User talk:DGG/Archive 81 Oct. 2013

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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

Deletion of International Meal Company

Could you show me the content that was stored at International Meal Company? It says you deleted it but I want to make sure if the content was appropriate or not. The company is real. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am restoring the article to your user space asUser:Ahnoneemoos/International Meal Company. There is no reason why you should not restore it to main space after checking it. This was a rather odd instance of an editor and a group of socks creating a great number of basically valid articles. Looking back, I now think that deleting them in order to deny recognition --though often a key weapon against socking--may have shown the the contradiction of G5 with the basic principle of getting free content to construct an encyclopedia. My current view is we should do this only for the most desperate cases, or where the great majority of the articles from the socks are copyvio or otherwise not valid. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah don't worry, I just wanted to check if the content was appropriate or not since the log mentioned the sockpuppet. It seems the content was indeed appropriate although it lacks reliable sources. I'm just gonna move it to the mainspace and fix it a little bit. Thanks for your help! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume you saw this . . .

. . . but in case you haven't. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

^Bongo_matic 04:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I note the comment that it is probable that similar results would have been obtained with non-open-access articles. (that is, that at the lowest end of the quality spectrum there are a substantial proportion of articles that will publish downright garbage.) Paid journals have similar reasons to publish enough so that people will buy them; there is a finite number of good scientific research articles, and those journals that cannot attract them will publish the bad ones also. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hassan Hathout

Regarding your edits on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hassan Hathout - I'm minded to delete this under WP:CSD#A10 because we already have the article Hassan Hathout in main space. The two are somewhat different though, so please consider merging material from the AFC version into the main version. The AFC version is essentially an abandoned draft, so there is no sense in making improvements to it when a main space version exists. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A10 only applies to pages in article space, not AfC's. I've added a second decline notice with the reason "exists." Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We do not yet have an agreed way of handling these. Certainly material should be merged when sourced & relevant, but if it is merged, we need to keep the attribution. There are 3 cases which have b=to be distinguished: ::

One The draft,although declined was used for the article. Here I think the first step is to replace the text of the draft with a link to the article talk page, and then, to consider the article for possible deletion. (This is the case I usually see)

Two An article is taken into AfC space for improvement, and moved back again by copypaste, with or without improvements. Here the ideal step is a history merge, but I do not think it worth the trouble, unless there are important changes. (I almost never see this, but others report it)

Three. The two articles are independent.If there is content in the AfC worth the trouble, the contents should be merged. An exact history merge is the ideal way to deal with the merge, but again, I leave it to those who think it worth the trouble--I just redirect to the article talk p. with a suitable edit summary. (As a special case, the AfC is better, but I think of this as merging all the content without removing the prior history, and let the redirect & edit summary handle the attribution.) ! DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A history merge is not practical if there are too many interleaving edits. Most admins are willing to do a clean merge where the histories don't overlap, but it's horribly time consuming and painful to deal with overlaps. It would be best simply to incorporate any improved content and sourcing from the AFC version into the main version, and explain this on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely about history merges. I am not one of the admins willing to do them. I did a few in the past, and I got them correct only about half the time, which means I was causing more problems than I was fixing. Doing it informally is best, whenever possible. In the early days of WP, I think there were an overabundance of people trying to do how complicated they could make it to do things with the wiki software, and how intricate an "explanation" they could write about the way to do . We have enough problems with real copyvios without worrying about merely technical ones within WP, as look as we do explain the attribution somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If I'd known

If I had known you were a librarian I'd have asked you first - Google was getting me nowhere and I don't have the tools to look deeper. Thanks.Antiqueight ^confer 22:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish Bolshevism

Hi DGG: What is your considered opinion about the above topic as is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism (2nd nomination). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Burton Nanus

I cleaned up Burton Nanus so that it is no longer unduly promotional or a copyvio. Unfortunately, notability is less obvious now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I found enough in Worldcat to show he was a notable author: many of his books were published by one of the standard business publishers, one book had over a thousand library holdings, 2 books translated into multiple other languages. I found one review quickly--there will be others. DGG ( talk ) 13:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Roys Poyiadjis

Noticed you did some significant copyediting on Roys Poyiadjis. I've made some changes based on what I believe to be notable and I invite you to take a look. If you feel that we need to discuss it, let's do so on article Talk. HtownCat (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

. I reverted your changes. Neither his sibling nor his miscellaneous charities are worth mentioning. Much of this material is in any case taken from letters of support for him when he was awaiting sentencing, which is not a reliable source, as it is written by those whose intent is to say as many good things about him as possible. . Come to think of it, I should look at any other material supported only by such sources DGG ( talk )

Alright then. I'm still learning and will defer. Is it best to generally keep siblings and other family members out of articles entirely, or just very briefly mention that they exist with no further elaboration? HtownCat (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Delete of Steven Cox

Hi DGG,

I was wondering if you could help me with the Steven Cox article you recently deleted; I was unable to respond to the speedy nomination in time, and do believe he is not non-notable enough to have been speedied. I do see the article could be improved by removing some of the non-RS sources though, so would you mind either un-deleting it so I can improve it or userfying the text for me?

In my opinion, Steven Cox is a subject who meets the notability guidelines via GNG, with the following sourcing examples:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/may/17/lz1b17startup215029-survival-mode/?dsq=9471776#comment-9471776 - In this article from U-T San Diego, a significant newspaper, Cox is interviewed extensively on the nature of his business, and specifically on the challenges of starting a business during a recession (see page two of the article).

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/03/smallbusiness/small_business_jobs/ - Cox is has a paragraph or two mention.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090501/a-recession-high-note.html - An interview with Cox by Inc Magazine, discussing the growing nature of his business amidst recession. The article is dedicated solely to this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/02/us-usa-workplace-music-idUSTRE53102C20090402 - A Reuters article (not a press release) about the increasing use of music to alleviate stress in a down economy, with somewhat substantial section focusing on Cox and the growing nature of his business, and whether it's related to the economy.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/31/music-lessons-marketplace-takelessons-grabs-4m-from-pinterest-exec-softtech-others-to-expand-into-new-verticals/ - A TechCrunch article on Cox and his business receiving venture funds to expand, with an interview with Cox, discussing the expansion of his business with the new funds.

https://soundcloud.com/steven-cox/steven-cox-interview - An interview with Cox on ESPN radio, where Cox describes his background and history, leading up to his present-day founding of TakeLessons

As the founder of TakeLessons, his business also aids to his notability with its extensive coverage, including:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2013/02/24/michael-wolff-specialty-lists-push-into-craigs-territory/1943975/ - A USA Today article on new online businesses that are challenging Craigslist, with emphasis on TakeLessons

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chicceo/2013/02/18/10-unique-businesses-to-help-you-keep-your-resolution/ - A Forbes profile on unique businesses that focuses on TakeLessons

http://www.businessinsider.com/hottest-startups-in-san-diego-2013-9?op=1 - Business Insider naming TakeLessons as one of the hottest startups in San Diego.

I think with some clean-up the Cox article could be a good contribution to Wikipedia under the topic of modern music teaching and instruction. Amsterdad (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on what you have presented, I do not think you have material to write an article. Usually, incidental mentions of the subject are not sufficient, nor is inclusion as one of several examples in a general article; and in this context "hottest" of "fastest-growing" is usually a euphemism for "not yet notable." I have read all the suggested articles: the most substantial is the techchruch, but it still basically just allows the founder say whatever he wants to say. If I restored the article at this point, on the basis of my experience I think it would stand essentially no chance at AfD, and this would benefit nobody. The best thing to do would be to start over, using the WP:AFC process with the Article Wizard. Others will judge it. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of London Graduate School

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on London Graduate School requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Expanding on this nomination, given the time period since your original edit, and seeing no additional updates to the article, this is my basis for nominating it for CSD. While the criteria I used exempts disambigs, this isn't strictly a disambig page. Best, GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It is essentially a disam. page. if you can think of a better way to word it more clearly as such, go to it. (I find there is great difficulty writing a disam between a part of an article and another article, especially when the names of the two are so confusingly similar and the structures of the underlying enterprises somewhat amorphous. the only solution might indeed be to expand it into an article, but it isn;t intrinsically worth it, being just the post-graduate department of a university) DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A T Pumphrey

I ran into a stale AfC that might be notable and I thought of you for a second review. You want to take a look? If you don't think it can be rescued, feel free to delete or drop me a note and I'll delete it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

doesn't meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide , and the obit sources aren't usually accepted as enough GNG; but I do not see that we have ever discussed whether being inducted into the Army Aviation Hall of Fame (which seems a very selective organization a/c the list on their website) is notable. I suggest raising the question at the Wikiproject. (an alternative is accepting it and then sending it to AfD , but AfDs almost always accept the judgement of this particular wikiproject) DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that particular guideline. I left a note at the WikiProject asking for their opinion. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a follow-up. Nobody responded to my inquiry at the Wikiproject and my inquiry got archived, so I deleted the AfC. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Randy Gage

Hi DGG, Please, look at my discussion with Joe Decker and help review Randy Gage (prosperity coach). I want protection removed from Randy Gage, so I can move Randy Gage (prosperity coach) there. I discussed this with Jclemens too. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

An article should be possible, based on the fact that one book did apparently make the NYT bestseller list (even though in the bottom position of one of the self-help category), but the present article merits speedy deleted as promotional, and I have deleted it accordingly, and protected that version of the title also. Please use the AfC process, as has been suggested to you, rather than attempt to evade page protection by an alternate title--especially an extraordinarily promotional title. When you rewrite it there, avoid repeating the name at every opportunity (one single sentence there used his name four times!) , avoid claiming importance based on non-notable awards, and avoid using sources that are essentially press releases. The guideline to follow is NAUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Do not abuse your privilege as an administrator. Randy Gage (prosperity coach) do not meet criteria for speedy deletion because it is not a blatant or unambiguous advertising or promotion; if it were, Joe Decker or Jclemens should have deleted it. Please restore or move it to Randy Gage and tag it with AfD if you like. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the entire history of this article, the way I see it is that I would be abusing my privileges as an administrator if I permitted blatant promotion like this to remain in WP. But I have been wrong before, and if you can convince any other admin to overturn my deletion, I never object to one of my colleagues doing that. As I interpret the discussions it, JClemens deferred to Joe and me, and Joe basically didn't want to even think about the article. If I have interpreted them wrong, they may overturn my decision. My advice remains, that if you want to get a proper article on the subject, write one at AfC. I've given you some concrete and positive suggestions of how to rewrite it. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As an administrator, I do not have to remind you that you should not "look at the entire history of this article" but judge the content which you deleted. Is the content of Randy Gage (prosperity coach) a blatant or unambiguous advertising or promotion? No, then please restore it. It is not compulsory to use AfC and your advise that I should follow NAUTHOR guidelines is also misleading or insufficient, because Randy Gage is equally notable as a prosperity coach and a public or motivational speaker, even so before becoming a notable author. I also noticed that you nominated the National Speakers Association for the same reason of being a blatant or unambiguous advertising or promotion, and I disagree with you. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

yes, I am quite aware that you disagree with me. I suggest focussing on NAUTHOR because the guideline for notability there is much clearer than for the other facets of his career--I support articles on notable individuals in all fields, and give the best advice I can on how to write them, even to people who disagree with me. There does not seem any point in further discussion here. Either my actions will be overturned or they will not. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You may want to comment on this DRV. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You may want to comment at this related COIN discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deficit reduction in the United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deficit reduction in the United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: National Speakers Association

Hello DGG, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of National Speakers Association, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

OK--I'll see if I or anyone can rewrite it, and check for copyvio DGG ( talk ) 12:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Credit rating agency

Greetings, DGG. Another editor, CorporateM, mentioned you on the discussion page of Credit rating agency. I have made known previously that I work in the industry (I am a contractor at Moody's Corporation) and there has long been concern that the CRA article is a confused mess. The order in which information is presented is confusing, a great deal of information is wrong or distorted, and these problems have become worse over time.

Earlier this year I successfully proposed new sections for the article. Earlier this month I did the same, and reached out to CorporateM because he had replied once before. His response was to adopt some of the material I suggested but then also to divide the "Criticism" section among other headings, making the legitimate topic of debate over the industry's role and operation difficult to follow, while at the same time overwhelming these other sections with too much detail about those debates. Curiously, CorporateM and I both are using WP:CSECTION as a guide. His view is that these sections are discouraged. My view is that the guideline allows for a specific exception which is highly relevant to this subject. Yet CorporateM opposes me editing the article, while he will not defend the substance of his edits. (Curiously, I see that he often edits articles for clients. So I do not understand why he is so determined that I not edit this page about my industry.)

By his own admission, this is a subject CorporateM does not know very much about. It is one I know a great deal about, and I have backed this up with research and written much improved versions of its existing sections. I have posted a lengthy explanation at Talk:Credit rating agency so you may see for yourself. Please understand me: it is in no way my intent to advocate for the industry, except inasmuch as it would help to make this a coherent, NPOV treatment of the subject, one which would be beneficial to everyone: Wikipedia, readers, and the industry alike. I believe CorporateM's obstinacy is doing everyone a disservice, and I hope you will see that I simply wish to create a better encyclopedia article. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

people sometimes have difficulty in writing about a subject they are intimately familiar with. This is a general encyclopedia, and we need to keep a sense of proportion. For getting the details right, expert knowledge is invaluable--for figuring out how to best present it to nonspecialists, a broader view sometimes helps. I follow my own advice--I normally do not write articles on the subjects of which I have professional knowledge; generally I'll only add material or clarify --though with exceptions to create a basic article on an important topic if nobody else seems interested. As for this, I've commented on the page: Basically, asI see it Corporate M has the correct interpretation: except for works on the fine arts, we avoid the use of the subject heading "criticism", and even the use of "controversies" is much better avoided if possible. Essentially, there are several reasons: first, it is not good writing to have a section on miscellany, but rather to be more specific-- there are various natures of controversy, and they should be handled separately. And even when handled in proper sections it's not good practice to write in a pro and con manner: an encyclopedia tries to explain things, not debate them.

Many (possibly even most) articles on political and economic matters don't do this right. Even for the ideas of a particular person or school of though, a pro and con manner of discussion is avoidable: a person publishes a theory, and others comment on it--but they don't usually just support or oppose, they discuss and modify and limit and extend. All the more so on a general topic. In this case, we shouldn't be defending or attacking the industry or specific companies, we should be explaining the nature of the topic, and discuss the effects and views on it. Sometimes this is best organized by topic, sometimes historically, sometimes in combination. But it is almost never better discussed as pro and con. I don't see how one rationally support or oppose on something like this--is one supporting or opposing the general concept, or the role in the current economic system, of the effect over the last few years (or in some prior period)? The exception is if we are writing an article specifically on a controversy. The clearest example I know is that we discuss the biological concept of evolution, and also have articles on the controversy over it in the 18th century, or today.

It is very hard to discuss contemporary issues on which people have strong opinions without falling into a debate. We need to do everything practical in the way of organization and formatting to diminish this effect. I will make specific suggestions tomorrow on the article talk page, and further discussion belong there. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Dan Bongino

Hi DGG. Could you please have a look at the DRV for this subject. The article was deleted before he became the Republican nominee for a US Senate seat in the 2012 election. He is now also a candidate for a House seat in the 2014 election. The redirect is fully protected so I can't work on the article. Thank you for any assistance and insights you can provide. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I commented there. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Secondary school notability

Hi DGG, I nominated a secondary school for speedy deletion a while back, and you wrote back to tell me "All secondary schools are considered notable at Wikipedia & A7 cannot be used for schools of any kind." Unrelated to that, I recently received an invitation to weigh in on an article about a K-9 school that was being considered at AfD and I was curious to read up on the school notability policy. Since you seemed to have some knowledge, I thought I'd ask you if you knew where I could find it! It wasn't glaringly obvious to me when I was poking around at WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not a formal guideline, but in practice no article of a high school that could be verifiably be shown to exist has been deleted for lack of notability in over 5 years now. Conversely, very few articles on lower level schools have been kept during that period unless it is either very famous, or there's something special. It is in practice a compromise between those who want to keep all of both levels and those who want to delete most of them. If we had more such compromises, we'd have less need to argue and more time to write. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Just in case it should come in useful, Wikipedia:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a wikilink which leads to part of an essay that essentially says the same as DGG's comment here. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Carl Kaestle

David, could you perhaps have a look at the notability concern here? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note: There's one more difference between a Regius Professor and a "William F. Vilas Research Professorship": The Regius Professorship is a permanent appointment, as far as I understand, whereas the other one is for a few years only. --Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That could be a significant difference. I commented further, because there is in fact a much more solid basis for notability, WP:AUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden

Just an FYI, you had previously participated on the Talk page of the article and the issue has now been escalated to ANI. I thought you may be interested in the discussion there. CorporateM (Talk) 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hrm, I guess that was a stupid proposal I made, being that it suggested a bunch of neutral editors evacuate just to "keep the peace". I don't think any of the "involved" editors even have an interest in the article, but they would still oppose being restricted off of it arbitrarily. Anyways, I started a fresh proposal just suggesting a regular topic ban on MiddayExpress. Thanks for your flattering comments. I have gotten pretty ok at the whole COI thing. I've been standardizing on bringing my COI works up to GA. Now, if only I could find an editor to collaborate with on them that sticks around long enough to get an article GAN ready without going on vacation. CorporateM (Talk) 01:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

that will not be me; totally contrary to my intentions when I first came here, I find it more satisfying to bring almost-impossible articles up to the minimum standards. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Anthony W. Ulwick

Hi DGG, I noticed you placed a news release flag on Anthony W. Ulwick. Can you clarify so that I can fix it? Is it written in a news style or coming off as promotional in some way? Also, I was unaware that patents shouldn't be included, so thanks for pointing that out. HtownCat (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources are entirely self-written or promotional: Ref 1 is a self published source; Ref 2. is his own article. Ref.3 does not seem to refer to him. Ref 4 is his own book. Ref. 5 is his own company's website. I doubt ref 6 is a reliable source, but the link is dead. Ref. 7 is self-published praise. Ref 8 is his own blurb at Amazon. His actual demonstrable notability is probably as an author, as his books are fairly widely held by libraries. This needs to be shown properly, by including references to substantial published reviews of his books in reliable sources. To clarify, patents are relevant--if exploited to a notable extent, not just if granted. They are granted for something new that might be useful, not for something important. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wine_Selectors

Hi DGG, In order to have this article reactivated, can we please remove the changes that User:CastleKing1440 made and return the article to it's original format? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_Selectors

I have no idea who this user is but it seems as though they have been abusing multiple accounts.

Thank you Vic --Australia35 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The original version of the article was written by User:Bearded Father, a blocked sockpuppet of the same editor. There is no uncontaminated version to restore, and none of the versions have substantial sources that are not essentially their own press releases. If you would like to try from scratch, and can find good sources, use AfC DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Krishnakant Mishra

Thanks for deleting the article Krishnakant Mishra, however it seems the creator just recreated it with one word not capitalized. Should this one be deleted as well? It looks like someone already tagged it for speedy deletion but he just removed the template. I would like it if you could intervene here, maybe by deleting the new page. I have PRODded it, but I expect him to remove this template, as he has already done a few times. Jinkinson talk to me 11:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

deleted & protected . I've given him a level 4 warning, and if it continues I'll block, and protect the other potential forms also. If you see it, let me know, just as now. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

House of Israel (Ghana)

Hello, could you please explain what you mean by "The Forward is a reliable secondary source"? According to the "Reasons for deletion" list, WP:V and WP:N are reasons.
The article you cite as an RS supporting the existence of the article does not even mentioned the group on whom the article is supposed to be based. It merely describes a small community in Ghana. At most, a paragraph in the Ghana article under 'Religions of Ghana' or the like would seem merited.
Wikipedia has been inundated with fringe advocacy related to fanciful tales of so-called 'lost tribes', and it needs to go, or the related tales be reliably sourced and presented in the appropriate context.
I see that in this particular instance the community appears to have first built a synagogue in 1998?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A thread on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard

Hi,
Just letting you know... I mentioned two of your deletions in a thread on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard about some problematic articles. Feel free to comment there. bobrayner (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

update: Articles for deletion/Emad Rahim]

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)

Contesting speedy deletion of MAIC (disambiguation)

Could you please read section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which you cited as the criterion for speedy deletion of my new page on MAIC (disambiguation)? It explicitly exempts disambiguation pages from the standard rules for notability, encouraging disambiguation pages for something as minor as variations in spelling.

After creating that article, I left a note on Talk:Mergers and acquisitions/Archives/2013#What's MAIC?, asking someone who knew what MAIC meant in the context of that article to explain it there and add that to the disambiguation page I just had created.

For more detail, please see the comments I appended to your notes on my User talk:DavidMCEddy#Speedy deletion nomination of MAIC (disambiguation).

I very much appreciate your many contributions to Wikipedia, and I hope that you will ultimately agree that my creation of that page did NOT violate any rules and restore it speedily. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Disam pagers disam between articles. Under the format of a disam page, this actually was a page consisting only of external links. Looking at the discussion, and at Center for International Stabilization and Recovery, mentioned there, I think there is another way of handling it that gives at least one WP link, and I will do it. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the redirect for Maic. Do you still plan to restore the MAIC disambiguation page?

To reduce the incidence of future problems like this it would help if the Wikipedia Template:Disambiguation described clearly in the intro to that article the criteria for an acceptable disambiguation page, explicitly mentioning speedy deletion.

I skimmed that article plus Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages before creating the MAIC (disambiguation) page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages says, "A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms." Examples include, "Terms which differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks. ... Corresponding singular, plural and possessive forms, or compound words. ... Variant spellings. ... Variant forms of names. ... Terms which differ by the presence or absence of an article." I perceive a disconnect between G6 and this article: It would help reduce conflict over speedy deletions if either G6 or Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages were changed. I favor changing G6, because I find great value in disambiguation pages, even when they do not disambiguation other Wikipedia pages. I would not have taken the time to create MAIC (disambiguation) otherwise.

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says, "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Reason A3, which you cited, clearly provides an exception for disambiguation pages. Wikipedia exists because volunteers contribute content. Most do so to help others. Speedy deletion is an appropriate response to contributions that are either silly or sinister. MAIC (disambiguation) was neither.

Reason G6, mentioned by PamD, discusses "Uncontroversial maintenance, including ... Deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages, such as those listing only one or zero links to existing Wikipedia articles." We have an honest disagreement about what makes a disambiguation page "unnecessary". I created that page for two reasons. First, I tried to use it to help explain to contributors to the article on Mergers and acquisitions why MAIC should be defined. That may not have been the best way to raise that issue. However, in the past when people have used undefined acronyms, I have sometimes responded with a list of alternatives, and ask which one they are using, if any. I felt that helped get compliance with my request for a definition. Second, I've found disambiguation pages quite useful in the past, and I thought others might find a page on MAIC useful also. Until PamD mentioned it, I was completely unaware of G6 threatening speedy deletion of disambiguation pages with fewer that 2 links to other Wikipedia articles. As I mentioned above, G6 seems to contradict the spirit and intent of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages. I think it would help others like me if some effort were made to reduce this apparent contradiction. I'm not an administrator, and I don't feel qualified to edit those pages. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Corporate user names

Hi. I read your remark (at the Deletion review) "I think we should change the rules here to match the German WP, and accept openly avowed & authenticated corporate user names" and I couldn't agree more. The ban on corporate usernames does not make sense and doesn't make the wiki better in any way. I'm considering writing a proposal to get that rule scrapped but have no idea how to do that. Where should I publish/list the proposal, for a start? If you could point me in the right direction or have other help to offer, I would greatly appreciate it. Cheers, Yintan  09:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Try Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but first see how other proposals there are discussed. I'll keep an eye on it. I would suggest it might be a better idea to propose it not as something that will solve all our problems in this area, but something which will be a modest improvement over the present, The clearer and simpler we make it for people with COI to do right, the more likely they are to do not. It wont go from 10% to 90%. but perhaps from 10% to 20%. It eliminates some overhead, but if we follow the German model, requires some sort of evidence they are the firm in question., which adds overhead. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see how things go there first. I'm not so much in favour of requesting proof that an editor belongs to a company, I just don't see how banning corporate usernames can do any good. At least with promotional/corporate usernames you know who is editing. Yintan  20:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The point of requiring proof is so you know who is editing, rather than whom the editor says is editing. We have a rule that a individual whose true name is that of a well-known identifiable person, can request special permission to use it, after verification. See WP:REALNAME. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Separate Criteria (speedy)

I've done a minor reformat of your post (added #s) to restore the count, but I can't get your second and third paragraphs in line with the first. I thought I'd better tell you. <8-( Peridon (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for needing to put you to the trouble; I should have checked myself. I think it's now clear enough as you left it. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Help?

I asked here, then remembered you.

--FeralOink (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comment: AfC

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)

thank you

for your input and insights at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/K M Oswald Hoepfner, Sculptor. As fate would have it, that page should be long gone because it was published on wikipedia as Oswald Hoepfner some time ago. What you were looking at was the page as it was passed on to me, before I made some changes and put it out there. Probably the article could use some looking at, but it is there. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I missed the duplication. I'll check if anything needs merging, and clean up the submission-- i t should redirect to the finished article's talk p. . DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I redirected the article in question as the same author pinged me about the same AfC page Hasteur (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason that you should have figured that out, or, I don't think that you missed anything. My follow-up on tasks such as this is rather poor, so thank you (plural, "you) for being there. Carptrash (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I should have, because I try to search the name of the subject of an AfC before I keep or delete it, because it does sometimes happen that it is in WP mainspace--either because someone has rescued it as you did , or, unfortunately more often, because someone has simply moved an inadequate or promotional article despite the AfC rejection & that one needs to be deleted also. DGG

COI stuff

What do you make of Asia Literary Review and Ilyas Khan? ^Bongo_matic 16:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on the contributors, the Review is almost certainly notable. Khan may be also, but probably primarily as a businessman--the article on him needs either deletion or some drastic revisions, DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Books for Keeps

Is Books for Keeps, a British children's books review magazine a reliable source? I am reviewing author David Orme's notability and several of his books seem to have been reviewed on the site, but I am unsure as to whether that is significant (or if the source is paid advertsising). Also, if it is a reliable source it might be good to have a Wikipedia article on the magazine itself. Thanks for any assistance you or your page watchers can provide. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

First, the easy parts: The quote from Pullman at the top of the web page would seem to justify an article. And as general guidance for notability this issue at the bottom lists several awards, any one of which is sufficient for notability, though I am not sure about just being on the shortlists for them.

It is very difficult to judge the notability of books from a different culture, and, especially for children's literature, England counts as almost another culture. Especially for younger children the books tend to be oriented towards familiar backgrounds, and consequently fewer American libraries or reviewers (or children or parents) are likely to be interested, WorldCat unfortunately, lists mainly US libraries; there is no adequate equivalent I know of with the same very wide reach into UK public libraries. Nor am I familiar with UK review media for children--I was examining this for the first time.

What I found is that the reviewers are as well selected as in the familiar US; and the reviews have a consistency that shows careful editing. On checking books for the middle school levels up, I could clearly determine that about 2/3 of the titles were certainly notable on US criteria alone, and given the differences, I think almost all of them would be notable by UK criteria & sources. For the books for younger children it is much more difficult to judge. At the primary school level, about 1/3 were clearly notable onUS based criteria; I cannot tell about the UK, but in any case I try to avoid judging notability of books at that level unless there are obvious prizes.

As I've previously said, I think the NBOOKS criterion or the GNG somewhat too broad--it removes only the junk, since two reviews is unrealistically low for many areas. I use mainly supplementary and indirect criteria. I've mentioned library holdings--it depends of field, but for current children's literature any US book with over two or three hundred Worldcat holding is probably significant. (As one goes back in time, the criterion stops working, because few public or school libraries keep older children's books) I look to see whether the book is known internationally--in this field, whether it has both a US and UK publisher, and in all areas, if the book is translated into other languages, especially if into more than one other language. I look at the reputation of the publisher (but I do not know all reputable UK specialist publishers) And I rely a great deal on the same criterion all readers use in Real Life, coming second only to recommendations from their friends: if the author has published other successful books also. This is especially true in this field, where most well-known books are published in series or at least with a common theme or title or style.

When in doubt, there is a simple solution: to write an article on the author. including the information and reviews at hand. And then make a redirect, so someone who looks here will find at least something. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking into the issue and for your detailed response to my query. Much appreciated. I have started an article on the website and updated my comment in the deletion discussion accordingly. Take care and enjoy life. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I created an article on Brian Alderson (children's book critic) and another on the Children's Books History Society. I'm not completely satisfied with the Alderson article title, maybe Brian Alderson (children's book reviewer) would be better? Not sure. But anyway, it's a start. Thanks again for your help. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I see it's now at Brian Anderson (writer), which is certainly preferable. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Madonna of the Rose Garden

Hi David, I just wanted to say thank you for your tireless work in rescuing articles from the AfC waste basket. I stumbled on this one today, but I'm sure there are many more you have saved from oblivion to the great benefit of the encyclopedia. I've worked on it a bit as the translation was.. er.. somewhat rough and I also moved it to the correct title. If you find any more in the wastebasket that could use an eye from an Italian speaker and/or ones related to classical music or opera let me know, and I'll try to help. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. What work I did, I did from the French translation--and it, not the Italian, had decent references. I usually work on the articles I rescue just a little, not completely, because of the pressure by so many articles to look at. (You might want to look at the other articles on his paintings in the itWP; most do not yet have English equivalents.) I've rescued this year about 70 articles from AfC into mainspace, stopped the deletion of about 100 others leaving them for others to work on, and have a list of several hundred to get back to--I focus on identifying them, for I can revive them even if they get deleted first. And, as might be expected, I've also deleted at least a hundred that should not have been accepted. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Robert Pernock

Ten months ago you declined a prod on this article. I am not disagreeing with your prod however I, stumbling upon the article, found it to have been since its origins based not on the BLP itself but as an article of undue weight that subscribes the man involved as a whistle blower and victim of conspiracy. These are the claims of Peernock himself from his own website, http://www.freerobertpeernock.com, when the reality is that he is a man who was convicted of murdering his wife and attempting to murder his daughters that has claimed they were framed. No one would, neutrally, rate him as a whistleblower or activist. The only whistle he has blown is that there is a conspiracy involving the prosecution, the judge, the jury, his own attorney, his daughter and a "judge's accomplice" who he claims murdered his wife for the judges benefit.

I am rather rusty with procedure, having been absent from wikipedia for a while due to real life situations, but I was hoping you could give some guidance on what to do in this article. It is tilted from its very beginning and I'm not too sure the notability of the book outweighs the individual himself. Many many convicted murderers claim of a far reaching conspiracy, wikipedia should not be a part of their whitewashing. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking more carefully than I did at first, I agree with you that the article should be deleted. What convinced me is checking the book about him, which was what I based my keep on: it is in only 41 libraries. Checking the author, he's a moderately notable minor crime writer with 5 books, his best known ones are in 600 & 400 libraries, so there will surely be reviews to show his notability. This offers a quick solution without the need for afd; I can easily do it tomorrow: writing a short article about the author, anthony Flacco, and list his books. This article can then be redirected there, which will at least give some identifying information here if anyone looks him up. OK? DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure a redirect would be appropriate, Peernock's life and biography is in no way tied to the life of Anthony Flacco. A redirect would not make much sense as those searching for Peernock, if there are any, are unlikely to be searching for the life of an author who subsequently wrote about the case. Also here's a link I forgot to include previously http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-24/local/me-242_1_man-convicted-of-killing-wife –– Lid^(Talk) 06:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

To follow up will you be doing what you have suggested as an option? –– Lid^(Talk) 07:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

John C. Norcross

You tagged John C. Norcross for deletion as a copyvio. The copy was a paraphrase of a list of facts, which as you no doubt know has reduced protection. I paraphrased further and declined the speedy. Please see my comment on Talk:John C. Norcross if you are interested. DES ^(talk) 21:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

of course, one of the options to deletion is rewriting. Whether I rewrite myself to avoid deletion depends on many factors and I certainly am very satisfied when others do it also. I think needs further work, and I may get to it. There are no firm rules whether a paraphrase is sufficiently close for G12. Almost all WP copyvios are essentially lists of facts: both the arrangement & wording of the facts is relevant-- it is also true that in some formulaic articles like academic bios there are not many ways of expressing things. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)