Wikipedia community strongly discourages articles written by individuals close to a subject because of the difficulty in writing objectively about it, in line with Wikipedia's conflict of interest WP:COI Especially if you have a financial conflict of interest, the only acceptable way to do this is to either use your old account or make a new account under some name, though not the name of your organization, declare on the user page that you have a conflict of interest, and then use WP: Articles for Creation. Be aware of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 14:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Concessions and forts of Italy in China[edit]

Hi DGG, the author at was Brunodam too. Also, as you can see from talkpage, some doubts have been arisen about content itself. At a glance it contains usual Brunodam's exaggerations and violations of NPOV. I didn't check sources but he usually uses sources with a surplus of...fantasy! --Vituzzu (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The source he linked on the talk p seems to confirm the basic data, but it also confirms that calling it "concessions and forts... " rather then "Italians in China ..." or the like is excessive interpretation. I think it's rewritable, but since I'm not about to do it, the deletion is OK with me. (I did think about the possible identity but didn't check)
Personally, I think the policy behind G5 is often counterproductive, but it does seem to have firm general acceptance. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmund Morgan (historian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Review journal[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Review journal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The term "review journal" does not appear to be an actual term of art in the academic publishing field. All attempts to find sources for this article turned up "peer-reviewed journals", which are different from the kind of journal being discussed here. If it cannot be confirmed that "review journal" is a term that is actually used in practice the way it's described here, the article should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Tim Pierce (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I will add some of the (abundant) refs in a day or two, but I'm considering a merge with review article. I'm pinging Randykitty, who has also worked on it. This was one of the first things I did here, in 2006, and I should have gone back to it years ago--I seem to have left it in outline format. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. My apologies for not just pinging you directly about this before the {{prod}} -- I didn't notice you were still active on Wikipedia or I would have done so. A merge with review article also makes a lot of sense. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello DGG. This pertains to the entry "Parametricism": Several Wikipedia editors have commented on this entry. I revised it NUMEROUS times to satisfy the criteria of objectivity and the article is now reflective of the subject AS IT IS ACCEPTED BY THE ARCHITECURAL COMMUNITY. This is not an opinion piece, it is a description of a new style of architecture that is very much in the process of establishing a global presence. The other editors have removed their tags and suggestions after this was revised. After reading Wikipedia's policies, I must say that there has been no thus far by any of the editors to follow through with the policy of non-intimidation of new contributors. I have responded responsibly to all criticism and have worked on this article extensively since it was posted, but it seems that anyone who feels like they have something to say will tag the article until nothing is left of it. The portion of the article that you say is an outline is in fact an enumeration of core principles. There are MANY precedents for this type of entry, including charts, lists, etc. In the context of the article, this is not an outline, but rather a LIST. I am not sure why it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria, seeing as how there are literally hundreds of such lists included in other articles! I appreciate the editorial vigilance, but it seems like a never-ending process of critique by uncoordinated editorial comments that land out of nowhere, with absolutely no continuity among the editors, or attempt to communicate in a truly constructive manner. - Daniela Gh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniela Gh (talkcontribs) 22:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and others[edit]

I feel the issue needs to be addressed at its source. These guidelines have cause major issues and debate they are constantly being misinterpreted and cause great disagreement among editors. If Wikipedia is a knowledge laboratory retiring this guideline can save time, drama, effort, and should be tested. The fact is people can be notable for one event and Wikipedia covers news, just not trivial news. I recommend retiring these guidelines to essay format as a manual of style instead of rationale for deletion. Any support? Valoem talk contrib 03:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Project Continua Edit-a-Thon today - Writing and Righting History![edit]

Hey DGG!

I hope you can make it to the Writing and Righting History: Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon, A May Day Celebration. Sponsored by the Humanities Action Lab and Project Continua TODAY (May 1st) from 4-7pm at the Cafeteria, Eugene Lang College, 65 W 11th St, New York, NY 10011.

Hopefully see you there! -Deckdeckdeck (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beepi[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Beepi. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This is odd[edit]

I thought since you were involved with a currently blocked editor, you'd want to know about this Brianhe (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

yes, but
Yes. But I somehow feel I may be seeing it eventually in another venue, so I won't comment further here. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Article I written is deleted, Where as I requested to Answer about where it fails.[edit]

Hello DGG,

I found my article About a Company Hashivalayan (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Acquire learningHashivalayan (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC) is deleted under speedy deletion. Where as I believe. The Content was modified to non promotional and was true based on the facts over internet. I like to know more where that article has failed. As I am unable to understand. Because I found some similar article on Wikipedia. Which use the same template style and language. According to me the article was just information about the company and there business I collected from there websites, news articles, Partner stories and other social or govt sources. Please answer my question so that If I try again I will not repeat the mistake.

I want to have the last article copy as there was much information I had collected. If it is possible ? Also If it is posible to get that article back with correct information and improved. As I tried to make it. But looks failed.

Looking for your reply

Thanks & Regards, Hashivalayan.

Hello DGG,

I had talk with the person who requested my article Hashivalayan (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Acquire LearningHashivalayan (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC) for deletion. He said he found my article fine after edits I had done on it. Please have a look at my talk page. And let me know if I can get that back.

Thanks & Regards. Hashivalayan

  • I shall get there, but probably on Monday or Tuesday. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That is fine DGG, Take your Time. Regards, Hashivalayan (talk)

  • Hello DGG,
   Any update for me. I am looking for your review and update on my article. Please have a look on it and let me know the poor points in it or the information that if it can be restored or modified Or I need to write it again. Provide me some guidelines as well. So that I will not repeat mistakes.     
 Thanks & Regards, 

Hashivalayan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Status and Advice[edit]

Hashivalayan, there are the following problems:

  1. Most important, there need to be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements.
  2. "is Developing a network of alliances" indicates that the company is not yet notable, but hopes to be some day. And indeed, the table of associated institutions shows that many of them do not show a date of association, which I think means there is yet no affiliation. The various possible types of affiliation means there needs to be a link for every one of them, preferably to a 3rd party source.
  3. Much of the content is promotional: the terms used are nonspecific e.g. "Company help students through studies and finding right employment", the full address is given in capitals, the titles of the managers are given in capitals and too many of them are listed, emphasis is placed on the certificate numbers of the licenses, nothing is said about actual accomplishments, there is extensive overuse of the company name.
  4. There seems to be great exaggeration: Not a single one of the affiliates listed can be reasonably described as an "international universities" , e.g. Sussex Coast College is a secondary school, "Australian Institute of Management" is a professional associate, and most of the others are trade schools.
  5. There is in fact no indication a single class has ever been held.
  6. In the see alsos, there is no apparent reason why most of them should be listed. If there's a link in the text, that is normally sufficient.
  7. The writing is such poor English, that I find it difficult to believe it actually represents the work of an institution of higher education: capital letters are used incorrectly, there are sentence fragments, quotation marks are not used when needed.

I call you attention to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. The only acceptable way to write an article if you have a COI is to declare on the user page that you have a conflict of interest with the company, and then use WP:Articles for Creation. You should be aware that the Wikipedia community strongly discourages articles written by individuals close to a subject because of the difficulty in writing objectively about your organization, yourself, your family, or your work, in line with Wikipedia's WP:Conflict of interest policy. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you so much DGG ( talk ).

So If I can write it again with following these things and correcting dates and other factors you have discusses above.

Disambiguation link notification for May 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shahid U. H. Qureshi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Engineering and Technology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Tennant Co[edit]

Hey DGG, thanks for your message. Could you please move the article to Tennant Company? Thanks in advance, --Jaskan (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Jaskan, Done, but please be aware that this is a very minimal article. We need information about the company growth and its products. Additional awards would help, and there should be new metions . As a NYSE company , there should certainly be some financial data. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC) ,

What should you do if you find a actual convo going on a page talk page[edit]

I was looking at the back log of the new pages and decided to check the talk page of this (which was odd given I don't usually do this), and saw this Talk:Alexander Pingol an entire convo about checking out sandbox pages! Wgolf (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

it's unusual--perhaps they are from a class. Theactual problem of course is the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The convo was carried over from the move from userspace to mainspace. I would just delete or archive it. However, note that that same editor is also similarly canvassing opinions on Talk pages of her other drafts. I think s/he needs to be told to keep such conversations on her own Talk page or on the Talk pages of the Draft-space articles that are actually being referred to, rather than [advertising them] on talk pages of different articles/drafts. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
so tell her about our usual customs. You can do it every bit as well as I can. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll let Wgolf do that, since he brought it up and wanted to know what to do about it. I really have insufficient interest, and was simply intrigued by the mystery of the question and looked up the history. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello, you recently placed a CSD tag on ReGlobe, which was removed by WilyD. I reverted the edit, placing a warning on his talk page, and he then accused me of doing wrong. I am curious: is it permissible to remove a CSD template, or should the editor go to the article's talk page? And do I need to do anything about this user or is he within his rights? Thanks in advance. JZCL 15:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

WilyD was correct; any editor except the originator of the article may remove a CSD tag, according to WP:Deletion policy section 3.2. If the person who wants the article deleted still thinks it should be deleted, they can go to WP:PROD, or, more usually in such cases, WP:AFD (as I just did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReGlobe. The original editor must use the article talk page, but generally nobody else does--others just remove the tag. Some editors notify the person who placed the tag, but it is not required or even usual, because most people follow their CSD nominations, using such pages as their CSD log(one of the options under Twinkle), or their Watchlist. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I've just commented at the ReGlobe AfD and suggest you also take a look at Sunkalp Energy created by the same editor. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I listed it for G11 & A7. I should have listed the other as both also. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shahid U. H. Qureshi[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Shahid U. H. Qureshi has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.

Informing since you accepted this submission and the original author is unreachable.  sami  talk 20:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The one ref that was there did verify the IEEE fellow claim,. and that by itself is WP:N by WP:PROF. I added another for another IEEE award, and a ref to a key paper. The bio details still need sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It was proposed by another editor and I was also in the favor of keeping the article per WP:PROF. Thank you for your edits on Shahid U. H. Qureshi.  sami  talk 10:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ale Resnik[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ale Resnik. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability of academics[edit]

Hi, I'm back again to ask the expert on such matters what you think of Paul Martin Lester? A lot of academic books, but not much in the way of coverage - does he pass WP:PROF? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

He passes WP:AUTHOR at least. The books are sufficient. I've added publisher and holdings--which are quite high. There are undoubtedly reviews , which should be added. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't sure about the books, other than they exist. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sunkalp Energy[edit]

Well, no worries. I think it's awfully close to A7 (though Your Story looks like it has some editorial control, so probably a discussion is preferable). I've failed to check histories on multiple occasions. WilyD 08:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this scientist notable?[edit]

Since you've provided good advice on notability of academics before, could you take a quick look at David Joseph Singh? Thanks in advance. — Brianhe (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability for science is based on being an authority in the subject, which is basically shown by the citation record. The only reason we don't have a fixed cutoff is that the necessary level varies with field, to the extentthat eachcase must be evaluated separately. According to Google Scholar [26] which is reliable enough for the purpose, His most cited article ohn P Perdew, JA Chevary, SH Vosko, Koblar A Jackson, Mark R Pederson, DJ Singh, Carlos Fiolhais "Atoms, molecules, solids, and surfaces: Applications of the generalized gradient approximation for exchange and correlation" in Physical Review B, 1992 v. 46, Issue 11 Pages 6671– has an incredible `2m 999 citations. True, he was not senior author. But then he has a paper with 2006, 1597, 1411, 1057, 957 ,,,, 59 papers with over 100 citations. For most fields, including his, even one paper over 100 citations is notability. I added this information to the article. The article is not written exactly in our usual format, but it shows notability clearly enough. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reiner Grundmann‎[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Reiner Grundmann‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. prokaryotes (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Now in AfD prokaryotes (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I Do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience[edit]

I have read that entry and got some of the flavour. Thnx Serten 16:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Article review - Randy Gage[edit]

Dear DGG,

Can you please review the article for Randy Gage again? I have added multiple third-party sources to support notability. Thank you very much for your assistance. TriJenn (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

New message - May 11. Thank you for reviewing the article again. With respect, I'd like to ask you to reconsider. The viewpoints section was added to support notability as the articles in third party reliable sources talk about his ideas and concepts. He has been featured in other major media outlets. However, I only mentioned a few of them.

Have you seen his media page from the website, He has been covered by many third party sources. In his industries, network marketing and professional speaker, he has been written about extensively.

His books have been translated into 25 languages with rights sold to 20 countries. Two of his books have been published by a major publisher, Wiley and Sons (not one). Although the others are self published, he has sold tens of thousands all over the world.

Also, I don't understand why the National Speakers Association Hall of Fame recognition is not notable. It is the premier organization for professional speakers around the world.

I appreciate your consideration.

Thanks! TriJenn (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

New message - May 11 - 4:17 pm: Thanks for your input. I have resubmitted it for review. I hope you will allow it to be published. TriJenn (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

New message - May 14 - 4:14 pm: It occurred to me that whoever reviews it is just going to send it to you again since you have a block on the page. What is the best way to make this a live article? Can you please remove the block? Thanks for your assistance. TriJenn (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Trying again - may 16 4:39 pm: It occurred to me that whoever reviews it is just going to send it to you again since you have a block on the page. What is the best way to make this a live article? Can you please remove the block? Thanks for your assistance. (Is this the best place/way to communicate with you?) TriJenn (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brown rice[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brown rice. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Book articles[edit]

Have you read WP:NBOOK before mass nominating book articles I created for deletion? At WP:NBOOK: 'The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.' Can I ask why you are mass-nominating for no apparent reason? AusLondonder (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether these reviews are non-trivial. They're not mass-nominations, but test nominations. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Trivial and non-trivial are very clearly defined at WP:BKCRIT as 'Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable.' Reviews published in the media are not trivial. AusLondonder (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ace Day[edit]

Dear DGG,

Your reason for deleting the Ace Day page was A11: Obviously invented. When on the article "Criteria for speedy deletion", A11: Obviously invented says that it "does not apply to any article that makes a credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not quality under Wikipedia's notability guidelines." On the "WP:CCOS" article, point 5 states that "Any statement which, if reliably sourced, would be likely to persuade some of the commentators at a typical AFD discussion to keep the article is a claim of significance." If the Ace Day wikipedia page were to be recreated, and had sources to different posts by people unknown to the article's creator that showed people's lives had changed in some way because of Ace Day, would the page be allowed to stay up? Thank you so much. Acephobia now (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no credible claims of significance or importance either, so I could just as well have deleted it by A7, planned event with no indication of significance. Actually, I probably should have used both rationales. The existence of something is not an indication that it is significant. In any case , there is no possibility at all that the article would be kept at AfD unless there were actually references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Such posts as you mention above are not RSs for anything. I do not see why you would want to go to the trouble of trying to write an article that might just barely pass speedy unless there's some reasonable chance it would pass AfD and stay in WP. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but in addition to the A11 criteria, someone else deleted it by A7 and I found a news article that covers Ace Day. If links to the tumblr posts and the news article were added, would the article pass AfD and stay in WP? Thank you Acephobia now (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That reference is marginal--it reads to me very much like n article based on a press release. Tumblr is not an acceptable source for anything. If you want to try another version try it. But I think you might be more successful with adding a paragraph to the Community section of the article on Asexuality. DGG ( talk ) 15:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


I think your computer left a typo in your review of Draft:First Fidelity Bank. What is the "the restiveness of the material"? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks for deleting it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Götz Schulze[edit]

With your experience in biogs of academics, please would you take a look at this draft and consider whether it passes. I have a feeling it does, but I have a blind spot with academics at times. Fiddle Faddle 10:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The need has passed. Thanks. Fiddle Faddle 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Seth Goldman (Businessman)[edit]

Mr. Goldman is a NY Times Bestselling author (, board member of the American Beverage Association (, an a leader within the natural foods channel ( Because of these accomplishments it is my recommendation that his original bio be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReviewingEditor (talkcontribs) 14:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There's never been an article called Seth Goldman (Businessman), so it can't be reinstated. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably meant Seth Goldman (businessman). It was deleted after an AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Goldman (businessman). -- GB fan 14:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks GB fan. @ReviewingEditor:, to overturn an AfD decision, you'll need to visit Wikipedia:Deletion review. Read the instructions carefully. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


In regards to the latest number of undisclosed paid editing issues, I was wondering if the creation of a new WP:CSD criteria is in order. The general idea is that if someone is found to be partaking in undisclosed paid editing, than the articles they have written can be deleted more efficiently. On the grounds that undisclosed paid editors COI prevent the content of the article from being written in a balanced manner. Sort of a Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over speedy for undisclosed paid editing. This would serve to more strongly discourage undisclosed paid editing and reduce the ability of businesses to profit off of the practice.

A rough draft of the deletion criteria could read:

A12: Articles created by an undisclosed paid editor while taking part in undisclosed paid editing where the only substantial content to the page was added by its author.

Is this good, bad, awful, would it destroy Wikipedia? You are a very experienced editor within the deletion process so I'm interested in your thoughts on this idea. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

the problem with "undisclosed paid editor" is we have no means of proving someone is unless they confess to it subsequently. And if they do so confess, doesn't this to some extent turn them into a disclosed paid editor? Even confession isn't absolutely reliable because there have been a few verified examples of joe jobss where an upe pretended to be a well known wikipedian. As you know, the prevailing view here is that outing is more important than coi. Personally, I would be prepared to see that be reversed, but I unfortunately don't think it would get consensus, considering the defeat of the recent AfC on a very mild exception to the outing policy. Officially (i.e., in my role as an admin and arb), I will as I have always done apply existing policy, not policy as I would like it to be.
To the best of my knowledge, and as confirmed by opinions of some people with experience in this, there has never been an upe making worthwhile contributions, so they can all be gotten rid of otherwise. Of course, this means if there has been one consistently doing so, we obviously do not know about it. I doubt it, because the amount of junk being submitted now and in the past is so great that it is reasonable to assume any new entry on an organization is very likely to be coi at least, and in most cases also violation of the our Terms of Use; I would also say this about to individuals in some fields. This then raises the question of if they are making consistently good contribution why should we want to get rid of the articles--the same as undetected sockpuppets.
I would go a little further: imo, even for the best declared paid editors, the quality of their paid work is not as high as the volunteer work most of them also do.
The best course of action within existing policy is to have stricter requirements on articles in susceptible subjects, and for more people to participate in the afds. I would certainly propose a formal deletion reason , that borderline notability AND a mainly promotional article is a reason for deletion. (It is now, if we choose to do so, but a formal statement would make it easier to explain). I am saying this with great reluctance--for my first 5 or 6 years here, I devoted as much of my effort as possible into rescuing just those sort of article. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts DGG. I don't like the situation either, but the quantity of COI violations that are done on a daily basis is so large (if the quantity of G11s and adv declines at AfC are of any indication) that something needs to be done. I'm just grasping at straws for a solution. Can't we just get Congress to grant the WMF subpoena power or at least file FTC complaints against some of these people. /rant Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
In a very few extreme cases, where people or firms have been identified, the WMF has taken some legal or regulatory action. I have some knowledge of whom to speak to and approximately what their parameters are. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)



I am writing to ask your opinion, I am sorry this is so long. Basically, I wrote my entry almost 2 years ago. Worked with editors at the time. And everything was fine until yesterday and I got a notice it was being speedy deleted and it has been so ugly and contentious ever since. I was trying to focus on redoing the references the way they wanted them and kept being accused of having multiple accounts which even after I answered they kept asking the same questions over and over.

Anyway is there some way this could or should be written better?

This is what the academia page says

Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work. However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article.

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.

I think Miss Clark meets these 3 criteria.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

She has several hundred articles inprint. Both peer review and editorial. There are also articles about her. There are several instances where her work is included as the foundation for clinical guidelines and national protocols. In France: Across the EU: She is widely used in Spain as well. Which is why she is going to be lecturing and advising there in a few weeks.


So she is the person that is regularly invited to other countries and they use her books and writings to develop their national asthma programs. She has won 2 major national awards for this.

The other thing is and it is hard to document, she was the Special Studies Coordinator that ran the collaborative for Medicare in CKD, for the Georgia QIO. The National Quality standards that are currently mandated by CMS, she ran the program that developed and tested them. Here is the Medicare funding table that shows the money going to Georgia.

I think she is more than a regular editor, but, I don’t know how to write that and not make it sound promotional.

She is also a guideline reviewer for the AHRQ here in the US. But If I say that, it sounds promotional. In Indonesia the government translated her text book and it is their National Guideline used across the country. That is why she was invited to lecture there last year. The Japanese have translated her book as well, but I can't read what they are doing with it.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

She was the Editorial Director for Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Medscape/WebMD, and the Pulmonary Medicine Editor of the peer review journal MedGenMed.

Medscape/WebMd is the largest provider of Medical Education today, whether people like it or not.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g. writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

She has 4 books, one text book that she is the sole author of and has been translated into several languages. Please see the Indonesian link above. It is by one of the leading textbook publishers in the country. In addition, multiple peer review articles, posters, etc. Then there is the Shakespeare stuff. That would qualify her by itself. Over 40 peer reviewed articles that she has written, and some 70 books that cite and discuss them as well as 3 pages of graduate level theseis that cite her work. Here is an example.

She is referenced and quoted twice in the Introduction of the Oxford Shakespeare. There aren't a lot of English professors that can say that, much less a nurse.

Anyway, is there some way this could or should be written better? I welcome any comments.

Thanks for your time. DMRRT (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have already read your statement at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Varnell Clark, and again at your talk page; there was no point in repeating it here. I gave my opinion at the AfD. I'll just add that nobody becomes a notable literature scholar by publishing articles: the consensus in the academic world is that it takes books from scholarly publishers. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess what I can't understand is if that is the criteria. She has that, it is published by Jones and Bartlett and now in 4 languages. And then she has all the other articles, citations, awards, and other books, etc. DMRRT (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

1 book is not usually notability. Not being an authority in one subject field plus not being an authority in another does not add up to being an authority. More generally, the true Wikipedia guidelines are not just the written text of the guidelines, but rather the way the text is interpreted. There's no real way of knowing that without experience, but some idea can be gained by looking at the articles on academic and writers we have accepted, bearing in mind the problem that many inadequate articles were unwisely accepted in past years, when standards were more erratic, and there are still thousands of them in the encycopedia that need to be identified and deleted. There's nothing wrong with not knowing all this at first, which is one of the reasons why you should never get too attached to any one particular article. Many people whose first article is deleted stop there and never come back, which is unfortunate, because one shouldn't let one single experience discourage you.
In addition to our standards for articles, the other thing you will learn from experience is our customs for argumentation. It's not wise to push here as hard as you have been pushing. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

People don't come back because they are attacked. Look at the very first interaction with me, I had made no comment or spoken to them in any way and they threatened to block me. Then look at this MO3 person. Not sure who that is. But he made a comment adn immediately someone labeled him and questioned his credibility. Is that Wikipedia's policy? And now they have deleted everything to cover their tracks. Also, someone said we would have about a week to sort through this, This started on Tuesday, and it is early Friday morning and it is deleted.DMRRT (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This accusation may not stand. You are required to assume good faith, yet you make false and foolish accusations about people covering their tracks. This is not only wholly inappropriate, this is entirely inaccurate. There are very few and very special cases on Wikipedia where complete deletion to an unrecoverable state is sanctioned. This was not one of those. A complete record is kept of every edit by every editor in every article. That is even retained in deleted articles.
If it is your desire to see an article on Clark you would be better served to research fully our criteria for notability and verification, and to prove that she is notable before drafting in your sandbox, not as a main namespace article, a draft where that notability is both asserted and verified.
No-one attacked you. Read the material with care. No-one attacked you. You have simply failed to understand, or been unwilling to understand, the greater part of everything that was said to you in order to assist you to improve the article, assuming it had been possible to improve it.
As for the week, that is usual. But look at the rationale for early closure. If you invited folk to come and join in to support you, then you are, in part, to blame. However, if you feel the closure was improper you may first ask the closing admin to review their closure. If that does not meet your needs you may put in a request at WP:DRV to have that closure examined. Read that page carefully. It is an appeal about the closure, not a rerun of the deletion discussion.
This advice is given to you against my better judgement. I ought to be ignoring you as I said on your talk page that I would be. I simply found this on DGG's talk page where they and I converse for time to time because DGG, though we often disagree, is an editor whose opinion I respect. This time actually take the advice you are given. Fiddle Faddle 12:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Varnell Clark is, pretty much, "out of control", except that, of course, it is not. There is an inevitability about the verdict at closure time. But the general behaviours exhibited by many in it, the experienced editors I mean, are not always wholesome. I can forgive the raft or socks, meats and invited vote stackers. They don't; understand how to behave here. It's the ones who know how to behave but do not, those I find, well, not upsetting, but regrettable

This happens with a different cast of thousands every time we get a poor article with a claque behind it. The claque does what it does, and hair trigger idiots on 'our side' (not my side, please not!) snipe at them, and it all goes to hell in a handbasket.

So, what is my wonder?

How we, assuming we are part of the sane folk, can influence the others (not the claque) to behave well without being overbearing and patronising ourselves. I know why I am not an admin! I'm tempted to block them all! Fiddle Faddle 22:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Being tempted to block them all would not disqualify you as admin; I have been tempted many times to take similar actions. Only that you might actually do it would disqualify you. I have once closed a similar afd early with a technical non-consenus in order to have it restarted. This attracted some unfavorable notice along the lines of excessive boldness, but the decision stood. I forget what eventually happened to the article.
You gave some very appropriate advice to the principal difficult experienced editor, and I followed by a much shorter one. They immediately afterwards said they were stepping back from the discussion. Knowing how to give such messages can deal with many such cases, possibly most of them. It's more difficult when a ideological commitment is involved, which fortunately does not seem to have been the case here. It is visible in some other recent afds, but is part of the well-known weakness of WP consensus-making, that it is helpless in the face of pressure groups where none of the opponents feel an equal commitment. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Our difficult experienced editor is, I think, ready to learn. I shall offer them hep from time to time if I think they are in trouble. Regarding adminship, I am sure I will never even apply. This discussion is, in part, why. I relish the greater perceived freedom to act without the extra responsibility, but I try to act as though I have it anyway. Fiddle Faddle 12:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello DGG. I would like to ask you to reconsider your deletion nominations of Growing Up Straight (1982 book) and Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity. In both cases I believe I have provided sources that establish notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

good work; I can't withdraw, because others have also said delete. But I think the best course might be to merge. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


Just wanted you to know that the lesson did not go to waste. yes --Atsme☎️📧 04:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Question, as I know you deal with issues parallel to this. When it comes to cats, if there is a disagreement among sources as to whether to put something in cat X or cat Y, in your view are we to be inclusive, and reflect both in their respective cats? Or do we weigh which we think is more supported (by government statement and/or RSs)? I have in mind the current discussions here and here. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

there is no rule corresponding to notability involved here. The question is the dispute whether or not the attack was a terrorist attack,and the difficulty is that there are good sources saying yes, and also good sources saying no. If it were a blp there would be no question--with such a conflict of authorities it would not be included. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Google Play Movies & TV[edit]

Were you aware of the previous RM when you renamed the article? --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

my error--it just seemed plausible. I moved too fast. I've moved it back., It should of course wait until someone closed the RM, & I do not wish to do that. Thanks for corrected my carelessness. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Carlo Monticelli[edit]

Thanks for the others. Monticelli was a slightly different case. He was deleted because the deleting admin looked at my user page and clicked right rather than down, making it a completely random picking off of articles. There was a clear claim to notability there too in being one of the key negotiators in the Greek debt crisis. There's this. It was very brief, I admit, as I rather thought he was going to get a lot of press coverage and would quickly be expanded by others. Could you add that one? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I was going to add it separately, as the argument is a little different. The way to deal with situations of this sort is to go slowly and carefully, one step at a time. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. You've got email too. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Alan Hall (molecular biologist)[edit]

Although the Alan Hall (molecular biologist) article has over 20 sources, none of them are formatted as inline citations. I am not going to do copyediting at this time, and I am not going to replace the no references tag. If you could format some sources as inline citations at the proper spots, that would be helpful.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

They are formatted as inline citations. They use manual reference numbers rather than our usual ref tags, a perfectly acceptable style of referencing, though a little harder to maintain. The meaning of "inline" references is that references are associated with specific statements in the article, and the manually added nubers do this perfectly well. The guideline at WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITECONSENSUS is not to change consistently used formatting from one style to another. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Adam DeVine[edit]

Please watch this article. It has been the frequent object of hoaxes and misinformation. Bearian (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Bearian, I wouldn't be able to tell what's a hoax in this field, let alone misinformation. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Brooke de Lench[edit]

Hi DGG, I just noticed your suggestion about the article "Brooke de Lench" after finding it in the list here: . I agree with you that the style and tone are clearly inappropriate. I am sure the original creator has written this article by confusing Wikipedia with social media. I am interested in improving it substantially ("from scratch" as you said) if this can help. Let me know what you think. Thank. Valenciatist (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said there, I think the best course is to delete it and start over. anyone can do that rewriting, once the community decides to delete it. (I'm not planning to do it myself) If , as an alternative, the community decides to keep it and improve it, you can do that also. (If nobody does, I will do some of that myself) As you are new here, I'm not sure you realize there is no way of assigning the writing to any particular person--everyone interested simply joins in. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tony Alamo[edit]

Heya, for whatever reason I found myself looking at Tony Alamo, and I'm puzzled -- why did the article that used to be there get completely eliminated?; shouldn't it have been moved rather than zapped? --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

my error. It needs to be moved with a qualifier, as there are some others by that name. What do you suggest? DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Tony Alamo (evangelist) is currently just a redirect to Alamo Christian Foundation; it should contain the old contents of Tony Alamo. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"""Since You can seethe article., what do you think we should use as the qualifier ? Minister? (sincet here are others of the name) DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Evangelist" probably suffices, no? --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


You tagged it as "reads like a news release". The page has been GA rated by @Edge3: (one of our more exceptional GA reviewers) and is one of the better company pages on Wikipedia by far. Whatever faults you may find in the writing style, if such a high standard were set for tagging articles, certainly almost all of our pages would have more tags than actual article-text ;-)

In any case, I thought maybe you could tell me which areas you feel read like a news release, so it can be fixed rather than tagged? CorporateM (Talk) 23:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(1)try changing some of the repeats of the firm name to "the firm" or "they". Obvious when it is buying another company etc the name will sometimes be need to avoid ambiguity, but even here it's usually possible to reword.
(2)I regard including product endorsements as advertising.
(3) The caption on the figure does not describe the figure., It just shows some of the versions of one product line, and should simply say so. That htis is half their sales belongs in the text only, not repeated in the caption. (It is btw avery poor picture for the purpose, because unless enlarged the product name is unreadable--all it really shows a a thumbnail is 4 long tubes of something--at that size it's not even clear it's a cosmetic.)
(4)"products like" is vague. The list of those chosen needs some criterion. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the product image, I have replaced the caption with an appropriate description (I think someone else added that). Regarding calling the company by name, I find it very odd that referring to the subject of the article by name would be considered "reads like a news release". Taking a look at a couple FA-rated company pages at random, both Panavision and BAE Systems mention the article-subject by name more than 100 times. Other words like "it" and "the company" are already used throughout. It is good editorial practice to use a mix of terms. Regarding celebrity endorsements, this is a marketing company best known for using celebrity endorsements. It is not promotional to write how a marketing firm does marketing, especially when it is their primary claim to notability. CorporateM (Talk) 07:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


Please check your email. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 04:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


Would you care to comment at any of the following? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab-West Foundation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chittagong Madar Bari, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecorates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Superstore Festival of Lights. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

done as needed. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Anna-Lise Williamson[edit]

Would you mind taking a look? An editor has expressed a referencing concern on the talk page there. The lady feels notable, but your expertise is far better than mine in this field. Fiddle Faddle 09:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Your impression was correct. I checked and commented, thanks. I may not have the chance to do the necessary rewriting, but I left enough comments to guide whoever does iit. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

12:15:45, 21 May 2015 review of submission by TriJenn[edit]

TriJenn (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear David,

I have added citations to "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - Inc, Forbes, Success, Huffington Post, Chicago Tribune. I have also added the multiple languages that his books have been translated into.

Can you please release the block on this person?

I have resubmitted for review. However, as I understand it, you will still be the final reviewer.

Thanks so much for your assistance and consideration.

TriJenn TriJenn (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

working on it,. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I accepted a modified version as Randy Gage. Please don't add back uncited or promotional material. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all of your assistance and guidance! TriJenn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Robbins, Geller[edit]

Are you open to this? [27]. Frankly, after looking at them, some of those judgements are pretty amazing. An article exists on at least one of the cases and I'm considering taking a weed-whacker to this one, then spinning off articles about 2 of the other bigger cases. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift36, I withdrew the AFD. I was wondering about it the same as you. This is why I do not delete singlehanded and why I refer cases where someone else has nominated for speedy but I have some residual doubts to AfD, as I did here. ``
  • Thanks! I'll try to work on it this weekend. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Paradiso LMS[edit]

Hi DGG. I am pretty sure that the subject article was speedy deleted in the course of dealing with this COIN case about paid editing and I can find no AfD (e.g. there is nothing here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paradiso_LMS. The current article was just created today. How can I tell if an article with the same title was speedied? (also I take it G4 is not available but (if I am right and it was speedied before) G11 would be... ) right? Thanks. 20:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find it under the full title. But it was speedy deleted under the same title as now at 21:28 on March 15 by FreeRangeFrog, and you can see that on his deletion log. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It was just a few minutes ago listed by another editor under A7, & I have deleted it accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I see, the answer is "search the deletion log" and yep there it is. Thanks! that was a dumb question - i just should have thought for a bit longer) Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hoax-mongering on Eucleian Society[edit]

Eucleian Society was a literary society that existed at NYU in the olden days -- it ceased to exist by 1943. The article has been a magnet for hoax-mongering and for spurious unreliable claims that a "secret society" by that name still exists and/or that "members" have recently pulled this or that prank or flown their flag (as supposedly evidenced by meaningless or sometimes doctored photos). I tried to give the article somewhat of a cleanup six weeks ago, but now there's a new hoax-mongerer editor here messing things up again and posting meaningless non-verifying bogus citations, adding unnecessary verbiage, and edit-warring. Could you and your good talk-page watchers please put this article on your Watch lists, revert that editor (and block him if need be), and so on? I don't want to do this alone. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions re: notability and publisher[edit]

Thanks again for your help on Randy Gage. I have two questions:

1. Removing the "viewpoints" section removed much of his third party notable articles - Entrepreneur, Forbes, Success Magazine, and Chicago Tribune. Will it be okay without specific references to those? 2. Prime Concepts group is also a third party publisher. Randy Gage does not have ownership in that company, nor has he ever had (according to him). Is there another title to these sections that might be better?

Thanks! TriJenn (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

As for the articles, Put them in as a section of publications.
Prime Concepts Group is not a publisher at all. It's a Marketing Service. The publications are not books, but pamphlets under 100 pages in length. I changed the headings accordingly. The only two books in the usual sense are the ones by Wiley.
Who has published the translations? DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you give me an example of putting the articles in as a section of publications? What would the title of that section be? And, I can't access the text that was there before. Is there any way to access that?
I have the publisher information. Would it be good to add them? TriJenn (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Kee Song Brothers Poultry[edit]

Please examine this draft and my comment on it re the deletion of a prior article. Fiddle Faddle 18:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

yes, same problems--primarily notability. And in almost all such cases the external website came first. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

*Draft:D. B. Keele, Jr.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You want to delete Sustainable Enterprise Excellence, why?[edit]


You write yesterday that you have deleted the article because of "pure jargon". That's it. Can you explain to me what this means? And what I have done wrong apparently?

Also, you have deleted "honors" under Rick L. Edgeman because of "unreliable sources". Why is that? I have a link to Who's Who website profile with most of the content, and also a link to an article from ASQ (American Sosiety for Quality) mentioning the last honor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glubskeegern (talkcontribs) 05:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


Review by, and input from experienced editors is kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly urger everyone to read the discussion & to look at the article before it gets deleted. Once more WP shows itdelf more responsible than well-reputed professional news sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Up for deletion St Francis Court[edit]

Following the tag on this article I feel I have justified my reasoning. Pleas visit the talk page. thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Embraer E-Jet E2 family[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Embraer E-Jet E2 family. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas P. McKenna article[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from [[{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! He is not notable for the book, but he is notable under WP:soldier criteria "5. Played an important role in a significant military event". I've added the appropriate project tags to the article's talk page so his bio gets fleshed out. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for taking care of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samieh Rizk. I considered doing something similar myself. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klaus Solberg Søilen and comment on the importance of the journal? It's more paid editing and while I'm 99 % sure PROF isn't met, the editor is seemingly convinced otherwise. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

working on it--it's a little tricky. DGG ( talk ) 01
28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Katerina Pospisilova[edit]

You deleted Katerina Pospisilova under CSD A7 "No credible claim of significance or importance. Did you not consider that saying that the subject was "first runner-up of Miss Czech Republic 2006" was a credible clam of significance? I understand that the article creator had improperly removed the A7 speedy tag several times. However, shortly before deletion, I again removed it, citing the runner-up claim in both the edit summery and on the talk page.

I understand that there was another version of this article with diacritics in the title. Obviously we should not have both, and if the redundant creation was an attempt to escape scrutiny it was wrong. If this is to be undeleted, any useful content from either version should be used in one page.

I don't know that this person is notable. But I do know that worse starts have led to reasonable articles about notable subjects. I ask that you reconsider this deletion. Thank you. DES (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel, I;ve restored it. I trust your judgment in this area, and I leave it to you whether to work on it in mainspace or move it to draft space. In fact, since you have the necessary button, if you think I've made a mistake in a deletion, please feel free to undelete, and then just let me know. If in such a case I still think I'm right, I'll use afd. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Actually when I first noticed this, i didn't have the button, I was inactive for a year, and just had my admin bit restored today. I think I'll move it to draft, as it clearly isn't a valid article as it stands. Again, thanks. DES (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vivint[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vivint. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Referencing systems[edit]

Hi David. I created Category:Referencing systems and rearranged or redirected some articles to fit the category. But it strikes me a category like this must already exist, and I thought you would be the best person to ask. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

working on it. See,for example the standard system for the Talmud and system for Chapters and verses of the Bible. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Right. It's actually quite a large subject. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Not forgetting Surah Peter Damian (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I cannot see that anyone has ever written a general WP article on this. I'm not immediately aware of any general discussions in the librarianship literature, but there are many further places to check--I think I recall there are discussions of its use in particular subjects in books on how to do research in history, etc. , DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability Journalists[edit]

Was looking into whether Weijia-jiang, a Channel 2 reporter for CBS News, would qualify for a page. I haven't seen anything substantial about her, but I'm also surprised she doesn't have a page already. Journalists, like academics, open-source, or historical societies, fall into one of those categories I feel editors will argue in favor of a page regardless of source material, because their work benefits Wikipedia and there is ::Academics have a fairly clear heirarchy within the profession, and this can be very helpful. Journalists, less so. an enthusiasm to support them here. Then I looked at WP:AUTHOR and was curious how "widely cited by peers or successors" is interpreted. Seems like it would be an extremely easy criteria. On one side of the coin, I'm rolling my eyes that we have so many specialized criteria that appeals to the community's interests, but I also need to provide someone with fair advice on what is considered acceptable on Wikipedia, which isn't always the same as what I would support. CorporateM (Talk) 01:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Academics have a clear formal publicly available hierarchy within the profession,and this facilitates understanding their relative importance. Journalists do not have this. the only clear criterion I know is awards at a national level--as for people in any subject. That's of course a little too restrictive here, but I do not know how to supplement it. What y0u link to is not citations,but bylines. Various CBS local stations acknowledge the name of the CBS reporter reporter whose story they reprint. That's not influences, just syndication. It would mean something if NBC used him as an authority than that his own network does, but not all that much, because journalists normally use others reporting where they themselves did not have contacts. Academic citing people have a formal way of measurement, reliable databases to record it, and accepted standards of significance. Journalist have none of these. Academic judge each other by means of such citations; journalists do not. What's much more to the point is that academics and public figures sometimes cites journalists as being experts. Again there are not quantitative standards like there are in the academic world,but sometimes a journalist is indeed recognized as an authority--unfortunately, as applied at WP, that tends to mean random quotations, not the quantitative comparisons possible in the academic world. Outside the academic world, some fields do have built-in standards--for example, politicians (being elected) or athletes (palying on a recognized major league team) . Some have recognized external standards, like charting in some fields of music. But most do not. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I have some knowledge of considerations in that migtht be used in establishing notability (in the Wikipedia sense) of television journalists.
  • (1) At the top, signifiers are awards like the Peabody, two of the Edward R. Murrow awards (international and Washington State University)...
  • (2) The specific job held in specific programs (anchor and managing editor of the Evening News; a combined position in the case of CBS News), specifically named positions (Chief White House Correspondent...
  • (3) Named correspondents with the most prestigious television news shows, length of service at the network level. If nothing else, a correspondent for one of the top network news divisions—three over-the-air news networks likely have fewer than 300 correspondents in total. There may be a distinction in general title at the network level—entry into that level as a reporter, with a negotiated contract (with agent) after three years.
  • (4) Correspondents named as foreign correspondents.
  • (5) Aside from on-screen fame as notability, producers in television news have a role that is more wide-ranging than an editor at a newspaper, and are eligible for some of the same national awards as correspondents.
In the interest in giving an quick, and, I hope, useful reply, I'd add this: a television news correspondent at the network level with more than 6 years services should be considered notable in the Wikipedia sense. Large market (say, the top ten) local stations are a 'depends'. Local station news departments are a feeder network for network news, with the stations owned by over-the-air networks being a richer source because of the exposure to national audiences through on-network-air when called on to provide national coverage for localized stories: experience counts.
Of course, events may move some television correspondent and anchor classes not mentioned into Wikipedia notability. I've tried to avoid specific examples as best I can, in the interest of neutrality. But for the example given by CM: no, come back in five years.
For other types of journalists, face recognition is less, as is the money—perhaps in recompense, deciding Wikipedia notability is easier to decide. — Neonorange (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Do yo mean these are factors to be taken into account, or do you mean meeting any of these is enough (as in the WP:PROF analogy) and thus mean to include all foreign correspondents? DGG ( talk ) 13:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I only consider notability for US television journalists; I don't have knowledge of that field in other countries.
I looked through WP:Notability (people) and could not find a good fit there for television journalist. Better guidance is necessary, I think. At the network level, this is an extremely competitive field, with individual work product appearing on a cycle as short as one day. There is constant reviewing and critique of every broadcast(inside a network), with comparison to coverage from other sources, from print to directly competing television networks (along with informal internal peer review). There is an important difference between network and local (for journalists); for local, there are five slots for each story—for network, five stories for each slot. Which leads to "publish or perish".
To directly answer your question: at the network level, either (2) The specific job held in specific programs (anchor and managing editor of the Evening News; a combined position in the case of CBS News), specifically named positions (Chief White House Correspondent, for example, or (3) Named correspondents with the most prestigious television news shows, length of service at the network level. If nothing else, a correspondent for one of the top network news divisions—three over-the-air news networks likely have fewer than 300 correspondents in total. There may be a distinction in general title at the network level—entry into that level as a reporter, with a negotiated contract (with agent) after three years or (4) Correspondents named as foreign correspondents) is sufficient. Note: I would also suggest considering time in current and prior positions.
Big market local television? A more difficult question; more likely to get independent print or digital coverage; less likely to be notable. For this sector and below, significant major national awards may tilt the balance.
To speculate about the hard data of citations for academic publishing, consider a network television story published, and not retracted as some sort of vetting. Academic criteria are hardly applicable, considering the vastly shorter 'publication' cycle of television journalism, and the different skill sets involved. Of course television journalism and academic publishing meet entirely different societal needs, and ought to each be evaluated on this differing basis. But I ramble.
I will compare the list of television journalists with Wikipedia articles against those who I judge to meet the criteria I scribbled above if you think this would be useful. — Neonorange (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much @Neonorange:! I just got off the phone with her friend and explained both my perspective on in-adequate sourcing and the more thorough requirements you have outlined above. This type of work is important, because in my role as a paid editor, I am often able to prevent disruptive editing before it happens through good consulting.
DGG, I disagree with your argument that academics should have special notability requirements because there is a structured hierarchy in job titles. The same is true in business, which has VPs, CEOs and heads of divisions, etc. We could easily create a similar criteria for business executives, whereby any CEO of a $1 billion+ business qualifies for an article, but we do not do so, because there is less enthusiasm for having those articles by our editor demographic and because it's OR for us to evaluate a person's significance ourselves, rather than defer to the existence of independent source material. CorporateM (Talk) 19:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
According to WP:ACADEMIC, more than the structured hierarchy of job titles is involved, CorporateM. Citation metrics is also an important tool for assessing notability of acedemics. The general principle is that a professor is considered notable if their published academic research work is widely cited by other researchers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to "should" as oppose to what is current consensus, acknowledging that my viewpoint is not the accepted standard. Most editors contribute in a manner that reflects their personal POV; the difference between a POV pusher and a regular editor is whether their POV is reasonable and supported by strong sources. This is often the nature of COI, that such editors tend to have unreasonable viewpoints that are not supported by strong sources and they are therefore much more likely to be POV pushers.
In my view - some of the worst POV pushing comes from POVs that are supported by the majority of our editor demographic and are therefor not seen as POV pushing at all. So, for example, most of our editors would support very low standards of notability for topics they have an interest in, while exerting much higher standards for topics they don't personally feel are significant.
@Jimbo: had an excellent example of this, regarding 100+ articles on Linux, while the queen's dress was not deemed notable, despite having an overwhelming body of literature. Another example - one day I sent a good dozen articles to AfD. Most of the company pages were deleted, but the most promotional of them was on an unknown open-source project, which had a landslide KEEP. Editors actually argued that the article can't be promotional, because it's not a commercial product, but it was the most promotional off all of them.
Sorry if I'm going on a tangental rant. CorporateM (Talk) 20:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Consider all human activity as information processing, and Wikipedia is a free market of ideas. In the Wikipedia ecology the only scarcities are good sources and good editors—article space is effectively unlimited and the pool of potential editors is effectively so. Unlike television news productions, there is an unlimited number of slots for what seems an unlimited number of sources.
For biographical articles, perhaps a rule of thumb could be—if the article helps the subject's career, it's too soon. The academic criteria are satisfying to me because, failing all else, they have a strong statistical base in citations; Wikipedia, without an editorial control function can hardly do better. And the same for professional athletes in the top-most leagues or competitions. Criteria for business executives are less satisfying because there are few hard data points; those that exist are open to interpretation. Possible criteria for television journalists end up in the middle; lots of published work, but little critique.
In a more direct response to CM, I believe pushing certain categories of articles is not POV, it's enthusiasm, and not destructive. There's no competition with other categories. On the other hand, that enthusiasm may result in low overall quality of a category—in some cases that might not be all bad.
And, it turns out, at CBS News, all the present correspondents are blue linked, along with a large number of past correspondents. So I will not need to cross check. — Neonorange (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Take another example that was on a historical society and written almost entirely out of primary sources, press releases and promotional brochures for tourists. As it happened, all their artifacts were sponsored by selling "meat juice" as a "health tonic" centuries ago. I can only imagine how much sickness and false health claims paid for the exhibit's artwork. But since we didn't have any legitimate RS', and editors wanted an article to exist on a subject they are enthusiastic about, we mostly ended up being a mirror for the org's own promotion. A company article in the same circumstance would never stand.

The point of comparing two categories of articles isn't that they compete, but to show how rather than mitigate the community's biases, we have embraced and even codified them into our policies. Creating articles on subjects that don't have strong sourcing leads to using weaker sources, which always leads to NPOV problems. We should insist on stronger sourcing everywhere, as its our best defense against POV pushers, even when those POV pushers are ourselves. CorporateM (Talk) 00:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

CM: Is it fair to say that you dearly wish for specific Wikipedia policies or guides to point out whenever advising clients or colleagues who don't want to hear no—when they see thatweakly sourced and promotional articles exist? When speaking of bias, I think lack of coverage is a bigger problem than poorly sourced coverage Wikipedia is without a pervasive editorial policy embodied as a group of editors educated to the importance of proper sources, and trained in the tools to find those sources. I edit the articles I think are broadly important—and tend to avoid articles I think less worthwhile. Rather than more policies, I'd dearly love to have more resources for research, and see examples of good research given special prominence—Main Page II, with discussions of good articles, and how they got that way. — Neonorange (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I intended to advocate for fewer policies, not more; a prior discussion on Jimbo's talk page showed quite a bit of support for consolidating on a single notability criteria that merely says we need credible, independent RS' to be the primary basis of the article (per our sourcing policies). If those independent RS' do not exist, I consider it a major problem to create articles based only on primary sources, rather than delete the page as being unsourceable. As you say, we have unlimited space, so I don't see why the significance of a topic should be considered, or especially why as Wikipedians we should be evaluating a subject's significance ourselves. Analyzing an academic's citation count, rather than deferring to the judgement of the sources, is just OR and feels wrong. We should only be evaluating notability in the context of the strength of the sources.
Regarding ranked articles, most editors agree they are almost always produced as a result of a single editor's focused efforts. I'm not sure what you meant with your question about "other stuff exists". Naturally I do have a sometimes frustrating job of explaining to companies why they shouldn't have the same promotional article their competitor has. Recently a few people within on of my client orgs were upset their competitors had dedicated "Award" sections, which I refused to create on their page; at least one of those dedicated "Awards" section was created by a paid editor that alleges to be ethical. But people and companies always look at other articles about people and companies, not at open-source, military history, academics, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)