User talk:DGG

“ I am very gratified to have learned that so many people seem to like me, but even more gratified that they understand and like (or at least tolerate) the work I'm trying to do. ” —  at my RfA

Today is Friday, August 2, 2024; it is now 03:28 (UTC/GMT )

Reminders

Topical Archives:
BLP (Biographies of Living People)
Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , IPC, Fiction, Bilateral relations. WP:Academic things & people, Journals, Sourcing,
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: Jan10, Feb10, Mar10, Apr10 , May10 , Jun10 Jul10, Aug10, Sep10, Oct10, Nov10, Dec10

Please post messages at the bottom of the page - I will reply on this page, unless you ask otherwise

---

If your article is in danger of deletion, possibly some of the following messages may be of help to you:

• If you can fix the article, I'd advise you to do so very quickly, before it gets nominated for regular deletion
• We're an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. You have to become famous first, then someone will write an article about you. In the meantime, there's lots of things to do here
• An article must have 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases)
• To use material from your web site, you must release the content under our licenses, which permit reuse & modification of the material by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and is not revokable.
• For articles about an organization, see our Organizations FAQ (a wonderful page written by Durova, from whom I learned my approach to people writing articles with COI.

---

User:DGG/LG

In December I gave a presentation to librarians in Pittsburgh area. Would you like me to send you my presentation slides? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

After a day of fighting with my email and then Wikimedia, I finally gave up and uploaded a file to rapidshare. At least it works :) Download. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboards, noticeboards, noticeboards!

I think I remember you chiming in when the No Original Research noticeboard was created as it being just an extra page to watch. We've now got the Fringe Theories, Fiction, NOR, and NPOV. I'm wondering if we're not spreading ourselves too thin over too many boards. Any ideas? MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We also have COI, and BLP, and RS, and the duplicative pair (ANB and AN/I), and BONB, and a number of similarly functioning pages, such as WT:SPAM, CP and its family, the various VPs and RfCs, WQA if it survives, the widely ignored RM and PM, and those I dont even know about). And the XfDs, the Ref Desks and the Help Desks, and AIV, 3RR and their relatives. And the talk pages for every policy and guideline prominent and obscure. And user talk pages where interesting stuff tends to be found. I organize what I do with bookmarks: I've got a group I call WPck (wikipedia check), and how far I get down the list of 30 or so 51, now that I've actually counted-- each day is variable--but I've never gotten to the bottom. Some in my opinion in practice tend to serve for POV pushing, such as BLP and FRINGE. (At some I agree more with the trend--like RS, so I don't call it POV pushing)

I forgot the talklists and IRC. I prefer to forget about IRC, and I wish I could really forget about the talklists.

But look at it in a positive way--it's forum shopping which keeps there from being any one WP:LOC.DGG (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Def going on my best of list. MBisanz ^talk 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Jbmurray/Madness

(Copied over from my talk page:) DGG, many thanks for your comment. I'm glad that my text may be useful for the NYC meet. I'd be pleased to have any feedback or reactions that come out of that. And I do now indeed intend to publish a version of the essay somewhere. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Flagged articles

Hello again ...

Would you please take a look at User talk:Matthewedwards#Category:Flagged articles, and then add your comments on the cats I have created to compliment the templates?

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)}

Category:Flagged editors

Hello again ... {{Flag-editor}} now has an optional assist parameter that makes a friendly offer to help, for those thus inclined, instead of defaulting with making the offer. :-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

getting there! I'll check the details later. Next goal, perhaps: making it shorter while still making it friendly. and maybe copyvio should be different --if it's clear it should be db-copyvio, if not, suspected copyvio already has the template "copypaste". DGG (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I realized that, but the point is, "I don't have time to check right now, but it's suspicious, so I'll flag it with this generic tag" ... maybe Some Other Editor will check it out in the mean time, and decide that it's {{Db-copyvio}}-able. :-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For example, Liliam Cuenca González (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was part of a WP:COI/N and WP:COPYVIO that led to a site being blocked and removed by a bot as WP:LINKSPAM ... it's all the sins in one (unfortunately repeated) case, but it certainly can be improved if editors are aware of the situation ... hence Category:Flagged articles. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

)

Fringe

In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee, you wrote but situations of a single person with a completely far fringe view are dealt with fairly well already. There are cases where a real-world minority- or fringe-view is overrepresented on Wikipedia. There are also cases where a majority- or wikipedia-majority-view silences a minority view or reduces their weight well below their real-world due weight. This can happen by one side outmaneuvering the other into a behavior violation or by simply driving them away from the project in frustration. I don't think there is a good solution, other than to have affected articles watched by people who are informed about the article's subject matter but with no emotional stake in the article. This tends to happen more on articles on political or social topics, where way too many editors have a personal agenda, and on articles about people, places, or groups, where fanboys may succeed in turning the article into a virtual press release. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

as I said there, I think that dueling by taunting each other into unacceptable actions is not a really rational approach. . Perhaps it survives because the people who have been here a while tend to know just how far they can safely go & some of them have gotten quite good at it. But perhaps also it works because the people who are for good or less good reasons committed to an agenda with a zeal and devotion and purpose which transcend rational argument tend to be rather easy to lose proportion and descend into unacceptable actions. There is nothing wrong with zealotry when one is right, but it has to be pursued elsewhere--those who care more about their cause than objective editing encyclopedia are a danger to the encyclopedia.

Unfortunately, the attempt to deal with it otherwise tend to amount to an appeal to authority, which does not do much better--one can find authorities for almost anything. And so one argues about the relative merits of the authorities. People both in the right and wrong of it (as if w could tell) are equally likely to what to prevent their opponents from making a fair case. What is necessary is a way to determine what objective editing is, and enforce it. My current thoughts are mandatory mediation with enforceable remedies--not by subject experts necessarily, but by people with common sense and proven impartiality.DGG (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think informed with no emotional stake goes to the "noble dream" and assumes an ability for scholarly detachment that has come to be held as out of sync with reality in studies on the philosphy of history in the last three decades. It also ignores the fact that the edit war rules in theory cause patience, but with the three reverts rule, they really just mean that if the supporters of the status quo of the article are dilligent enough they can keep it at its current situation. There is also the issue that positions that are supported by the main-stream media can win out over ideas that are mainly supported in blogs or publications linked to specific groups.John Pack Lambert 22:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Consistency

BIO has become very nebulous, especially because one can interpret "significant coverage" and NOT NEWS to produce any result whatsoever for many of the articles you have in mind. We need to make up our mind abut what depth of local figures we intend to cover. We need to make up our mind about whether to cover the central figures of human interest stories. And then stick to it, whatever the decision is. You and I would probably disagree on one or both of these in general, I at least would much rather accept almost any stable compromise rather than fight each of them from over-general principles. DGG (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We'd probably be closer together than you might think. Yes, the community as a whole does need to thrash out local notability-- something that a narrow constructionist can rely on but which would allow some flexibility. Any standard, even one I loathe, would be better than none. As you say, any result is possible the way things are. A dice roll would be less stressful and do as well. This is why I avoid AFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Stress

as with any democratic type of process, it works better if the good people stay in. The way I avoid stress is by commenting once or twice, and then not looking back--either my arguments is accepted, or not,and then on to the next. I generally do not look back to see what the result is, or I would get too often angry, or at least disappointed. Not that it's a game for me, but that I can be effective only by keeping detached. DGG (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussion, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines--SaraNoon (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

archiving

I no longer remember how it was done but if someone knows or wants to talk to the bot operator, look at what's done for the museums project. In archiving it creates an index which includes topic and which archive it's in. I don't know if it can be done retroactively. TravellingCari 12:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at documentation, though I can change the names of the archives, the indexing is done as it makes the archive. I would have to remerge everything. What happened of course, is that a/I never imagined at the first they would get so large b/I started with topical archives, and this takes more maintenance than Ive actually done, and , of course 3/ there have been some very long postings here, not all by me,some interesting enough that I want to keep visible. Expect slow improvement. till and maybe a new normal system in January 09 DGG (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Indexes, what indexes?
2. At User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo there is a pointer to User:HBC Archive Indexerbot. I think this is the bot alluded to above by Travellingcari, currently used by WP:MUSEUM. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

prod

"unreferenced" is not a reason for deletion. Unreferenced and unnotable, maybe."tried but could not find any sources for notability" much more convincing--when you say something like that, I'd probably accept your view. But of the 2 you marked unreferenced, one seems to have had a ref . tho not a good one Blaqstarr--I didnt check further, and the other Esa Maldita Costilla, is probably notable given the performers involved. DGG (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess our standards differ. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your instincts were right on this one, DGG. I know this is kind of necro-bumping, but better late than never... Chubbles (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 19#Comparison_of_web_based_file_managers

You raise an excellent point there. I seem to be averaging a DRV on one of my closures every second day (although the majority are being endorsed). The recent phenomenon of DRVs when one isn't satisfied with the result, but dressed up as "certain arguments weren't addressed, so the admin should have closed it my way" is worrisome, not least because a DRV would have been even more certain if the debate had been closed the other way. This is liable to put good admins off closing AFDs because of a perceived stigma in having your decision posted at DRV, especially when users decline to discuss matters with the closer first as the DRV instructions twice require (a matter about which we have repeatedly butted heads). Where can we go from here? Stifle (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this down, in case you missed it. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

still working on an adequate response.DGG (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN

Since you have had repeated experience with this user's AFDs like, I thought I'd contact you. This user's AFD behavior is appaling especially how he refuses to bundle nominations in the same universe for which he uses identical reasonings. He also continually fails to consider the option to merge or redirect without intervention of deletion and makes no evident efforts to look for sources himself (there's a difference between unverified and unverifiable), instead preferring to force the issue by nominating for AFD (which causes a 5-day deadline for improvement) and which is specifically considered to be improper.

The articles in question might well require care, merging or even deletion, but the way he goes about it is unneccesarily terse and bitey.

I think it's time to launch an RFC. Would you consider helping gather evidence and supporting it? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Before you start, you might consider seeing how the RfC/U on Gavin.collins goes first, since different facets of the same issue are involved.DGG (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

An offer of help, other inclusionists, and suggestions

Your name came up prominently at Talk:Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia#Prominent inclusionists? I was wondering:

1. How I can help?
2. If there are other inclusionists you can suggest I talk to, or if there are any groups you belong too.
3. Any suggestions about how I can help form policy to be more inclusive.

Thank you, Inclusionist (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the best way of helping attain a better and more inclusive encyclopedia is by finding sources for worthy articles that do not have them, especially those immediately under attack. I see you are already a member of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. You can also look for articles in areas of interest to you that might be challenged in Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup or at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles. This can be done most effectively after learning carefully the rules for proper sourcing given at WP:Reliable sources and the talk page and noticeboard associated with it. We already have a considerable amount of discussion, and it is practical work that is needed more. It is easier to talk about why articles should be kept, than to do the work to keep them. And when you do participate in Afds, never do so without a good argument that the majority of people will accept; weak arguments are counterproductive. Remember that by any rational standard most of the articles there should indeed be deleted. I find a good way to keep perspective is to a do a little WP:New page patrol, and to see and identify all the junk that really must be kept out of the encyclopedia. If you want to help policy become more inclusive, first think carefully about just what you want to have included and why it would enhance rather than diminish the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

useful general remark

::if anyone wishes to fight with me, this page is the place; if anyone wishes to fight with someone else, please do it elsewhere. DGG (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The notability problem in a nutshell

Though it remains in the policy, there are now many exceptions to: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. - quoted from WP:V (There are a number of areas where this is true, but primary among the one that concerns us here is fiction.) There are several ambiguities: the first is the meaning of the plural of sources, for it is accepted and elswhere stated that ones sufficiently reliable third party source is sufficient. Second, there are many cases where it is clear that first party sources such as official documents from government sources are sufficient to show the notability of the agencies concerned. Third, we routinely accept the probability that there will be such sources. Fourth, the sources for writing an article are not in the least limited to third party sources, for the primary source of the work itself is accepted as sufficient and in fact usually the best source for content. Fifth, and crucial here, is the distinction between "topic" and "article"-- a key argument above is whether a spin offarticle on a character is to be judged as a separate article. The sixth is the lack of a requirement that the third party source be substantial. DGG (talk)

and we see how notability is used as an excuse to delete secrets that are merely hard to source like DCEETA. we have the spectacle of people saying that the NYTimes is not reliable, and it's just synthesis. thanks for the kind comments Dogue (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

there seems to be a recent trend to be as perverse in nominating as possible. See today's nominations for the chairman of AOL, and.a major dam. I think they may be intended as a POINTy demonstration that common sense is an unreliable criterion, or a proof by example that WPedians can be shown to be lacking in that mental quality. DGG (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What else? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You are me

Sorry David, but you are apparently me. --David Shankbone 05:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

all David's are actually clones; we use disguises to conceal the fact, but they don't work 100%. DGG (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Shankbone is the cabal. --KP Botany (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

the person who does the photos can control the world. DGG (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're awesome by me! I originally thought the page was about me, but apparently it is about you. Jeez, if you're going to have haters hating on you, at least get your name right! I'm guessing they put as much thought and research into their self-promotion as they did into that Facebook group. --David Shankbone 14:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

New York Public Library classes

Hi David, I've started something at Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library‎. Hopefully this can be a space for us to work out our ideas, and I look forward to your contributions.--Pharos (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

NAS

I believe I used this utility to convert a CSV list into a wiki table. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-02-26 17:50Z

Were you able...

...to read the article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for asking, still not yet. I'd appreciate a copy directly.DGG (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Libraries & the Cultural Record

I thought this new article might interest you. Cheers. Thanks for all your help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Clickety click

DGG, I thought you might have something worthwhile to say about this AfD and also a relevant part of "WP:CREATIVE" (on which see also my comment). -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh, I'm enjoying this: DGG (ever the inclusionist) tending toward deletion of what's unenthusiastically backed by Hoary (ever the deletionist). Your comment on the meaninglessness of those particular library holdings is spot on: this says less about Powell than it does about the inadequacy of critical thinking behind "WP:CREATIVE". Um, anyway, could you revisit your comment in the AfD? As of a few seconds ago, it needed formatting and other attention. -- Hoary (talk)

I think I've said delete more often than keep today & the last few days. I think that's because fewer articles have been nominated for deletion the last week or so- by and large only the worst stuff is still being nominated, the passable stuff isn't. As for WP:Creative, where it does seem to work is that visual artists in conventional media who have works in the permanent collection of two or more museums does seem to indicate notability. It's easy to delineate things that certainly do indicate certain notability. It's easy to find careers that don't. The question is whether there's a concept of "notable, but not very notable," & what to do with such. DGG (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

mediawikiblacklist

I ask you because you're active there--am I correct that any enWP admin can deal with things also? DGG (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although you need at least some knowledge of regular expressions. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Students' Guide

I noticed your involvement with Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library. I've got a draft of what is called the Wikipedia Student's Guide, which isn't a perfect fit for those getting instruction at the library, but might be useful. In any case, if you have any suggestions, they would be welcomed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Extinct editors

this must be one of the funniest AfD comments I ever came across! Owen× ☎ 16:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks!DGG (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Edwin Osgood Grover

If you have a moment and feel like it, would you mind a look here? I *think* the subject is probably notable but given when he lived, finding sources is a challenge. Some of the scholar results seem to fit, but others seem entirely unrelated. There are also a number of news hits, but they're behind pay gates. Know that they're not required to be publicly accessible to use, I just can't judge content to establish notability from what I can't see -- but thinking that quantity here might get past WP:PROF more so than quality. Thoughts? StarM 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There's enough to tell. The NYT isnt substantial, 51 words, butt he very fact they gave it an article at all is significant. That he then published a long essay in the NYT Bk review is significant. The LA Times article is a signif ref. also. But the most useful general approach is something fairly new: WorldCat identities; best technique is to find a book by him in the regular WorldCat, then click on the author's name.: [1]. Significant author & lecturer. Meets WP:BIO. DGG (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know about WC IDentities, will have a look at it when I have a few moments. I had a feeling he was probably notable. ThanksStarM 03:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's new, technically still experimental. I love it--the info was always there, but this saves a great deal of work compiling it from the individual book entries. DGG (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources about journalists

Hi DGG

Calling on you in your capacity as librarian, not admin. Do you know any good places to find information about journalists, rather than articles by them? I have just started a stub article on Michael Theodoulou who is an extremely prolific and I think well-regarded journalist. Any thoughts on how to find citations relevant to an article on him?

Thank you, Bongomatic 06:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

this has always been a problem. It would be much easier --as in almost all professions--to find non-directory information about historical than current figures. There are two fairly comprehensive specialized indexes: Communication and Mass Media Complete from Ebsco and "Communication Abstracts" from Sage, if you can find them. Lacking them, the best is probably the type of general database one finds in a library: (multiple exact titles of each, with different degrees of coverage): Proquest (ABI Inform, Periodical Abstracts) ) or Ebsco (Academic Search, Business Search) or Thompson Gale (Academic ASAP) , or Wilson (Business Periodicals Index , OmniFile). All public libraries have at least a truncated version of one or another, usually available outside the library to residents with a library card. All college libraries have a relatively full version of at least one. Key magazines covering the field include: "American Journalism Review" and "Columbia Journalism Review" There are also a large number of regional newsletter type publications, but almost always everything in them will be of the nature of press releases. General newspaper indexes sometimes work, if you can sort out the articles they themselves have written. DGG (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Managed to get some access but wasn't able to find anything other than by the journalist. Maybe something will turn up eventually. Bongomatic 16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

if you let me know by email what your library facilities are I can make some more precise suggestions. DGG (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

merge/move

why not then do as you suggested, restore it and change the title, and then improve it to better NPOV. I'll look here for a reply. DGG (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be better if the two different histories were merged first, so they could be refactored. That might change the length of the History section which would affect the need for a separate article, especially if the rest of "Open access (publishing)" were cleaned up. But I don't really have time for a major rewrite at the moment. -- Beland (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

if I do it, I;'d have to do it from the separate articles. DGG (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the posts over at the AfD for Johnston are rather scary. It seems that people don't understand notability, or even read the one links that they provide. The one event says that if its a really big event, even minor figures can be notable from it. Then someone put forth an idea that the rest of his life isn't notable so it shouldn't be mentioned. Bah, do they not realize that encyclopedias don't have only "notable" information, or most pages would be empty? The fact that so many people have heard about him and there being over 8 months of coverage, scandal, interviews and the rest makes it all rather mind boggling. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I managed to get Nicolo Giraud up to GA, and I think the current state of the page validates quite a few of your arguments over the years. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

people will say anything if they don't like an article In this case, there's the added factor of the reasons why some people of various political persuasions don't want the article--as they cannot admit it, they are forced to use other reasons. DGG (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

as for Giraud, magnificent work you did there. People who don't know research sometimes do not realize that for any historical figure connected in any substantial way with a famous person or event, there's a web of connections, and there will always be sources. The art of a librarian is not to do research, but to know (by a skill that is not explicitly teachable) where there is, and is not, likely to be material. But at least people here should understand about knowledge networks. The reason Wikipedia is such a good place to work is that we can build our net on top of the pre-existing ones. DGG (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless theft

Hi I have quoted you on my user page. It is attributed, but please remove it if you'd rather it were not there. pablo_hablo. 15:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for noticing it ! DGG (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been there a while, I've only just got round to confessing! It just seemed to succinctly sum up a way forward away from all the

"You have no standards"
   "Well you would say that because you want to delete everything"
"Inclusionist!"
   "Deletonist!"

rubbish that forms so much of too many talk pages. Mind you, I won't be arguing in favour of articles about 10lb hammer's toes, left, right or hammer any time soon. pablo_hablo. 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kudos, comment & question

Dear David, I salute you for the various ideas expressed, and your sense of integrity. Your experiences from Princeton & Berkeley were also significant credentials to bring to bear. I have a comment about your working group for science and academia. Someone in the group lamented on how to distinguish "men from boys". At least in the science world it's quite easy. Below the obvious Nobel level, the next 2 are well known -- Academicians and Fellows. If WP can include all people on these 2 levels, it'd be quite a complete collection. Of course I'm only speaking about the US situation. I suspect that they have similar pecking order in other countries. Now a question unrelated to the above. When you have a chance, take a look at the discussion page for Deep Ng, and see my proposal to delete. Please advise if it's reasonable, and if so, the next step. Much obliged. --EJohn59 (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59

commented there based on general considerations. You do realise it's not the least my subject.DGG (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comments are reasonable & helpful--EJohn59 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59

List of digital library projects

This is just a quick note that the a page you've commented on before List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at [2] Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how much it is going to help. I am not even sure that this should not be an exception to not being to some extent a web directory. DGG (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

your comments on bilateral AfDs

with regard to your comment, are you seriously suggesting we need 20,000 of these, including the most non notable of non notables like Nauru-Monaco, Tuvalu-Ivory Coast, Bahamas-Liechtenstein? Some of the less notable have been nicely merged. the central test is [[WP:N}}, we don't keep articles for the sake of them, as per WP:NOHARM, you will see in each of these AfDs, people feverishly do google searches to find something that proves notable relations which is what keep voters should do. but plain and simple, if they don't meet WP:N, they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. thanks LibStar (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction) - well said

Just saw your comment on 08:51, 29 May 2009 - excellent! Thanks for taking out precious time to deal with this depressing situation, that a number of editors are so keen on purging fiction articles from Wikipedia. I can sure understand and fully respect if they find the fiction articles to be of such minor importance that they opt not read the articles themselves; but why they so persistently insist on deletion, hindering other people in reading the articles, is a mystery. A sincere appreciation of your work. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

my comment is at the Wikiproject. DGG (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks you. I have refraised my response, putting this rather black and white, in an attempt to get to the bottum of things. I hope you can take an other look... Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to draw your attention...

... to WP:SJ, a rather old essay of mine that I decided was ready to move to mainspace.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP space, you mean. I suggest you add some references to the discussions at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals the relevant parts of WP:RS, & the great many discussions at WT:RS and the RS and FRINGE noticeboards. . I assume you've seen the key problem areas at pseudoscience, controversies over psychiatric & psychiatric medicines, and ethnic controversies. Do you intend this as a revision of guidelines, or an explanation of them? I'll take a further look in a day or two. DGG (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, WP space.

With contributions only from me and Drmies, it's not ready to be a revision of guidelines. All it can be at this stage is a counterpoint.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library

Hi David, you can check your email for some recent developments on this. Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I want to thank you. In the past week, several people had an opportunity to show the true content of their character. Your conduct was an inspiration. When several others were loosing their heads, you conducted yourself with the highest standard of integrity and dignity.Dave (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. I'm well aware that among the chaos were some legitimate issues. Rest assured I will do my best to fix them.

== Optional request for opinio

AfD

Hi. I know you had some minor concerns about my AfD work, so could you review my recent closures and let me know if I've addressed the issues you noticed? Cheers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

your comments

your comments on my nominated AfDs rarely provide examples of actual sources establishing notability yet you continue to deride me for making incorrect nominations. that is not assuming good faith. are you going to say my searches were also faulty for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungary – New Zealand relations,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek-Malaysian relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congolese–Turkish relations and the "closely located" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Malta relations? your continuing attitude towards an experienced editor like me is noted for future reference. PS you should archive, even when I pressed the end key, my broadband connection still takes a while to load up your talk page. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The onus of a deletion in on the person who wants to delete the article. By the time I comment, other people have generally already added enough material. I appreciate you are trying to fulfill WP:BEFORE, but you are not using common sense in doing it. G and GN are very useful when they succeed, but meaningless when they fail. I think you sometimes do very good work building up these bilateral relations articles, but you don't look far enough. I don't expect you to agree with my view that almost all such relations are notable, but you are persistently ignoring the historical aspects even when they;'re as obvious as Turkey-Malta. In those few cases where there's really never going to be enough for an article and there's no reason why there might be, I have agreed with your nominations & I've not said keep, as for those 3. I don't want to say delete unless I personally check, but it did seem very unlikely in those cases). I have no grudge against you, so I do not see why you should have one against me. Coming here & saying right out that you have one seems unusual, but i won't hold it against you. DGG (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your comments, I must say at times I'm unsure of the intent of your comments. google news is usually the primarily means of getting a feel of third party coverage. google search just yields too much trivial stuff. can you suggest any other ways to verify significant third party coverage to meet WP:GNG? whilst I don't agree with your view on the notability of these, !voting keep for the sake of it and not providing actual evidence of third party non trivial coverage is not very weighty in my opinion. whilst I often don't agree with Richard Norton, at least he makes a genuine effort to demonstrate some third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to agree than RAN is working on these harder than I am. It's not actually my main interest, since I can only work on a few articles a day, I pick articles to try to source where I have some special technique, or access, or background to find sources. I never say a bald keep. I always give a reason. I try to have it based on policy. If people don't agree with my reason, they won;t vote in accordance with it. If I were personally deciding as a one-person committee what to keep and delete, and was doing it without looking for sources, you'd have a valid complaint. But this is a cooperative effort, and if RAN is there, I know I can depend on him. DGG (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

well your point about me being careless is not appreciated, AfDs are for discussion, if consensus shows something is notable, I accept that. if nominations are "faulty" then it will come out in consensus. what I think is more careless is the 1000s of bilateral articles that were created as stubs (not just the banned user) and no effort being made to improve them...so they are left as stubs for 1 or 2 years. rather lazy in my opinion. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need some way of discussing what should be done with less-than-satisfactory articles in contexts other than threatening deletion. But AfDs are for when deletion is proposed as the solution, and if nomination s are faulty it wastes everyone's time and energy. I agree with you also that many people who write articles are lazy (or even ignorant) about references, but the secondary responsibility for trying to remedy that is everyone's.DGG (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

AfDs are a proposed solution when I nominate because I fail to find adequate sources, I can tell you in most instances I don't nominate bilateral articles because there is evidence of coverage. In some instances, I put a {{notability}} tag on some bilateral articles, in the cases I think are borderline, yet I have never seen any editor attempt to improve an article after adding this tag. you can draw 2 conclusions from this, people can't be bothered improving it or it needs to go to AfD. the problem with these bilaterals is that anyone can make an X and Y article and just leave it there and not risk speedy deletion. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject TRANSWIKI

Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

DSB project

Hi DGG! Thanks so much for everything this past weekend -- I got home intact, if a couple hours delayed from the storms.

Here's my subpage on my DSB project -- the citations are formatted to link to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, so if you check the "what links here" from that article you can see the ones I or others have done already. The redlinks on my page are bios that weren't already written that are in the DSB; the bluelinks are bios that have been written since I started the project. There's also a dump of bios in the print version that Ruud Koot did. I haven't been writing down my progress, but I'm somewhere in the middle of the print "B" volume at the moment, so anything starting later than that would be helpful -- we could start keeping track of how many bios we've covered. Best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pity the picnic never actually happened.

--the links seem to go to the print version only, not the online also. Additionally, at least some show the part in the main vol, not the added parts for those who have them in the supplementary New Dictionary of Scientific Biography I think it might be better to add the online links & complete the ones for the supplement first, before continuing alphabetically, so we know that at least some part is complete. (I recall you said the online version wasn't available to you at the beginning of the project). That the New Dictionary did not include a complete list of scientists with main entries in the entire work is one of the principal defects in that reference work--and one of the defects in our reference work is that the listing in "what links here" is not sorted alphabetically. DGG (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Our online version is through a (subscription) Gale interface, so there aren't easy links to the articles (I get something like this), and even if there were it wouldn't be helpful to nonsubscribers. But what they are providing seems to be an HTML version, but additionally a straight pdf scan of the original print -- so actually providing the print page #s & reference is still helpful no matter what version it came from. The new DSB volumes are just tacked onto the end of the original set, from what I can tell (they start over with the alphabetization) and the "complete dsb" is just a scan of the whole thing. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack

Just a reminder: On Wikipedia talk:Coatrack, you wrote "to be continued" in February. — Sebastian 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

too many things keep happening here for one human being--or at least for me. I will try to get back to it. DGG (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CiterSquad

There is a lot of stuff at the bottom of Wikipedia:CiterSquad#Volunteers, which seems to me should be in on the talk page, would you take a look and let me know if I am mistaken in my apprasial, if it should be moved, please do so. If I move it, there would be conflicts. Thanks Jeepday (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Some of us want any newcomers to this non-citing project to know that there is significant dissent. (It's not a project to add cites; it's a project to add "unreferenced" tags.) Some of my objection departs if the Orwellian name goes away. DGG, apologies for butting in on your talk page. Antandrus (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

afd procedure

Hi, I'm wondering if it is allowed/discouraged, for users to remove all incoming links to an article that is at AfD, if the outcome is uncertain? I thought I'd seen that action mentioned in the guidelines, but can't find it.

Specifically, a user is removing (eg) all links leading to -logy, which he nominated at afd. Is that acceptable? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

the basic guideline is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD, but it does not specifically address what is likely to be contentious:

the question is whether or not it improves the article. Some people interpret that, as improving its chances of passing AfD, which is usually but not always the same thing. But I have seen people change an article at AfD to make it worse, in order to get it deleted. Most of the times, this is done just before nomination, where it's less visible to the high proportion of commentators who don't check the history. (I was wondering about WP:BEANS here, but the people who do the dirty tricks tend to be regulars who already know about them.). As a example of doing this well, if the article contains a linkfarm, and this is one of the reasons for deletion, it's good to remove it, but if the links add to the value of the article, then it is not. If the article has borderline references, it's good to remove them and substitute better ones; but to remove borderline ones and leave it unreferenced is not helpful. When it's done just before deletion I consider it evidence of bad faith, just as much so as stubbifying an article and then saying it covers the subject inadequately.

Where something like this one is on the scale, it is something I'd rather comment on at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, dirty tricks like Canvasing? Hey, how bad is this guy being in the review? I'm not going to ask you to vote against it, but did you know about it?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I knew about it. I'm a little behind in checking AfDs, and hadnt gotten to it. I try to pick out the ones where I have something to say, and if I miss something likely to be interesting to me, I like to be told. About half the time, what I say is not what the person asking me may hope for. People looking for unqualified support from someone know enough not to ask for it here. You nominated another prefix or suffix or two, where I did not bother to comment because the deletion is correct, and will happen just as well without me. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to canvass. I was asking an experienced admin whether preemptively delinking an article was actually prohibited somewhere, or if it was just really poor etiquette. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that the afd has been closed as keep, who is responsible for reinstating any of the useful links that were preemptively removed? (I won't have time to get to it till at least next week). (You can copy/move this thread to Talk:-logy or elsewhere, if that'd be more appropriate). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All the links referred to foreign words and were linked inappropriately and are now linked appropriately. Nobody looking at those links would have had much idea where they led; I removed no visible links to -logy. If you want to go through and add links to -logy, go right ahead. So far as I can tell, none of the words I changed were derived from -logy, they were all derived directly from the greek or latin. The suffix -logy seems to be essentially a backronym. Or, if you're declaring an edit war, and intend to go through and simply undo all my edits, then I'd appreciate DGG giving you a suspension now, which should save time.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not edit warring to revert your removal of links if a good faith user disagrees with your action in removing them. The edit war starts when you revert back without discussing and if you do that we will know where the blame for the edit war lays won't we.... You seem to take a very combative approach to discussing deletion. You know, you catch more flies with honey and your behaviour on the -logy AFD was certainly unhelpfuly muddying the discussion that I closed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It will surprise no one that I agree with Spartaz about this. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tonxxx (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Regards, Anthony |^talk]] at 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

SOD/CAT

I wondered if you might review the deletion of SOD/CAT. I'm concerned about the speed at which the article was deleted after being relisted for review. I am also concerned that the main catalyst--Dr Vickers--behind the deletion effort has made a large number of edits to a competing technology, Protandim which may indicate a COI. I do not know what the next step to appeal for an undelete would be. I appreciate your insights. RGK (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It was listed for the regular 7 days, and then an additional 8th day--I suspect the only reason it was even kept open was that I had previously declined a speedy deletion on the article; at that point two additional good editors commented to delete, and it was appropriately closed. In all 6 editors, 5 of them excellent editors with considerable experience, said to delete, and only you , who apparently have a commercial interest in the product, said to keep. The admin who evaluated and closed the discussion is also experienced and competent; no adminwould have decided otherwise. Earlier, as reviewing admin when it was nominated for speedy, I declined the speedy deletion , saying " I think this shows at least some minimal importance, so not appropriate for speedy deletion." This does not mean I thought it should be kept; rather, that it said enough to require a community discussion before deleting it, and that is exactly what it has had. I did not participate at the AfD, as I did not think it necessary, but I too would certainly have said to delete. It seems clear from a scan of the references for the article that they are all or almost all general, and that there are no published studies about this particular product, but Superoxide Dismutase in general--except for an uncited Russian one of which a translation is posted on the company's web site. The other purported publications were in unreliable non-peer reviewed sources.

Tim vickers I have long known as a very experienced Wikipedia editor of the highest integrity. He edits articles on many subjects in his area. He, like myself, has a doctorate in the biochemistry/molecular biology. In fact, the reason I do not participate very much in this subject area is because the people there--of which he is perhaps the most active--do it extremely well, & I therefore work on other areas where help is more needed. He and I --and everyone here -- have a strong conviction that the quality of Wikipedia depends (among other things) upon keeping out advertisements for commercial products. Unbiased articles giving information on notable commercial products are another matter, if there are adequate references to show their notability. I advised you how to improve it, but although you fixed up many details nicely, it was not improved in the basic problems--from which I conclude that there was not enough appropriate specific material to support an article. I agree 100% with the deletion. You have the right to ask for restoration at WP:Deletion Review. I would advise against it. Even though Deletion Review is unpredictable, the chance for this one is approximately zero & all you will get there is further explanations of why this material is not suitable content for an encyclopedia--both because it is advertising and because the product is not notable. As for attacking the reliability and objectivity of T.V., I cannot think of anything which would harm you more. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response DGG. I accept your judgement and acknowledge your support for T.V.'s independence. I will not be pursue an appeal of the SOD/CAT article. RGK (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that a form of the article has been moved from Robert Kavanaugh/Sandbox2 back to main space by MuZemike. I don't know why. ^Bongo_matic 01:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume he did not realize, and I speedy deleted it as a re-creation. I do not see that any of the objections were met. RK, did you mean to re-create the article or abandon it? DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Abandon for now as per above. I'd saved a copy in what I thought was a personal sandbox. Apparently, its not personal, and someone I've no relationship with moved back to SOD/CAT. Thank you for fixing. Over and out. RGK (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The confusion was probably caused because it was in mainspace - Robert Kavanaugh/Sandbox2 - instead of User space - User:Robert Kavanaugh/Sandbox2. I noticed this because I just now userified Robert Kavanaugh/Sandbox1. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the usefulness of keeping it there either, as it is extremely unlikely sources will be found. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I made no attempt to judge its merits. Looks like some chunk of a larger article (perhaps of the deleted one for all I know). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Postmortum: DGG please see the breaking news re: [3]. I thank you for your original support for my article and also included the forgoing url reference as an FYI. Much will be revealed in the coming months about Sirtuin 1 activation, soy isoflavones, antioxidant enzyme induction, etc. I am grateful to you for seeing the potential in the information and article. Too bad I failed to garner additional support, because the information in the article was very much on point as you can see.

the actual paper that refers to is "Can soyabean isoflavones mimic the effects of energy restriction on healthy ageing?" by L. Ions, L. Wakeling and D. Ford in Nutrition bulletin Volume 34 Issue 3, Pages 303 - 308 (which is a peer-reviewed Wiley journal). I notice this was done in vitro. I will be glad to see peer-reviewed in vivo results in humans, but I suspect it will be more than a few months. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen twenty+ years of in vivo (anecdotal) proof, so I was appreciative of the in vitro work as a proof of concept. Still, I don't believe diadzein is the magic isoflavone. My money is on diadzein's metabolite S-Equol. The actual work which was performed by Rasbach and Schnellmann and published in 2008 as Isoflavones Promote Mitochondrial Biogenesis appears to support my hypothesis, but I've insufficient experience as a amateur biochemist to be confident that I'm right. I'm not sure why the Brit's article got all the press, probably better PR people. :) I'm now in touch with Dr. Ion's via email, and based on our discussion, she intends to examine S-Equol as a Sirtuin 1 activator. Her follow up work will be an in vitro experiment too. So, I guess we'll get to see. I compared the structure of [equol] from wikipedia to Rasbach and Schnellmann 2008 work in which they noted that a free hydroxyl group is necessary to promote SIRT1 deacetylase activity. They state:

“The presence of the 5-hydroxyl group in genistein and biochanin A blocks the ability of these compounds to promote SIRT1 deacetylase activity, whereas the absence of the 5-hydroxyl group in daidzein and formonenetin promoted SIRT1 deaceylation activity, substitution of a methoxy group for a hydroxyl group at the 7-position, as seen in 7,4' D and 5,7,5'-T, blocked SIRT1 activation, suggesting that a free hydroxyl group is necessary at the 7-position to promote SIRT1 deacetylase activity. It is interesting to note that the flavone apigenin (5,7,4'-trihydroxyflavone) does increase SIRT1 activity, although it has a hydroxyl group in the 5-position (Howitz et al., 2003). Thus, shifting the phenyl group from the 3-position of isoflavones to the 2-position of flavones decreases the importance of the 5-position, and it allows the activation of SIRT1 in the presence of a hydroxyl group at position 5. Removing the phenyl ring at position 3 while maintaining the hydroxyl group at position 7, compound 7-C, is sufficient to activate SIRT enzymatic activity. ... 7-C is the basic isoflavone pharmacophore necessary to promote the activation of SIRT1 deacetylase activity.”

If this subject has captured your curiosity sufficiently, it would be great if you'd look at the structure of equol (as per wikipedia) and compare it to Rasbach and Schnellmann's work as repeated above. Did I get this right? Doesn't equol appear on paper to be an ideal SIRT1 activator based on their finding on other isoflavones? If it's asking too much for you to consider this question, then forgive me for asking it of you and thank you anyway. I must say I really appreciate your thoughtful mentoring as I struggled to publish my first wikipedia article. After my initial experience, I'm still a bit too timid to contribute to an existing generic subject like phytoestrogens, but perhaps it's best to watch from the sidelines for awhile before jumping in the game. . .

I unfortunately do not really have time to investigate the subject, especially as I am not familiar with this class of compounds. As for learning Wikipedia. start by making small additions or corrections to articles in your general field of interest, and then making small related articles--none of which should be related to anything with a conflict of interest. For suggestions, see our page about various ways to get started here. And see chapter 6 in particular of the free online version of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual by John Broughton (also available in print) DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Anhel GmbH

restored. Icewedge (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:International Theatre Vienna

Hi DGG. It's absolutely fine with me! If any articles subject to deletion can be salvaged, I would be happy to support the effort. I have restored the page. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Knew you would. thanks. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for A.D.A.M., Inc.- see my response on my talk page. ~ mazca ^talk 07:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed ADAM for deletion - a search on Google revealed lots of hits, but mainly the information on websites seems to be based on the company's own press releases. I have left a more detailed reason on Talk:A.D.A.M., Inc.. (By the way, the talkback below is about another article, so please read it!) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As you admit their principal product to be notable, proposing the company for deletion seems a strange choice. did you even try to check the implied references there to Fortune and Forbes? DGG ( talk ) 14:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the Forbes and Fortune websites, as well as newspaper articles (looking for any mention which did not basically say ADAM said that they have been selected to be on the Fortune list. I could not find any verifiable references. The WP:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines say that An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources - since all the hits I checked used the company's own press releases, then they would not be counted as independent. Other references I found are covered by this (from the same guidelines): Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest

I may not have been clear: being selected for those lists is notability. One way for things to be notable is for good secondary sources to consider it notable. But no point discussing it further here. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Phantomsteve's talk page.
Message added 08:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

as you recognize there, the material will need to be found with other approaches than Google. I consider it less than ideally productive to nominate for deletion articles whose check will require resources you do not have available, but which will very obviously be found in printed sources. What you are essentially doing is forcing others to work on the subjects you challenge them to--and least, forcing them to do so if they care about information in the encyclopedia for material older than 2000. If you do not have a good print library available, you would help the encyclopedia more if you worked on subjects that did not need one. DGG ( talk ) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Phantomsteve's talk page.
Message added 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

grey literature subjects

• Grey Literature International Steering Committee (GLISC)
• European Association for Grey Literature Exploitation (EAGLE)
• Grey Literature Network Service (GreyNet)
• OpenSIGLE
• System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE)

All of these are currently listed, and are close to expiring, at Proposed Deletion. Please review for copyright violations and to see whether multiple non-trivial published works exist. All that I've done is cleanup, to make the articles legible. Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I was sort of hiding from this. merges suggested, but I am not sure which ones to merge into which. Possibly SIGLE into System, and GLISC and Eagle into GreyNet. Some do have refs already I may rewrite & condense enough so that copyvio won't be a problem, but I've asked the author to try first. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You can't hide from us. ☺ Anything that you can do to solve the now-identified copyright violation problem is a good thing and would be most welcome. Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicolo Giraud

A year and 11 days ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolò Giraud resulted in a keep. Today, it is a featured article. You were the first to see value in the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, working here successfully requires a long time scale. We need a few dozen skilled people with interest in other periods and countries. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from 16th World Economic Forum on Africa

Hello DGG, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to 16th World Economic Forum on Africa has been removed. It was removed by Gallador with the following edit summary '(Enhanced English, updated a bit, removed prod)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Gallador before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback - eo Baeck Institute

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Talk:Leo Baeck Institute.
Message added 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

since I'm not sure if you're watching there. Poke me if you respond - I'm not around much these days. StarM 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

me again 18:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Debate over Oral Torah

Dear DGG,

I thank-you for helpful sugesstions, I have made some needed adjustments for the article. Presently, I do not know how to access the deletion review.

I hope you could please keep in mind, the article is not the same as the old document "criticism of the Talmud." They are unrelated. I worked hard on this article. I am not trying to pick sides here. I am sincerely trying to be fair a wide range of belief. I mentioned the Orthodox party, because if I spoke only of the more critical groups it only be a narrow one-sided debate which would be unfair to Orthodox group. I did so out of respect.

As I hope you noticed, the article barely menetions the Talmud. Which is hard to do, since that where the oral traditions are recorded. I adjusted, and re-adjusted the article based of many of your suggestions. I hope you will please consider once again kindly reviewing it. Please remember, that one must mention the rabbinic party. I not attempting to make an article to fault-find the rabbinic party rather show the wide-range here of different belief regarding the subject. Thank-you!--Standforder (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Perspective

Two figures -- one is captured in crisp focus and the other is blurred.

The explanatory comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Greenberg were useful for me.

Pondering the array of views in this thread helped me to step back only slightly; but even small movements do evoke a changed perspective, a new appreciation of our focal point. --Tenmei (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the AfD thread resulted in an improved article. Let me take this opportunity to acknowledge your contributions specifically. Your pointed comments helped me to develop a broader perspective. My imperfect understanding of what WP:Notability and WP:PROF require may need further tweaking in future; but this was a constructive step towards something better. Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Perspectives", again

• This edit ahcllenges the inclusion of indexing info for a scientific journal based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY... --Crusio (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Where a journal is indexed is in fact not only relevant content, but one of the key factors in its notability, to show that others consider it notable enough to include in authoritative indexes. We're usually a little selective about what we include, and include only major indexes -- as was done there--the one listed is the major index in its field. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a hello...

...since there's a 2007 hello from you on my user page ;-) I'm teaching wikipedia this semester using Lih's book and Phoebe Ayers as a guest speaker. Could not remember how to find you until I saw your 2007 post :-/ Students adding to WP as part of their coursework. regards DGG! Katewill (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Coombabah State Primary School

Please have a look at User talk:Orderinchaos#Coombabah State Primary School. This action looks so contrary to policy that, as I said, I am staggered. TerriersFan (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the sanity check. TerriersFan (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have left two extensive notes there. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

MTV Generation: Wikipedia has no fixed definition - it happens!

Hi, I recognise that you stated that you had no interest in working on the MTV Generation article, but I've written (rather a long) comment on it in response to Peregrine981's request for comments on the discussion page. I won't ask you to read it, but it struck me that there is also little agreement on what constitutes a pair of shorts (e.g compared to trousers, kneebreeches, knickerbockers etc) , but little controversy in having a decent page about them. If you have time, could you please add any further comments you might have on the MTV Gen issue to the page? I found your previous comment quite helpful. Any response meant for me on my talk page, thanks. Centrepull (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Journal categories

Hi DGG, you may be interested in this discussion. --Crusio (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OCLC outside linkage to worldcat website

A discussion about whether of not the infobox books template should include outside linkage from the OCLC number is posted here. You are being notified because you posted in a discussion at infobox books about this template functionality. Please stop be and include your input into the issue at the link. Thanks. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I'd disagree with the first point - since the difference here is between Keep and No Consensus, which are functionally the same (i.e. the article is kept), even if I'd perceived a "desired conclusion" it would've been pointless to stretch the bounds of closing to reach it. If the difference had been between No Consensus and Delete, then there may be a case to be made that the closer is letting their own biases affect the result. As for the second point, you're actually backing my point up - "after removing irrelevant arguments and arguments contrary to policy". I admit that now I have heard Colonel Warden's explanation that I have slightly more regard for his point of view, but he could have made it far clearer. I stand by my discarding of the other two !votes, however. Black Kite 22:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, I actually forgot that, as I'm so used to arguing against a delete-- and because we have really been discussing generally, more than about this article--so I have changed the wording. As for the second point, the question is of course when to call something irrelevant. Looking again at this article, the arguments you rejected seem in general relevant enough not to be unrelated to policy--or, like mine, simply said keep, without seeing the need to argue in any detail in an AfD where nobody had supported the nominator. So I therefore do not understand what you did, which is how the discussion got started in the first place. There are a few admins here, where instead I would have answered much more cynically: "You wanted it deleted, but knew that close could not possibly be supported, so you said non-consensus, to allow for a rapid renomination" DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think then, and I don't think now, that a rapid renomination would achieve anything. I don't think that's really the idea of "No Consensus", to be honest. However, I do think that some sort of merge of these disparate articles would be more encyclopedic - though that's not why I closed as I did. Black Kite 11:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look back, you'll find that discussing a merge was what i suggested also. As I said, we don't disagree quite as much as it looks at first. I think at this point you might have made a call out of annoyance at the level of arguments. I think much of the time when we admins do something wrong, we realize it to some extent. I've been impatient also; I recall once when I tried what i knew to be a shortcut, but one I thought would be accepted --that was the one time a close of mine reached Deletion Review (and was overturned). DGG ( talk ) 15:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• From my experience at DRV, I've come to the view that there's a sort of hierarchy of arguments in closing AfD. I mean, it's perfectly possible to give a single reply that wins the argument outright. With a "keep", you do it by finding some sources, citing them by direct link or by ISBN and page number, and subjecting them to critical analysis that shows they're reliable. One person doing this at any stage in the debate is worth a hundred "delete: not notable" !votes, because all the delete !votes are explicitly refuted and hence null and void. (See Uncle G's AfD contributions for examples.)

  The equivalent "complete win !vote" for a delete is linking the copyrighted source it's been copy/pasted from. But assuming it's not copypasta, the best "delete" is still a critical analysis of the sources. ("I found this, but it's a blog, and that, but it's a press release. Couldn't find anything else.")

  In an AfD where you have !votes that give you a critical analysis of the sources, the closer can safely ignore everyone who doesn't give such an analysis, and DRV will still support them. Except in the annoying case where someone uses the currently-fashionable three letter acronym "BLP", in which case everyone starts to run around like headless chickens screaming "delete, delete!", apparently because of Daniel Brandt. But if Wikipedia made sense, BLP policy would be about removing unsourced material, which comes back to the same thing I was saying before.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Connel Fullenkamp

Hi DGG. I nominated Connel Fullenkamp for deletion. You deprodded the article in June 2009, so I thought that your input might be valuable for the discussion. CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a Job Well Done

DGG, Thank you for participating in Chzz's RfA. Many of us suspected that Chzz was a problem user, but it was work by people like you, who saved the day. Rogue Admins. and Bureaucrats pose a real risk to Wikipedia. Thanks Again - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC) It was necessary, but I take no pleasure in this, any more than in similar cases; I hoped he would have eventually been a credit to us, and I regret he chose otherwise--and I am sure you feel similarly. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC) I do! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re A7 Speedy Delete

Hey DGG, was hoping you could help me out with this as you seem to be both interested and in the know. I use the A7 CSD category in AfD discussions a lot, because (a) it's one of the most stringest deletion tests on Wikipedia and (b) if it's broken policy it needs attention called to it and discussion. It seems to my view to specifically set a higher bar for an article to exist than WP:N - that is, that not only must sources exist, but that those sources must attest to a claim of notability, not merely existence. That's a position I support, and it's in line with the essay WP:MILL but it doesn't really seem to be in line with any of the other notability policies. Are you able to educate me at all on the reasoning and history behind this controversial CSD category? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but I don't agree with that interpretation of A7. A7 states that the article, not the sources, must make some claim that would, if true, give rise to a reasonable inference of notability per any notability guideline. So it's a low, not high, bar. ^Bongo_matic 05:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was indeed synthesis. A7 only refers to the article, but the inference to be drawn from it is that when considering the higher bar of WP:N, no amount of sources can save an article (of the A7 classes: organisation, etc) that does not itself assert notability, and in that sense acts as a precursor condition that significantly raises the level of sourcing required to satisfy WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Bongo, you're right, and I am in the middle of writing a full explanation why. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

it merely has to indicate on its face that there might be some realistic reason to think it's significant or important. This is much less than notability, and requires no sourcing at all. The criteria as given are very specific about that, as are multiple discussions on the talk pages. Even three years ago when I started and things were much more erratic that was the case. In fact, it avoids using the term notability to avoid confusion with WP:N. Now, anything that does meet WP:N will do so because it indicates the importance and has sources for it, and will never fall within A7. But a lot else will pass A7--if there is any plausible chance that someone acquainted with out general practice might think it notable , it passes. That may seem absurdly low, but, as you clearly suspect, there is a reason for putting it so low. The reason is that this is enough to get rid of the impossible junk, without cutting out anything where there is a chance of an article. Let's look at current New Pages:

1. Clarendon Plantation House -- this is actually N because all places on the historical register are as one of the Common outcomes, & it has a source for that. It also passes A7 because asserting a building is of historic interest is an assertion of importance if it is at all reasonable, and this is.
2. Sunil Reddy is in my opinion an A7. Because it will have been deleted, here's the contents: "Sunil Reddy, born 1974 is an Indian business consultant. He is the publisher of The People's Economics, an online Economics & Political magazine published semi-regularly. He is also a Technology Consultant for Internet, Telecommunication, Software and Alternative Power Generation Systems." Publisher of a journal would normally be enough of an assertion to pass, but not if it is an online magazine published only semi-regularly--this is not a plausible assertion of notability as I see it. This is a little borderline--some admins might think it does pass.
3. Abhijit PG Pandya asserts he has written a book. If so, and the book is at all important, he might conceivably be notable. Chairman of the Birkenhead society might be notable also, but I know nothing about it. It passes A7. Whether it will pass AfD will depend on what is found in looking for references. I've tagged it according. It will need checking. There are no present sources, but if what is asserted is true, there will be.

You are confusing N and V , which is easy to do--attempts to combine them have however never gotten consensus. Even if something would appear to be N, if there are no sources whatsoever, there is no way of writing an article, and it will be deleted. This can happen. But it is never a question for speedy deletion. We can not delete until we have looked for sources, and failed to find them. The condition is unsourceable, not unsourced. If the article is plausible, this is something which requires community input and some time to look. According to WP:BEFORE, we really should look before we put any kind of deletion tag on; if it goes to AfD , people will look--if it goes to prod, the few of us who patrol prod will at least try to look. But if you can find the source yourself, you should, before putting on the tag, or you will be embarrassed at AfD if you have guessed wrong. We don't delete on guesses. The sourcing has no relevance to the A7--except that if something is unclear, we should at least attempt to see if it might be ore important than the author realized, or knew to say. The key word here is asserts, which means indicates, not demonstrates. Think about this, look at that last example, try to source it, and come back tomorrow if you have questions. for now, I'm going to sleep. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply DGG. My questions (when you're awake and online again) are: was this intended to be a separate rather than lower test than WP:N? It seems to act that way. A local restaurant, for example, may be able to source three separate significant reviews in independent, reliable local papers, which would prima facie put it over the bar for WP:N. However that same restaurant, barring some other factor, would be unable to make a claim asserting its notability rising higher than "The restaurant has been reviewed in three newspapers." It's a case of an article that would (theoretically) pass WP:N being struck out by A7 speedy delete. I can't read it as other than that asserting notability is a condition that needs to be addressed before WP:N can be explored, rather than a lower standard of the existing WP:N test. My second question is: why don't we require every Wikipedia article to assert notability? The threshold test of requiring an assertion would focus editing and provide a clear delineation of keepable articles from non-keepables. And the third question, being a compansion to that, is: why is A7 limited only to the classes of articles mention in that criterion? What's magical about organisations that doesn't apply to software, for example? Thanks. It's just that I so often see A7 described as "commonly misunderstood" without any accompanying reference to policy or discussion that would help it be "properly" understood. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was intended to be a separate and lower test. When there was first a formal deletion process, it was called VfD, votes for Deletion -- after a while when the volume got too large, it was split: the hopeless articles were permitted to be deleted immediately without any vote, just by listing them and then a single admin would decide. A very narrow set of criteria were used, and gradually additional ones were introduced--the most recent being A9. Proposed deletion was added, for articles that it was thought might be un controversial deletions, but were not in those restricted classes--for PROD, any reason good under Deletion Policy applies. So it is intended to be a rough screen only. The conditions are for those where the deletion will be uncontroversial to anyone acting in good faith, had a reasonably unambiguous criterion, would not give a significant number of false positives, and would occur frequently enough to be worth the trouble of setting a criterion. It is accepted that there will be many false negatives, but these are handled by prod and AfD. It works very well as a screen--about 1/4 of the newly submitted articles are deleted under it as impossible, and another 1/4 get deleted by prod or AfD. Notice, btw, the effectiveness of tagging--when the author of the Abhijit PG Pandya article saw the tags, he withdrew the article, realizing that it was unlikely to stay. This is much friendlier than if we had deleted it--and easier, because we did not have to make the decision and be concerned about whether we were right.

"The restaurant has been reviewed by three newspapers" is handled by WP:LOCAL -- it needs to be known outside its immediate area. in my neighborhood there are two good local papers, and they review every restaurant in downtown Brooklyn. This does not establish notability. If any one of the New York or the New Yorker or the NY Times reviews it also, then it is notable, for they have a very wide circulation beyond Brooklyn and are considered to have very high standards for what they choose to review. If any of the other NY papers reviews it, then it would depend--their reviews are not considered as reliable. If we did not have WP:LOCAL, we would still reject local papers, because in general their reviews are not discriminating, and too much influenced by PR, and thus not reliable for notability. They would be reliable for details about a restaurant otherwise notable. This is how we deal with things that would pass a naïve application of the GNG--by specifying in some more detail what sources count. Now for A7. An article with the statement of being reviewed by three newspapers if it specifies the newspapers and if they appear credible RSs, would pass A7. Saying that a place has been so reviewd is a statement of possible importance, which might or might not be considered credible. If it did not specify the newspapers, most of us would not consider it a reasonable statement of importance, and it would not pass. where the problem comes is if it did not specify the newspapers -- but they happened to be important, the article being written by a very unskilled beginner here. A careful admin in a case like that is supposed to actually check the sources in a preliminary way to see. There will be false positives--how many depends on the carefulness of the admins. My estimate of false positive A7s is about 10%, which is too high--it should be 5%--better than that is unlikely to be accomplished . Some other criteria have a higher error rate, like G11. Some have a lower. A9 if properly used, should have a very low error rate--this was empirically checked before the criterion was accepted. (Restaurants can be a problem--check the full history of Mzoli's, where the original article, written by Jimbo, did not assert notability & was deleted)

Some types of articles are even more problematic with respect to assertions of notability--software for example, or books. Experience shows that articles on notable software or books often fail to assert notability--this is particularly true for children's books--a good example is Brown Girl, Brownstones which is actually famous == but the person who wrote the article said nothing to indicate it--it was rescued from Prod when I recognized the title. thus products and creative works are not included in A7--quite deliberately. The argument is that this is the sort of subject where many people should have the chance to see it, and try to add more, and this is proven by experience. As for organizations, this is a problem. I am not altogether happy with their inclusion in A7, and so I try to use G11 in addition when possible--or G12, copyvio when that's the case, as it often is. The reason it stays in is that there are a considerable number of obvious cases.

Think of patrolling this way: I patrol speedy (or recent changes) not just to delete hopeless articles, nor to save ones that can possibly be saved, but to sort the two. Many people submit inadequate first articles, but if treated in a friendly way, go on to write better ones. Deleting their first article does not encourage them to try again; showing them how to rescue it does. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to provide insight into this process DGG! Your experience and expertise are much appreciated, and I think I have a better understanding of the philosophy behind the CSD now. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD A7 and schools

In removing the {{db-org}} tag I had added to The Baan Dek Montessori, you asserted that "schools are not eligible for speedy A7." Why is that? I see no indication of that at WP:CSD#A7. Are schools somehow not organizations? Furthermore, looking back at the page's logs, I see that it has in fact been deleted before under criteria A7 (and twice prior to that under G11). Am I somehow missing some change in the interpretation of CSD criteria? John Darrow (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Quoting directly from WP:CSD A7, emphasis added:

“ An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. ”

Tim Song (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; I missed that among all the bold text around it. Given that A7 has been applied to the exact same article before, could anyone provide a link to when the school exception was added to the A7 criteria, and any discussion involved in it being made so? John Darrow (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It was added initially because school deletions for lack of notability were always contested in good faith by established editors -- and are thus never uncontroversial. It has subsequently been generally accepted that in practice notability is almost never a valid reason for deleting a school via any method. High schools are now always treated as notable, because 95% of them are if one looks hard enough, & it isn't worth the debates to weed out the others, lower level schools are almost always not notable enough for articles, but are treated by merging into the school district, town, diocese, or the like. Every time in the last 2 years this balance has been challenged at AfD, it has been decisively upheld, even though our way for formally adopting guidelines have enabled the small minority of opponents to block formalizing it. The few genuine AfD debates are whether an institution is a school or merely a tutoring establishment, or whether it has a real existence. School articles are occasionally listed for speedy deletion as promotional, but this is almost never valid, for they can almost always be stubbified to remove the promotion. Same goes for copyvios: a noncopyvio stub can be easily substituted. Even in most cases of vandalism, there's an unvandalised core to revert to.

Personally I wish we applied similar principles to determining notability of other classes of things.

As a personal guide also, there is more than enough true junk to get rid of, and ewe should concentrate on it. Borderline notable articles do not harm Wikipedia. Promotional ones do, and likewise copyvio. And of the acceptable articles, probably most of them need better sourcing or updating or removing soapboxing --and these are almost equally harmful. There's too many important things to do to bother about borderline notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• High school articles also tend to have vandalism occur. I think this is because students there think it is funny. However, the articles themselves are worth while, although they often need more sources.John Pack Lambert 22:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Commented . I said weak keep before, but the established usage has now become clearer. DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I do hope that you will reflect on my response to your rationale. All the sources that I have seen so far demand cherry-picking as they employ the word loosely and arbitrarily, they are only useful for supporting a preconceived notion of the word, and only then by willfully ignoring the uses which go against ones desired conclusion. Of the many sources listed on the article a great deal of them do not even contain the word denialism. Unomi (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

Hi DGG. It looks as if you may have been in the middle of adding content to your user page, but were interrupted before you could finish. You appear to have had this on the page for the last several days. All the best, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

yes, things have been too busy here. I find it difficult to get the necessary oppotunity to do more than fire-fighting. I'm glad somebody noticed! DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Hi DGG,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Jewish Labour Bund Task Force

I thought you might find this interesting, considering possible outreach to Yiddishist groups. It's a surprisingly active project.--Pharos (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Psychology of AFD

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at User:Milowent.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I just happened to come across this -- in light of recent events, thanks for keeping that article alive.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Scraping

As I mentioned at the new user CSD, I could start scraping this information. Which class A7, A5, etc. would you consider examining first?Ikip (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When I did it, I went directly from the deletion logs. The problem is, first, removing the irrelevancies, most of what is in the log is article talk pages, or files, or user space etc. & of the articles, most are expired prods, or AfDs , or for moves, or copyvios. Out of 100, there are about 10 worth examining for all other speedy reasons put together. I am not sure how a scrape of deleted articles would help analyze them. since I can see them easily enough. I thought about scraping the log to sort, but I'd lose the links. Any ideas? DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When you scrape a page, you can retain the links.

What I was thinking is having a self contained scapper program (meaning that you would not need any extra programs to use it, simply download and click).

For example, it could run every minute, scrapping G1. Patent nonsense, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nonsense_pages_for_speedy_deletion.

Any page in that category, would have the whole article scraped, and the page history scraped. or any combination that we wish. The information could either be downloaded to a file (any format, including excel), or loaded to another wiki, created as a new page.

I could write some of it myself, but my friend User:TodWulff is a master in using autohotkey. Ikip (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. But this is to audit the one nom'd for deletion. I just want to see those actually deleted. I'm interested in the admins not the taggers--taggers, who are usually relative beginners, can be expected to make many mistakes. That would be about half. I can see how to use it, though, once I get the links in Excel. We could try A7--the errors are easier to understand & less ambiguous. What would really help me do it the way I've been doing, is a program to go from the deletion log to a spreadsheet that I could run, since it would have to run with admin privileges open. I can manipulate links from there. FWIW, I use Mac 10.5. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't test or refine a scraper with admin priveleges.

"program to go from the deletion log to a spreadsheet that I could run" do you have a PC emulator?

so you would want to scrape the deletion log, this would not require admin rights correct?

Here is the deletion log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1

Each entry could be put on a spread sheet like this:

Date	Name	Comments
2009 11 19 22:40	Secret	deleted "Developement Centre of East-Iceland" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
2009 11 19 22:40	Dlohcierekim	Deleted "JoeBob Mcgee" ‎ (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject: although tere are ghits for person with this name, thic content insfficinet. same article deleted earlier. wold need rewrite from scratch)

What kind of spreadsheet? Excel? That is the only one I have, so to test and refine and debug, it would have to be excel.

Better yet, I could simply scrape the deletion log data then post it on a wikipedia page, as a sortable table. Say User:DGG/CSD 2009 11 19 or User:Ikip/CSD 2009 11 19, one for each day (or even one page for each week). [Or we could simply make each page a template, {{User:DGG/CSD 2009 11 19}}, and then post several of these individual pages/days on other master pages]

That way everyone that is interested, could work on this together. Anyone who wanted to copy and paste this info into a spread sheet could.

It appears like autohotkey doesn't run on mac. Ikip (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did some experimenting. The simplest thing is to take the deletions for a day and sort it by deletion reason . Any spreadsheet, or in Wikipedia, if a wikitable that large would work . DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

actually, I probably could do it with word, using find and replace wildcards, without even bother Tod. You can search by 5000 edits at a time, simply by adding &limit=5000 to any page history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&limit=5000

Wow, am I reading this right?

From 02:17, 20 November 2009 to 01:32, 18 November 2009. Two Days, FIVE THOUSAND pages were deleted.Ikip (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

not quite. For example, a good number of these are a./ deletions of talk pages associated with deleted articles, or redirects to deleted articles. b./ deletion requested by sole editor, or userspace pages requested by user c./ files. Wikipedia gets even more files per day submitted than articles. Many of them have copyvio problems. d./ technical deletions, including deletions to permit a move over a redirect. The actual number of article deletions is about 1000 a day. About half of all submitted articles get deleted, almost all of them very rightly. But now do you see the extent of the problem? DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"But now do you see the extent of the problem?" Problem? How many problem articles we have? Yes, I knew about the massive amount of bad submissions we get. I saw this problem patrolling AFDs and monitoring the deletion log. Big problem. Is that what you are talking about?

Or the problem of investigating the articles? Ikip (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nearer the second--the problem of making sure we catch them all, check them properly, and deal appropriately not just with each of the articles but with each of the users. I mainly patrol speedy & prod, & delete or untag 10 to 20 articles a day. To follow up each one properly and give the necessary personalized warnings and advice, & correct the erroneous taggings, warnings, and advice by some of the less careful or less experienced, and explain things to them also, would take about 20 -30 min each, considering followups and disagreements. I do maybe 3 or 4 as fully as I think should be done, & comment on 1 or 2 mistaggings, & I know no admin who is able to give full attention to much more than that. If I actually rewrote the ones that could be helped by it, it would be at least twice as long. I do maybe 1 a day at best; again, many people do similarly, but nobody has time for much more, unless they did nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so every article deleted A7, for example, will have A7 in the subject line?

It looks like, for example:

20:28, 21 November 2009 Kinu (talk | contribs) deleted "Panohar" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject)

Many do have A& in subject line. To scrape effectively you need something that differentiates one passage from another.Ikip (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's technically the edit summary, not the subject line.As in the example you gave, essentially every article deleted via A7 will say either A7 in that summary or the phrase that follows. Articles deleted under multiple grounds will cite multiple reason & be picked up twice, which is fine. Deletions where the reason given is incorrectly specified or not of those listed or not given will not be picked up, unless we sorted and checked everything. Sometimes an edit will tag as A7, and the deleting admin will see copyvio or nonsense and simply change the reason to that--this does not pick up such cases either. But if you only look at the original tagging, it won't pick up the changed ones. This is just a first sample. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Might ..

you be able to fix the name of the Faraday article to the full name (if you agree that is appropriate)? Beyond my skill set, I'm afraid.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

will do, once it gets kept. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I created resource room, and appreciate your help in making sure it wasn't deleted my a newbie who seems to be trigger happy (a self-described "deletionist"). Also, I did read your note on the fact that it needs to be expanded, but I am new to this, and want to make sure it is done right. Just when I lose my faith in this site, a person like you comes and makes sure good articles stay!

Jim Steele (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It is messages like your's that help me keep my own faith that my work here is worth the effort it takes. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Academic sources for short stories

Perhaps I can recruit your expertise for my help, if you have the time that is. I am currently editing a page on one of J.D. Salinger's most famous short stories, A Perfect Day for Bananafish. Not only do I have a decent amount of verfiable resources at my disposal, let's just say I have a personal investment in this subject. I'm doing my best to edit this article but another person is deleting my comments (of which there is no reason for, at least for which I can find via WP labyrinthine policies). Can you help? I don't know what to do here and don't want an edit war. There seems to be enough of those already around here... Jim Steele (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I gave a starting hint for you on the talk p. there. It helps in these discussions not to refer to whether the other person understands or not, just to what is supported by the reference; it should be possible to do this without saying anything negative. Fortunately, there is enough criticism on salinger that you should be able to document--don't just use the handbooks, use the actual academic literature also. The key policy is that content is decided by consensus, which is not quite the same thing as argument, but if not resolved, you ask for another opinion. See WP:DR. You've asked me, I'll keep track. Unlike some topics people try to ask me about, I do know the story. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I think the article is getting better, I'm glad I've got an analysis section started and some good references. For some reason there's someone, an angry poster, who is just reverting every post. The problem with posts regarding literary criticism is that if the reader doesn't understand the story in the first place (and I don't think this reverter does) it's hard to reason with him. I mean, he's asking me to cite how Bessie plays an important role in Franny and Zooey, and the dialogue between her and Zooey IS the story Zooey.

Jim Steele (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Something you may be able to shed light on

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BYU Studies. ^Bongo_matic 00:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Will you have another look at the talkpage of R1a?

See latest results: [4], [5].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read the replies to your latest posts. Please do not go yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look again. Wondering what you think of this proposal: [6]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kurtd71

Dave, you might want to keep an eye on this user. He or she has been very combative in comments on my talk page regarding spam articles that have been speedied. Thanks. Hope you're doing well. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

commented there; if further help is needed, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Adam Lyons

Hey DGG, I responded about your concerns about Adam Lyons on the AfD page. My question is on a slightly different topic- basically about 5 users that voted delete have been blocked now for being sockpuppets and I was wondering if there was any procedure like removing their votes or adding a tag to their votes so an admin who doesn't know they have all been blocked can take that into consideration. I have mentioned it in my lengthy comment, but I don't know if there is anything else that should be done. DRosin (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I normally handle it by striking the vote with <s></s> and adding a <small>comment saying the user was blocked for sock puppetry. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Tomorrow Code

I was surprised that you declined the above Speedy Deletion nomination.

The book is by an author who has no article, and although it may be in over 700 libraries Worldwide, about 600 of them are in the U.S.

Before putting this up for SD, I looked into it, and found:

• 3 Google Scholar hits - all from publishers of the book
• 1 hit on Google Books - stating that this is the author's debut book - and Kirkus Reviews (who published the review) publish their reviews 2-4 months prior to publication - and it was only published a year ago from what I can see (originally 28 Oct 2008, reprinted 28 Jul 2009)
• 0 Google News hits
• 0 Google News Archive hits

Looking at Google Web Search, a lot of the hits (I'll be honest, I only looked at the first couple of hundred or so) were mainly publisher sites, shop sites, etc.

Reading though WP:N and WP:NB, I can't see any mention that a sign of notability is the book being in more than 700 libraries in the world!

I am just curious to know your reasoning behind declining the SD - not that I'm saying that it is incorrect, but I do not feel that the stated reason is sufficient.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It was proposed deletion, not speedy.-- it wouldn't have been eligible for speedy. I'm glad you found the review in Kirkus. Kirkus is a selective book reviewing service, intended mainly for libraries. Like most book reviews of consumer-market books, they are prepared from proof copy so that libraries that decide whether they want to buy the book can have it on the shelf as soon as published. (The NYT does just the same). Apparently 700 of them decided to. I'm not a children's librarian, so that indicates a rather high demand. given that the author is from New Zealand, and that the book is set there, I'd say that the 600 or so from the US (or Canada) indicates an internationally known book, much more than if mainly NZ libraries had bought it. Kirkus is wrong, though, that it's his only book. It's his only one published in the US (by Random house, a major publisher). WorldCat shows 4 earlier ones, but they have less than 100 holdings, almost entirely in NZ--and so they are not notable. I very definitely do not think all children's books notable. Most are not. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasoning (and incidently, I noticed after I left my message that it was a PROD not SD, but forgot to change my comment here!). Although I am not 100% sure that this book should be included in Wikipedia, your reasoning also means that I am not 100% sure that it should not be - so I am inclined to leave it here! However, I will be keeping an eye on the article and if it's not been expanded (and if I can't find suitable sources to do such expanding myself) in a few weeks, I will consider taking it to AfD. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Scama school

Hi regarding my nomination of deletion of this advert..Skema it is you say notable but needs a lot of work, would you please point me in the right direction.. this is from the talkpage there...posted by the creator of the article ..."Hi, I'm sorry. I have created the web page for my school... just because it didn't exist. By lack of time, I used official texts indeed produced by the school." I see an advert, fro a paid school, is the level of notability in paid schools very low? I don't want to waste my time, nominating, how low is the guideline, the corner shop down my lane with a utube link and a twitter...I see you are at least making a couple of edits there...so lets see how it grows, regards Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I did the first round of cleanup-- look at the way I edited this--my "couple of edits" removed the 3/4 of the article that was advertising. It is a university level business school, awarding graduate degrees--at least one of its two components certainly did--and all such are invariably notable. By paid, you probably mean "for profit", but For profit and not for profit schools are handled the same way; in any case this claims to be a nonprofit one. The exception to presumed notability is trade schools that are not at university level and do not award degrees. If the shop in the corner is of this size, it might well be notable, so by all means try to look for references. But first you might try helping out this article by looking yourself for references, per WP:BEFORE. They should have been put in by the first editor, of course, and he has been reminded of this & it's on my list to follow up. I take a very strong course in deleting or trimming promotional articles. I've deleted a few today already,and I'm just getting started. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

G11, thanks, perhaps I should become a bit more inclusionist, I see something like that and its not that I want to delete it, but I want to see the money. I had a look at the search and added a template, there are a few independent citations, thanks for the advice. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AN

Courtesy notification. You were involved here and is now being discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Defying_an_AFD_decision Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

over something other than Fiction. last thing I would have expected. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The policy question is unresolved (what is the correct process). However, we've swept all conflict away as now I'll just notify people. Whether they want to re-create the article now that merge is off the table is up to them . Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed a larger issue, though ANB is not the place to discuss it. . We have 2 contradictory practices: that merges and redirects are matters for normal editing, and not questions of deletion, but on the other hand they are among the possible closes for an AfD, discussed during afds, and very often resorted to as compromises. We try to accommodate this with the basic current rule is that a AfD decision can give a very strong but not binding recommendation of a merge or redirect. The key reason why that rule does make some sense is that a merge or redirect can be reverted by any editor, and an admin has no special prerogative for it. However, it not infrequently happens that someone pursues the obviously unfair tactic of trying to remove material when they know they could not get consensus for deletion by first merging, and then removing the material. Trying to do this is not editing in good faith, and if we have no specific rule against it, then IAR is certainly applicable. However, for one person to try to delete, and another to edit out the material not in the context of the original AfD can be in perfectly good faith as it was here. We still need to deal with the basic problem--not that I have any idea except to centralizing all contested merge and redirect discussions, which would essentially double the AfD-type work and is not at all an ideal solution DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. I have no problem with West Baltimore but am satisfied that you see that there is a potential manipulation problem, possibly more in fiction. As long as we act nicely and fairly, Wikipedia is for the better. If a few of us are aware that manipulation can exist, then Wikipedia is also for the better. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

collaborative work systems vs collaborative working systems

Thanks for adding the proper tag. The content of the article is based on the notion of a Collaborative Work Systems which is described in the literature as such. I have no objection to changing the name to Collaborative working system if that is within the Google scholar literature review however I did made two searches one for each proposed designation and indeed I notice the term "collaborative work" is much more consistent accross the literature so I propose to stick to the original name "collaborative work systems". As for the proposed merge with "Collaborative Working Environments" that is precisely the reason I have wrote this article in the first place: both notions are different. A "collaborative working environment" is a concept that emereges from a different research point of view, centered in the individual work of professionals that become e-professionals because they perform their work (e-work) within a networked environment, using not only collaborative software, but also videoconferencing systems which are not necessarily software-based. The concept of a collaborative work system on the other hand, is related to the organizational context of the work that occurs whenever two or more individuals collaborate for a given purpose. So the focus is not on the type of computer support to that work, but instead to the non-computer variables that affect that quality of work. It is important that one reads Beyond Teams, to see the difference on perspectives. Also, one needs to admit that a whole series of books dedicated to "Collaborative Work Systems" is sufficiently worth of having such a concept explained in wikipedia, independently of other related notions. Nunesdea (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A key reason to not use "work" is because of the name of a company that was mentioned in the original article, Collaborative Work Systems. The article was marked for attention as an advertisement for the company, which is how I happened to see it, and indeed many spam articles are written in exactly that fashion--using the title does give such impression, even when another company is mentioned as well. (In any case Wikipedia always uses the singular as a mater of style: system, not systems; environment, not environments. As another matter of style, Wikipedia removes capitals in phrases that are not proper names--that too gives an impression of being promotional.--if not for a company, at least for the concept--just went through the CWS article & did this--I didn't have time yesterday.) As for the merge of the two articles, the explanation you give here seems a little clearer than you give in the articles. I have looked at the articles listed in the see also, and I see the same attempt to make many articles out of what are overlapping contexts. I would very strongly advise you to concentrate on fewer but stronger articles of substantial length, rather than one of each possible subdivision of the concept. We're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Myself, every setting I have ever been in, from kindergarden on, seems to meet the definition of a collaborative work system--they all of them were consciously designed to facilitate the functioning through group interaction, and I think this applies to anyone not a hermit. I admit I am not an expert, tho. To an nonexpert, both articles read like jargon. And I do not see how " "System" has a self explanatory power " -- "system" is such an extremely general word that the application of it will usually suggest jargon, not explanation, unless there is some specific meaning which will not be obvious. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to establish a mutual purpose among us, as I also want to preserve Wikipedia from being devalued. However for that reason we should stick primarily to scientific arguments as valid reason to nominate an article. There are a lot of literature published within the field of "collaborative work systems", too bad it is also the name of a small company. On the other hand the concept of a "system" always subsumes an "environment" so I would have "environment" as an element of a "system" and would include the notion of collaborative working environments within the notion of "collaborative work system" this being the main article. Also concerning the CSCW (computer-supported cooperative work) definition (which is nowdays abriged as computer supported collaboration) the notion of a "collaborative work system" (CWS) can be a useful concept as it explains the non-computer based part of collaboration.Nunesdea (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

. In ordinary language, envirnment and system can sometimes be synonyms: the rule set, formal and informal, of Wikipedia forms a system, and also defines the working environment in which we edit. To me, so far as there is a distinction, they're inherently pair, aspects of each other. A system is meaningless in the total abstract and an environment is not worth talking about until there is something in it. Environments and systems exist inside one another, and any of the levels can be regarded as either. As a hierarchy, the parts of a computer form a system, and exist within the real or virtual office environment which requires certain functions of it; this environment is itself a system, which exists within the larger environment of a business organization, which itself is a system that exists within the environment of the whole economy, which.... In terms more natural to me, the early earth existed before there were living beings, and formed the environment in which living systems arose, but the biogeochemical systems the organisms established created new environments, in which further systems evolved, eventually getting us where we are. What you say makes sense to you, but not to me, although I can understand it, by thinking in what I consider an artificial context. But it does not matter how you or I look at it, but how the literature does--and since this is a general and not a scholarly encyclopedia, it's how both the popular and the scientific literature look at it--and you need sources not supporting only your view, but a search to find those that support opposing views also or that reject this formulation. that's call NPOV. We write to=not to advocate a theory, but to explain it.

The academic students of management may have their own vocabulary for all this, and use words in special meanings. But a vocabulary of this sort is not natural language, and is apt to sound like impenetrable and unnecessary jargon to those outside it. If you're going to use it, you have to define the universe within which it is applicable, and you're going to have to prove, not assert, that it is well established and how it differs from the general use of the English language. In the Wikipedia environment -- or system-- articles that are not clear to ordinary readers tend to be nominated for deletion, and science has very little to do with it. Some fields' jargon is accepted by people here more easily than others, and as a fact of life here, however much you or I may deplore it, it's only fair that I advise you that there tends to be very limited patience with the applied social sciences DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Death of a source

Did you see the latest on Kirkus Reviews? A pity. ^Bongo_matic 22:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

they have fortunately revived. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Of librarians and Eguor admins

Hope you'll indulge a casual drive-by question. (Saw you comment on a matter at ANI, and followed the link here.)

If I begin with random praise about librarians, it may surely sound like sucking up, but I have little notches in my brain linking the concepts of librarian and "important acts for freedom." (e.g., Not that I'm a huge fan of Michael Moore's, but I always remember the librarians who made sure "Stupid White Men" was published at that time.)

Anyway, my question is do you think there is a (natural?) correlation between the values/temperament of librarians and Equor administrators?

(Feel free to ignore, tis the holiday season and surely you've much else to do, and perhaps you may already answered this somewhere, if so, a link would a blessing.) In any case, happy holidays and many blessings in the coming year. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As a preliminary matter, yes, intellectual freedom and librarianship, at least in the US, are linked traditions. (It has been different elsewhere, such as the USSR.) But other people care equally--notably, most of the people who built up the web and free culture generally.

However, I wouldn't identify Wikipedia:Eguor admins with intellectual freedom specifically. Admins and other Wikipedians of all dispositions generally are almost all of us here because of our commitment to intellectual freedom in multiple ways--it's even one of our basic principles, as NOT CENSORED. The concept of Equor ( basically, anti-rogue ) is a little different--to use admin powers in a way that as careful and discreet, rather than heavy-handed and authoritarian. I do not actually agree with everything on that page--in one sense, adminship should indeed be regarded as a big deal, for the potential power of admins to harm Wikipedia is very great. But the point I have been trying to remind people of in recent weeks is that we do not exercise admin powers to express our view of what Wikipedia should be, but to enforce the consensus view of what Wikipedia should be. We don;t have to agree with it, but we cannot use the tools in opposition to it or regardless of it. I asked for the tools for two reasons originally: to check whether deleted articles could be possibly rescued --with the community given another chance to decide if they were in fact rescuable, and to carry out the implied will of the community in removing ones that they obviously they would never support. Anything else I've done I've done incidentally--i will not pass over vandalism or disruption if I see it, but that's not what I go looking for (many others do, and they certainly should--we don't have to all emphasize the same things.) Unfortunately, all too many admins who work in all areas seem to regard themselves as infallible. They forget that we're not chosen for our great skill in policy--just the general knowledge of policy every active Wikipedian should have, but are needed primarily for having sound judgment and care in expressing it. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Smiling. Beautiful. (Don't mean to be gushing.) My eyes water sometimes when I read things that make good sense—in an environment where it's clear that you know such "reasonable" perspective sometimes appears to be nonexistent. I care very much about "saying things well." In the holiday gift you have taken your time to give me, I have found beautiful fragments to savor. And wish the whole of your remarks was more representative of the rank of the bit than, sadly, it can ever be. My sincere thanks. (And see previous closing:-) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well said. The other key issue is (if one is entrusted with admin tools) is calming rather than inflaming heated debates, such as dealing to aggrieved editors who have blown a gasket. This is a key headache which needs looking at from time to time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was completely satisfied with that beautiful exchange of gift and thanks, but then Casliber's comment "dragged me back in." :)

I guess my reaction in a nutshell is that most admins (present company excepted, by all means, if you wish exception) often seem to be the wrong animal to calm the waters — many believing there is only one species, and it's their kind. :-)

But I can only say that nut's worth after having written the below, which you can skim if you like, or just gaze across the waters. Cheers.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nova Science

Dear Dr. Goodman!

I ask you to fix the Nova article; I tried my best today to bring it into a more objective and better shape.

Wikipedia is not the place for the gymnastics of publisher downgrading, if people have a grudge concerning a publisher, they should sort it directly with them in a civilised way.

Franz Weber —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz weber (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Skema school., business

Hi DGG, remember this? Skema Business School . The article is becoming a primary sourced advert edited by a single editor (a former student they state) I mentioned it to them on their talkpage User talk:Julien Schmidwhat do you think is the way forward? Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting and helping out DGG, also...Happy Xmas to you and yours. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC/CENT

2/0 makes a good point:

Support - could some kind soul notify me if I seem to have missed it when this is announced as a centralized discussion?

Care to make the AFD suggestion a cent/RFC? Seems like support for this proposal is very strong initially. Ikip 00:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC) RE: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Move_a_disputed_merge_to_AfD.2C_retitled_Articles_for_Discussion

You probably already noticed: [7] Ikip 00:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian already did it, and it is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Proposal 1. Myself, I;d have waited till after the holiday. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello DGG

I'm referring to the following article you have deleted previously: 19:48, 1 March 2009 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "Astronomical Society (ASDRC)" ‎ (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Astronomical Society of Dharmaraja College is one of the very few active astronomical societies in Sri Lanka. The number of acievements it has got in local and international arena in last two or three years are immense. For example, 7 out of the 15 students selected to the International Olympiad on Astronomy and Astrophysics in last 3 years are ASDRC students. Moreover, it has conducted a substantial number of projects to popularize Astronomy in Sri Lanka. Therefoe I think that ASDRC undoubtedly reserves a space in Wikipedia. I've created a new article on ASDRC in my [user page] removing the alleged student names and undue weight which would've violated the wiki policies. I'll be extremely thankful if you take necessary steps to relocate the article in Wikipedia. Astronomyinertia (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases? DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The society currently does not possess an official website. But you may have seen that Astronomical Society of Dharmaraja College is appeared on the College website. It seem that all other apperances are directly or indirectly related to the achievements of the member students of the society. Does that count? There are published articles in print, on local and provincial newspapers. But again it's only the achievements are appeared online. Can you please tell how to resolve this problem? Astronomyinertia (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

American Health Lawyers Association

I tried to cut out the violating material. If it's still a copyvio, then tag it again. Bearian (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust

DGG, just to let you know there is a discussion ongoing here. Do you care to weigh in with an opinion? Bus stop (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Oldcsd

Another editor has created Template:Oldcsd, which can be added to the talk page of an article by an administrator who has declined a speedy delete. You may find this a convenient way to discourage repeated csd taggings of the same article for identical reasons. - Eastmain (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That urge to prod

Though actually I've been feeling less deletionist of late, and have been compensating for this with extra evil. I've just come across this. It's in no way blatantly promotional and my guess is that its content is all true. Yeah yeah, not truth but verifiable fact is what matters hereabouts; yet as this is a (sort of) published item, arguably (hmmm) it provides its own verification. Now, I'm all in favor of more and better articles on photography magazines -- Japan has had dozens of demonstrable, verifiable significance -- yet I feel queasy when I see an article on a manufacturer's freebie. As User:Wageless seems to have departed, you'll have to stand in for him as benign inclusionist in the Big Question: Shall we prod? -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

the magazine is not in WorldCat or in Ulrich's, so probably the best course would be to merge it into the manufacturer, since it is a leading company. I feel just the same about such publications as you; as with self-published books, the presumption is against them. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Here we go. -- Hoary (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD for John Rosatti

I am in the peculiar position of nominating this article despite preferring to keep it, because the limited sources and BLP issues made it seem like the best course of action. If you're so inclined, I'd be curious to see what you have to say if you weigh in on the debate. You often have "keep" arguments that I hadn't considered.--otherlleft 15:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

commented. Deleting because an article is a BLP magnet is not part of Wikipedia policy if the subject is notable. People sometimes suggest it as an easy way out of coping with the need for proper watching and editing. It is the sort of practice that would lead to the elimination of all articles on highly controversial subjects. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am still wrestling with the question of whether or not those sources are good enough - my knee-jerk reaction was yes, but I'm not finding it as cut-and-dried as I would have expected. As expected you surprised me - I really didn't think the business-related stuff was significant, but then again I've never seen the dealership.--otherlleft 21:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

note: final result was delete. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highgrove Luxury Condominiums

Is The New York Times article an advertisement since it is located in the real estate section? Cunard (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's legit. They are editorially responsible there also. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you find the article to be promotional, and would that disqualify notability? The "delete" votes are basing deletion off that fact. Cunard (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I commented there and will comment again. I do not find the NYT article at all promotional; I find the Wikipedia article a little promotional, so I edited it a little, as is appropriate for overly promotional articles on notable subjects. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather lost my patience a little in the reply, but it is certainly not targeted at you--I very much appreciate your calling my attention to a place where what I said might need repetition or clarifying even if you do not agree with it. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, which have helped clarify The New York Times source. I fully agree with what you have said at this AfD. Although you recommended that the "delete" votes improve the article, I highly doubt they will do that, so I have done a little editing myself. Cunard (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Searching for sources on journals

While creating the article on the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (which I got onto DYK), I discovered something quite interesting. Google Books doesn't reveal all the sources. Take a look at the results from a Google Books search for "American Journal of Physical Anthropology", here. Note that it says there are 2,210 of them. But if you scroll to the next page, it cuts off at 25. So how did I find the sources to demonstrate notability of the AJPA without resorting to the claim that because some indexing service or another lists it, it must be notable? By searching with an additional word; for example "American Journal of Physical Anthropology" founded which ends at 723 results or "American Journal of Physical Anthropology" influential which ends with result number 90, or with the founder's name. This opens up the Google results somehow. I hope this offers some hope that journals can conform to ordinary WP:PSTS policy in future. If you have a journal which you think should have secondary sources but you couldn't find any, let me know so I can look into it. Abductive (reasoning) 22:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Brief answer: The actual proof of its importance is the Social Science section of Journal Citation Reports, where its impact factor is 2.353, is the third highest in the Anthropology category out of the 61 journals there--that's the conventional 2 year impact factor; the newly available 5 year impact factor there is 2.690, sixth. I have just added the above sentence to the article. The supplemental proof is its status as one of the first anthropological journals, but I need to find that out more exactly, and will check Worldcat or Ulrichs for dates. Additional proof is that it is in 653 worldCat libraries there--and that's primarily the US & Canada. If you also check the european union catalogs in WP:Book sources, you will probably find at least a hundred more. To find the sort of secondary references you were looking for requires a search in indexes dealing with the specific subject field, ones prepared well enough that one can search specifically for items about a journal title, rather than items in that journal or making reference to articles in that journal. G Books, as you found, does not do this. G Scholar claims to do some of this, but does not work as it ought to . Proper work requires proper tools, and they are not free on the web. If I did not have these resources available, I would not work on the subject, as I'd merely be guessing.

But the real way of doing searches of this sort (or any investigation in the humanities --and publishing counts as one of them for the purpose, even if it's science publishing) does not rely only on indexes. There are two other methods that are necessary. The easier one is to use bibliographies--to find books or articles or web sources that are about publishing in general, or publishing in the subject, or how to do research in it, reviews of progress in it, or biographies of workers, or about relevant universities and institutes and museums, and look at the references in them that seems likely--repeat the cycle with the nee sources found until one keeps finding what one has seen already. The harder one is to check systematically every journal, newsletter, or book having anything to do with the subject not just the index, but page by page as well. Continue for everything relevant in several major research libraries in several countries.

Anyone reading this is probably thinking that this is more suitable for a PhD thesis on the subject --or even a career--than for a Wikipedia article, and they're right. This is what we explain to the new graduate students. But anyone can do pieces of it that look like they give a high yield--after a while one gets a feel for that. I've been meaning to do just this with the New Dictionary of Scientific Biography, where at about a hundred places the importance of particular journals are mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

another aspect of this tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'm glad to see you say one should not rely only on indexing services. But I feel that real secondary sources say that the AJPA was selected as one of the 10 most important in the last 100 years, which a two or five year impact factor would never be able to say. Proof of notability is always supplied by secondary sources, not directories. My problem with relying on pure numbers is twofold. First, it will result in unexpandable stubs which just repeat the information in the infobox. Second, such articles don't offer any way to distinguish the important journals from the unimportant ones, and they all start to look the same. People were looking for an article on the American Journal of Physical Anthropology before it existed (page views), more than typically read the average journal's stub. This is why I feel that allowing all these spammy stubs is turning Wikipedia's treatment of journals more and more directory-like. Abductive (reasoning) 01:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is tomorrow's part:

Some preliminaries:

first, I do not see wrong with being able to express all the material of an article in an infobox; the amount of information put in infoboxes is continually increasing, and we are not using them to their full potential. In a sense, it's the goal we are moving towards and why we have infoboxes: tagged data like this is the basis of a semantic wiki. I look forward to the development of interfaces that will permit either a tagged or a prose view of the same material--but semantically tagged data has the advantage of being accessible for analysis, indexing, comparison, and rearrangement. It would be great to be able to easily automatically arrange our journal articles , for example, by date of founding, or alphabetically by editor. such devices as categories are inadequate substitutes.

Second, of course we can distinguish the lower from the higher quality journals. We give the impact factors, the number of articles published, he length of existence, the sponsoring bodies, a link to the editors, the circulation when available, where they are indexed, and all sorts of other information.We can give much more if we do the work: the rank on various lists, the number of holding libraries, the notable articles published, and so on. People can thus use whatever standards of importance they like, for which we can get & include the information.

There is an immense lower level of ostensibly peer-reviewed avcademic journals that nobody judging for an objective standpoint really thinks notable. There are also increasingly many new journals, most of which will never become notable. I'm not arguing for including all of them. In general, nobody but their publishers do so argue, and we should and do deal with them like other similar things.

A good case can be made for including every journal listed in a WP article, notable or not, as a special exception, so that people have some basis for judging the relative reliability of the sources. This is a somewhat different approach than our usual one, and the implication for the /e are sufficiently far-reaching that I am not going to discuss it here and now, to avoid confusing the issue..

More generally:

you and I see the entire general question of notability differently. I've given my general views before, but as applied to this subject: I think the GNG and related sourcing criteria for notability criteria are just a rough guide, to be used only when nothing specific can be found. In this case there is something measurable and relevant to be found, which outside of Wikipedia has reasonable correlation with other measures of notability used in the subject, and remains the primary criterion used by scientists and librarians--notability is judged by the standards of the subject field. Numbers are the only accurate way of evaluating anything. Otherwise we have only mere verbiage, which people necessarily use for things they cannot measure, but should not use for things that they can measure. I shouldn't say "mere", because most of the important things in human life are things we cannot measure. A great many of the things in the world, however, we can. Whenever we can measure , we should. Even if we're going to continue the analysis in terms of emotional impact or philosophical concepts, the data are the basis on which we can discuss the values.

The GNG is not "proof" of notability and nowhere in the guideline does it say it is. It says it provides the "presumption" of notability -- "presumes" is a word somewhere in the middle between "guess" and "demonstrate". The concept behind the guideline, though is sensible, & has considerable merit: for many thing (including scientific journals), notability can generally be determined by seeing if people have paid attention to something. Sometimes (including for scientific journals), we can measure the amount of attention they pay by abstract reproducible numerical criteria. The notability of an academic journal is in terms of the function of a journal, which is to provide citable information to other academics, and this can be measured, and is the impact factor (or other related measures). As Samuel Johnson said (18 April 1783) "' That, Sir, is the good of counting. It brings every thing to a certainty, which before floated in the mind indefinitely.' " [8]

The reason must have inclusion criterion is that they help the reader, by including what might be expected to be in an encyclopedia and excluding the stuff that nobody reasonable would expect to find in one. The difficulty here is that there has never been an encyclopedia like this one, and it is hard to say what the readers expect. We could justify by this fundamental purpose covering any degree of triviality--if we could do it while avoiding spam and promotionalism and POV, which are the three really key things a reader does not want to find in a reference work. Within those limits, the reader is best served by knowing what will be found-- thus, we include the biography of every fully professional athlete, every piece of popular music that charts, every fatal general aviation accident, every railroad station, and so on. We've extended it to less obvious situations by general consensus less than a guideline but that nonetheless is a practical working rule: every secondary school, every settlement. We may include other athletes and other music and other schools, but this requires special justification, for which public attention plays a very large part. I wish we could could find such rules for as many classes of articles as possible, to eliminate the need to decide individually whether to include thousands of articles, and instead have the time to write and improve them. (We decide at AfD on inclusion of 1000 articles a week--think instead if we could use the effort to write that number of articles.)

I intend to continue work on this topic along the path of the essay Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). It is an essay, not a guideline, because of the ability of a minority view to prevent consensus on guidelines. Fortunately for our ability to decide anything, that does not prevent actual working consensus at AfD or elsewhere. Although you did not support it as a guideline, I still hope to convince you to agree with me. I think this a subject I understand, and, although I say at the top of my user page "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience," I do not think of you as an opponent. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have been converted by me in the past on other topics. I do generally agree with you, but the problem is not our differing interpretations, it is the people who add articles that should not be there. Then, you tend to argue for keeping at AfD some journals that really should be deleted, perhaps because you fear setting a precedent. At the same time, you make statements that I wish I could agree with, if they were made part of WP:Notability (academic journals) and enforced. For example, you say that any journal that has an impact factor is notable. I would be willing to say that any journal that has an impact factor greater than 2 is notable, or even greater than 1 if that would get a compromise. You say that listing in Scopus is evidence of notability, then muse that Scopus' standards seem to have declined lately. I view this whole issue as being in flux, and my nominations are of what I consider to be the worst offenders. It would be nice if you could trust me a little bit more on this, as I do not envision the deletion of very many articles on journals. Abductive (reasoning) 17:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As for your work on journals, I agree 90% of the time. Considering we're approaching it so differently, it does imply a considerable measure of practical consensus.

I try to argue at AfD in any field for keeping articles for which there is a reasonable chance of suitability, & I support the Wikipedia policy that if is on the balance, the default is to keep. My emphasis has always been on keeping content first, and improving it as we can. As for Scopus, they've changed; though Scopus has always tried to cover more journals than WoS, at present, they've overdone it--most conspicuously, with some new open access titles. It's not that I'm musing about it--I can plainly tell that they've gone wrong. & after I get their full explanation and discuss some examples with them, if I think appropriate I will write in the RW something about it. (I've had many previous talks with their people over the years, & I am starting a new discussions with them about it, for I think they are lowering the quality of the index.) You may have noticed that I no longer argue that Scopus alone shows notability. Any journal ISI finds worthy of being in JCR is in my view unquestionably notable as a sufficient sole consideration, I very strongly disagree with you that only journals with high impact factors are notable. -- (incidentally, if you were to think about such a consideration, you should in any case do it as rank within subject--fields differ widely: IF 1 in botany is much more significant than in molecular biology; there;'s an additional complication that in some fields JCR covers in much greater depth than others--it is lamentably weak in the applied social sciences, and in the area of classical biology as in other diffuse fields there are many journals any specialist would regard as important that they do not cover). It might not be entirely irrational to say that in some subjects the bottom 10% are not automatically notable, though I think it much more rational to say they all are. ) As a librarian I was rather selective & ruthlessly cancelled subscriptions to titles that were not used locally--but $ are finite, unlike Wikipedia.

Now, to speculate: sure, the notability of journals in Wikipedia is in flux, but I think & hope it's in flux towards being more inclusive. The questions is how much more inclusive than the current standard to be--as I mentioned way above, I am considering supporting the idea that any journal used as a reference in Wikipedia should have an article, whether or not notable). Our purpose is to help the reader. To quote Samuel Johnson again, when asked if he would include in his Lives of the Poets any poet the publishers wanted, however much of a dunce he might be, Johnson replied, "Yes, and say that he was a dunce." NPOV is a basic principle. N is not. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Note sure I "get" something

I'm not sure I understand your criterion that is set out in this discussion, and elsewhere. (See my question there.) What am I missing? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see also you tried to make this part of the guidelines here. I think we would need a discussion about that prior to doing so, since it seems to make little logical sense, unless we're trying to completely change the standard to one in which all populated award categories are OK. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I see you indeed did start a discussion about it. I've taken my concern there. (Imagine! Someone actually starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. It boggles the mind!) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

RE your edit, if you have found some sources, please add them. I couldn't find any, hence the prod. - MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They're even in Google, with this search, if you look down patiently and check the links to see where they are coming from-- e.g. this one from Cornell is the 41st item in the list, and there are similar in that position and lower. I have sometimes checked many hundred to find the right reference for Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:Penwhale#.22.5BJack_Merridew.5D_does_not_bait_me_or_you--he_baits_those_susceptible_to_it.2C_and_is.2C_I_must_admit.2C_very_skilled_at_this.22

I quoted you. Ikip 13:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

Hi, I was trying to create a redirect from Journal of Thermal Analysis (a former title) to this article, but that page is for some reason restricted to admins. Could you please do this? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone fixed it in the last 3 min, I don't think that was the case—created the rd. ^Bongo_matic 07:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, somehow I got a warning message... --Crusio (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, never say you weren't warned . . . ^Bongo_matic 07:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for leaving your comments at Wikipedia: Village pump regarding my proposal to tighten up WP: Prof.I did not really think there was any problem with the article on Hjalmar Sunden; no one ever suggested deletion of it, I was just using this example as a case in point of how we might make WP: Prof a little less vague. I was interested you mentioned something called "WorldCat". It seems that in my discipline, services available years ago (such as systems where you could type words in a computer to find out published books) are less accessible now in these days of the World Wide Web (I think I was thinking of Psychinfo or something like that). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

They are accessible, but only in major libraries. But you are in a university, so they should be available. PsychInfo is still there, [9] and does include books, and gives a narrower level of subject indexing. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarah de Guademar

Thanks for chiming in on that article (original Sarah E. Meyer). The clarification on unsourced vs. unsourceable is excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougluce (talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee is bullying and threatening an editor about removing PROD tags

As an admin can you look at this please? I message a couple of other admins too. User_talk:Power.corrupts#Warning. Ikip 05:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Midwest Book Review

Hi, I wonder if I could ask you to have another look at the article Midwest Book Review and the discussion thereon. I admit that my own comments have not been as temperate as they might have been, but I have some real concerns about the peremptory actions of the user who seems to have assumed ownership of this page, and about the fact that it looks more and more like a press release from MBR. Thanks. Skookumpete (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I hope you are doing well. I have concerns about Skookumpete (talk · contribs) ignoring site policy - and arguing instead to attempt to re-mold the page in-line with personal opinion and talk page complaints - as opposed to citing sources. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I';ve made some comments on the talk p. there. If they don;t help enough , I am considering rewriting it. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The comments are helpful, I will reply there. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My hope was more in the direction of persuading you to rewrite some of those paragraphs. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Which ones? Cirt (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, I was trying to you a hint that your approach to this is in my opinion somewhat unbalanced, and perhaps a little over-enthusiastic. I'll look at it again tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the advice. But I have to admit that I have put in a bit of time into researching the subject matter. However, if you could come up with any additional sources to add to the article - I would very much appreciate that. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad Cirt (talk · contribs) has put me in my place as a "random user." I guess my 40+ years as an editor and writer don't entitle me to contribute to Wikipedia.

As for "ignoring site policy," yes I have expressed opinions on the talk page, and yes I have learned about properly sourcing contributions, but the two changes I have recently attempted to make to the article itself were both in accordance with policy as I read it. The first was a simple, important, and properly documented fact. The second was the deletion of a lede paragraph that -- yes, in my opinion -- gave undue emphasis to material in the body of the article, in fact simply duplicating rather than summarizing it.

Cirt (talk · contribs) continues to insist that the weight given to the documented reception of MBR cannot be reconsidered unless a properly sourced alternative view is provided. This is special pleading. If I can give an analogy, this is as if someone wrote an article about me, and in that article was a "Reception" section (essentially repeated in the lede) that cited the three or four places where my work has been named in footnotes and bibliographies, all of which would be evidence of my importance in the literary establishment. Cirt (talk · contribs) would evidently argue that it would not even be appropriate to discuss the importance of that matter unless someone could come up with a reliable source that stated "Skookumpete is an insignificant hack." Let's get real. Skookumpete (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked for Skookumpete to present WP:RS sources supporting his viewpoints. He has ignored these requests and failed to do so. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have said above, I will look at it again tomorrow. Cirt, I've sent you an email. Skookumpete, I would like to do so also. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied, thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for doing this. I think I have enabled my e-mail now; was not aware of this feature. Skookumpete (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hartmut Esslinger

Thanks for setting me straight and picking up the ball I dropped. I should have known better--BaliUltimate and JBSupreme (interesting, those modifiers in their names) in the edit history of a BLP means valuable stuff may have been cut. Anyway, thanks; I appreciate your due diligence and I mourn my lack thereof. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

JB's other recent contributions also need some attention--I've checked only the ones where I feel I have sufficient subject competence. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sympathy of Interest

I was struck by your comments at WP:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat and realised that you are a librarian. The whole sad AIP business has made me think hard about how we treat those editors who are the target of WP:GLAM, as I don't think that page does the job we want it to. The more I've thought about it, the more I'm forced to the conclusion that we actually need to provide special treatment for them. There are a lot of people out there who actually have the same goals as wikipedia does, and I suspect we are intellectually arrogant to act as if only wikipedia was in the business of spreading free knowledge. What I think I mean, is that we should have a concept of "Sympathy of Interest" – the antithesis to Conflict of Interest. When new editors are identified as having SoI, surely we should be doing everything possible to encourage them to contribute? Perhaps require other editors to make an absolute assumption of good faith (not the conditional WP:AGF that we use now).

I know I'm "preaching to the choir" here, but I'd appreciate any thoughts you had on what I'm suggesting. Am I hopelessly over-optimistic that we could adopt a SoI policy one day? --RexxS (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen too much spam here--even from organizations that should know better, some of them being libraries, to suggest an automatic assumption of good faith. Some change in what we need is attitude:

1. to actually mean our AGF, rather than assume a high level of suspicion. This goes for all editors, not just GLAM.
2. to not act precipitously. This goes for all editors also--but there is the problem that we do sometimes need to stop people from continuing until the matter can be discussed. I have a few times myself blocked people from institutions, in order to convince those contributors to discuss what they are doing.
3. to have a greater sympathy generally with academic interests and organizations. There is first the general cultural bias, especially in the US, of not taking academic interests seriously, particularly in the humanities. Additionally a great many Wikipedians are students, and unfortunately students frequently have, often for good reason, some lack of positive feelings towards the educational system.
4. to recognize that the ways in which other organizations and professions work have a rationale of their own, and there may be some adjustment needed eon both sides when working with others. We should not assume that we have everything perfect. Equally, we need to be realistic that some people who in other settings who are used to having their authority respected and cannot adjust to us, may possibly not be well suited for our project.

In addition we need

1. some way of identifying people coming from institutions quickly, and then bringing in people to help them who know both when and how to intervene. Often the best way of doing this is off-wiki, and I have when needed contacted both academics and publishers directly. I am considering how to deal with this in the text of WP:GLAM to emphasize this.
2. an appropriate policy change, to one supporting role accounts for institutions upon approval, perhaps by the bureaucrats, who are responsible for other naming problems that take discretion and judgment. this would provide a good way to identify them early. Like many changes here, it will take a good deal of patient urging.

The conventional place for notices about this is the COI noticeboard, although it is mainly looked at by people having exaggerated ideas of what constitutes COI and spamming. Another channel of communication is the wikipedia-en list; I suppose I must also mention IRC, though many people, including myself, choose to never participate there. I urge anyone who thinks they have been treated unfairly to contact me. I can at least give them advice on whether what they want to do is reasonable, and if so, how to do it without raising unnecessary antagonism. What I of course cannot do is guarantee success in convincing others . DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

David Goodman's Projects

I wish you well on your current projects
1. Rescuing worthy speedies & prods in all fields & discussing the procedure. As of Jan 2010, I have at least succeeded in changed the time from 5 days to 7 to allow fairer notice and better discussion.
2. keeping articles about academics & academic organizations from deletion.
3. upgrading "list of journals in .." and "...open access journals"
4. adding articles for major ref. sources
5. keeping important "in popular culture" articles from deletion, and upgrading their content
6. Changing AfD to "Articles for Discussion" and considering all good faith disputed merges and redirect there also. As of Jan. 2010, this is about to be adopted.
7. making some possible changes to speedy deletion criteria. I have been reluctant to add to the work at Del Rev by appealing the many incorrect speedies I come across but which are for articles that have no chance of surviving AfD, but perhaps we really should be doing this to make the teaching point.

Btw what is your email ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polysophia (talk • contribs) 03:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi DGG, I would like to invite you to A discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editor's lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to participate in closed projects at Wikipedia ; I have always opposed this way of doing things here. I'm not even going to watchlist it. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Bravo! This sort of thing truly pisses me off. "By invitation only": what a bunch of horseshit. BillWvbailey (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored template) DGG, I'm sorry for any perception that I wished the discussion to be exclusive. I welcome input from any concerned editor. Ikip 18:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, I think you will really like my response! User:Ikip/Discussion_about_creation_of_possible_Wikiproject:New_Users_and_BLPs#Organize.21 Ikip 15:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You may have missed the response:

User:Ikip/Discussion_about_creation_of_possible_Wikiproject:New_Users_and_BLPs#Organize.21

I would respond myself, but you are better with words :) Ikip 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Single-source citation templates

I asked some questions at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_23#Template:EGA_I, which I hope you will be able to answer.

Thanks. —Dominus (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist)

Do you care one way or the other any more? Bearian (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments at the AfD. I hope that you don't consider my contact of you as canvassing. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

as you couldn't have known what I would say, of course it was not. In general I do not consider notifying me of a discussion to be canvassing, as I am very open to changing my opinion if there is a good argument for doing so--or even if I think more carefully about the problem. ` DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Food_and_Chemical_Toxicology

Opinions? PubMed listed, but its reliability has been questioned. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Question re: your response about Food and Chemical Toxicology

Hi DGG. Noticed your post at WP:RSN regarding Food and Chemical Toxicology. I'm impressed by the indexing and ranking info you dug up. Is there a search engine somewhere that spits out those statistics, or do you have to go to each of the abstracting services websites individually and see whether they include a journal. This is information that I've looked for in the past, and I even started to compile resources for looking this stuff up here. It would be great to know if there is a one stop shop for this stuff. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I use Ulrichs -- it's not a free database, but all large libraries should have it. it is very reliable and inclusive for the purpose of getting basic facts about journals, and is librarian's one stop source. If you do not have access to it, I'll gladly run searches. Note that what I presented is a summary--Ulrichs not only includes every possible service however specialized, but it also includes redundant versions and services which are subsections of larger services

FWIW, the full list of indexing service for this journal in Ulrichs exactly as listed without removing duplicates is :

• Document Delivery Services
  • British Library Document Supply Centre (3977.026900)
  • C I S T I
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C N R S), Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique (INIST)
  • Chemical Abstracts Service Document Detective Service
  • German National Library of Medicine
  • Information Express
  • Infotrieve
  • IngentaConnect
  • Linda Hall Library of Science, Engineering & Technology, Document Delivery Services
  • Thomson Reuters
• Abstracting & Indexing Sources(active, electronic):
  • Abstracts on Hygiene and Communicable Diseases
  • Academic OneFile (3/2004-)
  • Academic Search Alumni Edition (1/1/2002-)
  • Academic Search Complete (1/1/2002-)
  • Academic Search Premier (1/1/2002-)
  • AgBiotech News and Information
  • AGRICOLA (AGRIcultural OnLine Access) (Dec.1968, v.6, n.6-)
  • Agricultural Engineering Abstracts
  • Agroforestry Abstracts (Online)
  • Aluminum Industry Abstracts (coverage dropped)
  • Analytical Abstracts (coverage dropped)
  • Animal Breeding Abstracts
  • Aqualine Abstracts
  • Aquatic Sciences & Fisheries Abstracts
  • ArticleFirst (vol.28, no.1, 1990-vol.47, no.12, 2009)
  • BIOBASE (vol.34, 1996-)
  • Biocontrol News and Information
  • Biological Abstracts
  • BIOSIS Previews
  • Biotechnology & Bioengineering Abstracts
  • Botanical Pesticides Abstracts
  • C A B Abstracts (Online)
  • C S A Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts (Cambridge Scientific Abstracts) (coverage dropped)
  • Ceramic Abstracts (coverage dropped)
  • Chemical Abstracts
  • Chemical Hazards in Industry
  • Chemical Safety NewsBase
  • Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Journal (coverage dropped)
  • Corrosion Abstracts (coverage dropped)
  • Crop Physiology Abstracts
  • Current Abstracts (Jan.2002-)
  • Current Awareness in Biological Sciences
  • Current Contents
  • Dairy Science Abstracts
  • Derwent Biotechnology Abstracts
  • EBSCOhost
    • Academic Search Alumni Edition: indexed, 2002-02-01 - present
    • Academic Search Complete: indexed, 2002-02-01 - present
    • Academic Search Premier: indexed, 2002-02-01 - present
    • Academic Search Research & Development: indexed, 2002-02-01 - present
    • Academic Source Complete: indexed, 2002-02-01 - present
    • Academic Source Premier: indexed, 2002-02-01 - present
    • EBSCO Food Science Source: indexed, 2002-02-01 - present
    • EBSCOhost MegaFILE: indexed, 2002-02-01 - present
    • Environment Complete: indexed, 2002-02-01 - present
    • TOC Premier: indexed, 2002-02-01 - present
  • Electronics and Communications Abstracts Journal (coverage dropped)
  • Elsevier
    • SCOPUS: indexed, 1982 - present
  • EMBASE
  • Engineered Materials Abstracts (coverage dropped)
  • Environment Complete (1/1/2002-)
  • Environment Index (6/1/1973-12/1/1981)
  • Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management
  • Excerpta Medica. Abstract Journals
  • Field Crop Abstracts
  • Food Science and Technology Abstracts
  • Forest Products Abstracts
  • Forestry Abstracts
  • Gale Group (Cengage Learning)
    • Academic OneFile: indexed, 2004-03 - present
    • Expanded Academic ASAP (with Ingenta): indexed, 1995-01-01 - present
    • InfoTrac Custom: indexed, 2004-03 - present
    • InfoTrac OneFile (with Ingenta): indexed, 1995-01-01 - present
    • Ingenta: indexed, 1995-01 - present
  • Global Health
  • Grasslands and Forage Abstracts
  • Helminthological Abstracts
  • Horticultural Science Abstracts
  • I B Z - Internationale Bibliographie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriftenliteratur
  • Index Veterinarius
  • InfoTrac Custom (3/2004-)
  • Internationale Bibliographie der Rezensionen Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlicher Literatur
  • Laboratory Hazards Bulletin
  • Maize Abstracts (Online)
  • Materials Business File (coverage dropped)
  • MEDLINE
  • METADEX (coverage dropped)
  • Microbiology Abstracts
  • Nematological Abstracts
  • Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews
  • Nutrition Research Newsletter
  • Organic Research Database
  • Ornamental Horticulture
  • Pig News & Information
  • Plant Breeding Abstracts
  • Plant Genetic Resources Abstracts
  • Pollution Abstracts
  • Postharvest News and Information
  • Potato Abstracts
  • Poultry Abstracts
  • Protozoological Abstracts
  • R A P R A Abstracts (Rubber and Plastics Research Association) (1927-)(1982-1984)
  • Reactions Weekly
  • Referativnyi Zhurnal
  • Review of Agricultural Entomology & Review of Medical and Veterinary Entomology
  • Review of Aromatic and Medicinal Plants
  • Review of Medical and Veterinary Mycology
  • Review of Plant Pathology
  • Rice Abstracts
  • Science Citation Index Expanded
  • Scopus (1965-1981)
  • Seed Abstracts
  • Soils and Fertilizers
  • Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts (coverage dropped)
  • Soybean Abstracts (Online)
  • Sugar Industry Abstracts
  • Swets Information Services
    • SwetsWise All Titles: indexed, 1995 - present (volume:33;issue:1-volume:47;issue:10)
  • TOC Premier (Table of Contents) (1/1/2002-)
  • Toxicology Abstracts
  • Tropical Diseases Bulletin
  • Veterinary Bulletin
  • Veterinary Science Database
  • Vitis - Viticulture and Oenology Abstracts (Online)
  • Weed Abstracts
  • Wheat, Barley and Triticale Abstracts
  • World Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Abstracts
  • World Surface Coating Abstracts
• Abstracting & Indexing Sources (active, print-only): Abstracts of Mycology
  • Mass Spectrometry Bulletin (coverage dropped)
  • World Ceramics Abstracts (coverage dropped)
• Abstracting & Indexing Sources(active, other):
  • Index to Scientific Reviews
  • Personal Alert (E-mail)
  • Abstracting & Indexing Sources (ceased):
  • Arbeitsmedizin
  • Bibliography of Agriculture
  • C S A Neurosciences Abstracts (Online) (Cambridge Scientific Abstracts)
  • Chemical Industry Notes
  • Chemical Titles
  • Current Packaging Abstracts
  • Faba Bean Abstracts
  • Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Online)
  • Index Medicus (1982-)
  • Index to Dental Literature
  • Inpharma Weekly (coverage dropped)
  • Packaging Science and Technology Abstracts

Most journals also list all the relevant indexing services somewhere on their promotional material, and that too is reasonably reliable

But there is also a fairly new service from JISC, thr UK academic library cooperative: Academic Database Evaluations Tool which includes a number of databases. The ones it includes (not limited to those listing this journal)

• Bibliographic Databases:
  • BIOSIS Previews (1969 - present) A
  • British Education Index
  • British Humanities Index (BHI)
  • Compendex
  • EconLit
  • Embase
  • GEOBASE
  • International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)
  • MLA International Bibliography
  • Scopus
  • Sociological Abstracts
  • Web of Science
  • Zetoc (BLL tables of contents)
• Full Text Databases (what I call aggregators, and the different indexes for each company are different subsets of their total collection)
  • ABI/INFORM (Proquest)
  • Academic Onefile (Gale)
  • Academic Search Complete (Ebsco)
  • Academic Search Premier (Ebsco )
  • Business Source Complete (Ebsco,)
  • Business Source Premier (Ebsco)
  • General Onefile About (Gale)
  • SocINDEX with Full Text (Ebsco)
  • Wilson OmniFile Full Text, Mega Edition

It would have given me some of this information (Embase, PubMed, Scopus, WoS) . It would not have included the two key indexing services, Chemical Abstracts and Agricola. In other subjects, it omits some of the really basic ones, such as PsychInfo and Lexis--but it';s a convenient starting point.

I will add some more major freely accessible lists I know about relevant to what you are doing to your page. I appreciate what you are doing there. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer. It's too bad it's not a free resource, though I wouldn't really expect that comprehensive to be free. Thanks for your offer to run searches. And please, by all means, contribute to my subpage if you are so inclined. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 30#International Free and Open Source Software Law Review

In light of the nominator's words, does International Free and Open Source Software Law Review pass Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)? I'm inclined to vote restore but am not sure that it has established notability. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

can;t imagine how I missed this DR. Commented now., Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for finding the source. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Worldcat

How do you make worldcat give you that list of "works by" and "works mentioning"? I can't seem to find where that is on there. Gigs (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That is WorldCat Identities. You can get there directly at [10]; but if the name is common, you then have to select from a list of possibilities, and select the right one. Try James Watson. You'll get [11] Size of type is proportional to relative number of books and libraries holding them. He's the 2nd entry in the list. [12]] To see the complete list, click the small arrows "more". The number of library holdings given here sometimes combines all editions, sometimes does not. There's a list of translated languages at the right.

But there's also an indirect way, Find any one book by the person--I often do that by searching for title. Searching "Molecular Biology of the Gene", take the first edition listed, and you should get [13] Scroll down to "Details", where you see "Find more information about": and select it. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Gigs (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I really don't want to do something like that. I've already had a lot of trouble with admins that go out of process and I wouldn't like to repeat it in a case like this because all that it did was make me look bad. Which it might me look bad again because of the whole unreferenced BLP issue. Joe Chill (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess there is some advantage in already being an admin in terms of self-protection. :) given that I've already said a good deal, I will appeal Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dillon Dougherty if nobody else does--I think that close one of the worst of the year. So far--admittedly, 90% of the year is still to come. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting close - it looks like the closing admin invoked a nonexistent policy, is my read on that off-base?--otherlleft 23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The policy applicable to that close is WP:POINT. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Political candidates

Hi there. I noticed you participated in the Articles for Deletion discussion for Graham Jones (politician). I have started a discussion regarding a consensus position for candidates in legislative elections (by way of amending WP:POLITICIAN, in case you are interested in putting forward your views there. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI....

[[14]] :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OUTCOMES

Howdy! After reading Wikipedia:OUTCOMES I don't see where you understood that all secondary schools are inherently notable. The closest related statement I found is

Schools are frequently nominated for deletion. Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. See WP:ORG.

As the OUTCOMES page states these are not policies. The schools that I nominated all seem to be not particularly notable. Having 25 students in a building does not make for notability to my mind. I would like to understand why you feel these schools are notable. You may also want to see the discussion on this matter on WP:JUDAISM and weigh in over there.

Once we are sure we understand each other we can discuss restoring PROD, moving to AFD, or just dropping the topic completely. Thank you for your help, Joe407 (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What matters for practical purposes is what the community feels. Every secondary school that can be demonstrated to be in real existence, present or past, has been kept at AfD for at least the last 2 years, though a few have been nominated either to test the consensus, or by those who did not realize it. The reason for this is that in practice we can find sufficient material to show about 95% of them notable by our usual guidelines, and it is not worth having elaborate and time-wasting debates to exclude the other 5%. Any established school will have some notable alumni; will have some athletic victories; will usually have won some academic competitions and placed either high or low in some academic standings; the decision to found a school will normally be discussed in news sources or in sources about the founding group or agency; the construction of the school will have been a major project, and also have resulted in public information; the appointment of the successive heads will have been newsworthy; the school will have been a place where some noteworthy things have happened. Any of these is enough for notability, and it is extremely rare that some of this cannot be found.

When Wikipedia was started it was sometimes difficult to find such material with the limited research facilities most people here were able and willing to use, for it required research in local print libraries--and very few Wikipedians have proven willing to use libraries at all, or anything not freely and obviously available on the internet. But now with the growth of Gbooks and g news such material is in fact widely and freely available on the internet, and anyone who looks carefully will find it. The information is perhaps more readily available in some countries, like the US, than in others, but the basic principle remains, that the material will always be available.

As for what I think, when I first came here, I did not understand this, but I soon realised that the attempts to distinguish just which schools were below the bar for the thousands of them was a useless enterprise, when almost none of them really failed it. Any attempt to discriminate would make more errors than it corrected. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of what is important--we are not equipped to do this. All we can do is include information that might be of value to someone about those things which can reasonably be considered to be of some importance. We are not an abridged encyclopedia.

The question is whether yeshivas count. All other religious schools do, even small ones. If they serve the purpose of a secondary school, it does not matter what subject they teach. It would be prejudicial to omit those of one particular religion.

I recognize the special nature of some of these schools as branches of others. The rule that we have been applying is that a separate campus is not a separate organization, but a separate administration is. If the school has a headmaster, it is separate. If the school operates in cooperation or under the very general supervision of another institutions it is still separate: most schools operate in such a manner--in the US secular world, a superintendent or a school district; for Catholic schools, either the diocese or the founding order. I think the founding order situation might be the closest analogy.

This applies to schools, not schoolmasters. In the general opinion here, which I share, headmasters are rarely notable, except for famous schools. Many articles on Roshi Yeshivas have been deleted except when they can be shown individually distinctive or the school famous.

As to the promotional nature of some articles, a factual article is not promotional but descriptive. Information about academic standing is not normally considered promotional, if presented fairly and reasonably, and neither are lists of famous teachers and alumni. When a school article contains promotional material, or information not of encyclopedic interest--such as how to apply--we simply remove it from the article--I do this to almost half of the school articles I encounter.

For institutes of higher education, the same rules apply, though the distinction is made between vocational schools and those that grant degrees. One of the articles nominated is on a kollel, As I understand it, this name could refer to a wide range of possibilities, so I'm taking this to AfD; I don't recall we have discussed one previously DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well argued. Thank you for your thoughts. I recall a comment on one of the policy pages that as a community we are better served by having no article on a given topic than a biased and poor one. In many cases I would tend in this direction. I am ok with editing down these articles of any and all promotional, POV, OR, and un-sourced statement but in most cases we will end up with a large number of stubs. If that much. In many cases the entire entry is OR and lacking RS. How do you propose to deal with those? Joe407 (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There indeed has been such a suggestion, but if it had been followed, we would not have an encyclopedia. Articles grow: Just take a look at the early history of any article. This is what Yeshiva University looked like at the start in 2002.

These articles will grow when people work on them: motivated either by familiarity with the subject to expand out knowledge, or by inquiry about the subject to look for information to add to ours. Most of us are here because we came for information, and realized we could add to it. There is need for deletion, but much more need for addition. Deletion is easier: I have deleted 7 articles so far today, but only been able to rewrite a single one substantially. My advice is to source what you can; it is folly to remove what is not harmful merely because you at present cannot source it: I have found references for many unlikely articles, but where I have failed, others have often succeeded. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Let's see if people are able to add to these. I think that the OR is endemic. As an example I went to Birchas_chaim and edited it down to "Just the facts". As you can see in this diff, I left some OR and unsourced stuff. The article would have been naked without it. Do you think I should remove the OR? Joe407 (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are asking me if you should remove "The curriculum is mainly the Talmudic texts and commentary. It also includes Chumash, and Halachah." Tell me, do you truly think this unsourceable, that there has never been a published statement to this effect? Do you consider the statement likely to be false? Do you consider it to be damaging? DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence "It was founded by Rabbi Shmuel Zalmen Stein in 2001, after his father, Rabbi Chaim Stein, asked him to open a branch of Telz Yeshiva in Lakewood.". It seems a classic case of OR.

I'd also comment that looking at the article now, what makes it notable? The fact that it exists?? Are there any assertions of notability given about the subject that come from a RS? I don't see any. Joe407 (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, again I ask you, do there has never been a published statement to this effect? Have you checked for material on these rabbis? Do you consider the statement likely to be false? Do you consider it to be damaging? Have you checked for material on these rabbis that might contain this information? This is a little more interesting because it brings us into BLP territory, and so think, equally wrongly, hat every unsourced statement involving a living person should be removed. I agree that this should apply to every potentially damaging statement, and should be interpreted broadly, but I think this a classic example of what should not come under this rule.

As for notability, I've already given my argument. How is Wikipedia the better for its removal? More especially, how is Wikipedia the better for spending effort trying to remove borderline articles rather than doing more positive writing, such as the good writing in the area you have been doing? One may possibly think that it makes the more important organizations look insignificant because their articles are no fuller or better than the less important. That concerns me also--we do not really have rules about this, relying on common sense, which is sometimes lacking. The solution is to try to find more additional material on the more important subjects. That said, I often find it satisfying to remove some junk, just to get started each day, but If you want to remove articles, look for the utter junk at the very bottom. New Pages has a good deal of it, and the unsourced BLPs offer many opportunities this way. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks for the discussion. Joe407 (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Pierce Biotechnology

Fair enough. :-)

Please could you restore the page, as it needs to be an admin who does that? (I can't access the relevant archive pages.) thisisace (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Maybe you can comment at the SambaStream AfD. It involves as source a trade journal, Information Today, Inc., which should be familiar to you. Pcap ping 18:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ariadne (Web magazine)

Hi David, could you have a look at this one? Is it an academic journal or a "professional and trade magazine"? Thanks, Wim --Crusio (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Both; it is to some extent a non-commercial European-focus digital-library equivalent of Library Journal, but with a much greater focus on article content, rather than the mainly news and book review focus of LJ. They call it a magazine because it has no formal peer review, and librarians try very hard to make the distinction. but it does have very consistent editorial policy about quality and content. Many of the articles are at least as good as those in the library periodicals, although they usually describe the results of major projects, not formal academic research studies. They have the authority of the contributor and the editor and to some extent the sponsoring bodies, who are UKOLN, [15] "a research organisation" possibly the best such one in the library profession, (that should have an article) UKOLN is funded by MLA, the UK Museums, Libraries and Archives Council & JISC , the[[ Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) of the Higher Education Funding Councils, and is thus a NGO, though I never thought of it that way. Though published from the University of Bath, it was never even at the start in the least a local periodical. I take its work very seriously, and would cite its articles just like a journal, as does everyone else I know in the profession. I will expand the article.

There is, btw, a rather similar US periodical D-Lib, also technically a magazine but for all practical purposes a journal--D-Lib and the purely research-oriented JASIS are my personal main professional sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

ceived this message. Magioladitis (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This was not an error, nor does it reflect laziness. This was a valid removal of an incorrectly applied template. There is no onus on the reviewer of speedy nominations to inquire further when a rationale is incorrect, though this particular administrator frequently does. I "realized" it when I saw the note on this talk page and did a little sniffing around. This is a collaborative effort, and we all do our different things (although DGG does a larger amount of a wider variety of things than many). The great thing about this place is if you don't like the way someone else is doing things, you can always do it yourself. ^Bongo_matic 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

as I see it, there is an onus on every user to deal with vandalism and attack pages--if a non-admin to tag it, if an admin to delete it. A hoax often is regarded as vandalism, though this one had been around for over 2 years. There is indeed some real junk in the unsourced BLPs. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You certainly do, DGG. I do as well. Like Virginia Wolfe, let's not have our ideas forced into a corporate or sociopolitical mold but instead exercise our first- and second-amendment rights over at that AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Two academic journals from India

I noticed articles created by another editor for two journals published in India which may not be notable, Indian Journal of Botanical Research and Indian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research. The articles may have been deleted by the time you see this message. A handful of citations show up at Google Scholar but not the journals themselves. I don't have access to Ulrich's online. If you think they might be notable, please add any evidence for that to the articles. Many thanks. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

as the only way to delete them would be PROD, they'll be here for time enough to look carefully. DGG ( talk ) 12:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Problematic AfD relistings.

Once again, Spartaz has relisted a fictional AfD that has overwhelming consensus to keep: Last time was Technology in Stargate at 8 to 3, this time it's Unseen University at 6 to 2. Gotta say, I don't see this as a positive and productive trend. What do you think--am I being too paranoid? Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes i'd say you were and how come you didn't discuss either action with me before going to complain to someone else? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It's called "perception checking"--asking someone else, independent, whose opinion I respect to provide an evaluation of my perception. But, since you're watchlisting this page: Please justify your relistings against keep consensus in both the cases I just cited. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I guess it depends on whether you assess consensus by counting noses or reading arguments. I often relist if I think there is a useful ongoing discussion that it would be a shame to curtail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
      • What "useful ongoing discussion" was underway in either case? In both of these cases, there were at most 2 !votes among 3 total comments in the four days prior to relisting. Considering that's over half the discussion period, I'd be hard pressed to call that ongoing discussion in comparison to the initial few days' of activity. Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz, I am not willing to close a disputed AfD on a fictional topic as keep unless against my own opinion; but if it were most topics I would revert your relisting and do just that. There was a substantial early discussion, in which several of the redirect !votes changed to keep on the basis of the links and arguments presented. Given such a trend of the discussion, I think its pretty clear. Since I had not joined the discussion previously I suppose the way to say this best is to look at the article and go there and give my opinion. But JC, you really should have asked him first. I notice another editor did that just a few minutes after you came here.

But while we're here there a more general issue. You have written a essay to explaining how to appeal your closes User:Spartaz/Rescuing Deleted Content, saying in it you were more deletionist than average. As you say there that you mainly deal with deletion, I assume that means you get a very large number of complaints. Checking against the contributions log, I see that in the period since Jan 12 you closed 26 AfDs as delete to 5 as keep,with 5 as no-consensus or redirect, and 5 as relist. Going back as far as August, you have not closed a single AfD related to fiction as keep. DGG ( talk ) 12:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what your point is DGG but I should say that the relisting may not have been one of my better decisions and I'm not really fussed one way or the other if you want to revert me. On the general point of my closes, bearing in mind that my timezone means that I get to AFDs by the end of the log and therefore have a high proportion of difficult closes in the mix I have a pretty good record of deletions being endorsed at DRV and since I am aware of my biases and am firmly opposed to measuring consensus by headcount rather then assessing arguments I am careful to stick closely to GNG and assessing sourcing in my closing rationale. This is intentionally to counter any personal bias in my assessmeng of consensus. If I were consistently being pulled up by DRV for erroneous closes then I would accept that there was an issue in the way I approached assessing consensus but your comment doesn't really demonstrate there is an issue at all. I'd be interested in your telling me how many of the AFDs I have closed since the start of the year have been fiction related ones and in how many of those it has been demonstrated that my assessment of the consensus was wrong. I think I have closed relatively few AFDs in 2010 so this sample probably isnt representative of my overall approach and, if you looked at a wider sample, I think you would find that the vast majority of my closing of fiction related material has been in accordance with the compromise to merge and consolidate fiction related material rather then deleting it outright when its not properly sourced.

I also think its a pretty low blow to try and use a personal essay that is designed to help users to rescue deleted material as some kind of smoking gun to deter me from closing AFDs at all. I think it would be a very thin wikipedia if we rejected every editor or admin with a personal opinion from closing deletion debates and I would suggest that it is far better to have editors who are aware of their biases and who are honest about it. I get the impression that you would prefer that admins whose opinions you disapprove of should not close AFDs because you don't like the outcomes. I'm not going to recuse because I don't think there is a general problem with my AFD closing and if there were, I would regularly be getting tanked by DRV for getting it wrong. Since I'm not I can't accept that my personal opionions about article inclusion should prevent me from closing AFDs (Fiction related or otherwise) but I am always very open to discussing specific closes if you feel that I made a mistake. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason we're here (or would instead be at your talk page, had you not joined the discussion here) is because I saw an issue twice, and commented on it. Are relistings subject to DRV? I don't even know, because this issue hasn't gotten to the point where a DRV is appropriate. It's a discussion at this point, as it should be. I'm glad to know you don't get overturned at DRV very often, but that's a pretty low threshold given the inertia at DRV. I suspect far less than 1/4 of all contested DRVs are overturned. I personally shoot for, and have maintained to this point, zero overturns at DRV.

No one has asked you to not close anything. All I have asked is that you explain the rationale behind relisting of two separate fictional topics where sources were present in the AfD and 75+% of the !votes were some sort of keep, and the majority of !votes were outright keep. DGG has endorsed my concern in part, and likewise that my venue (raising this here first, vs. at your talk page) was incorrect. Given that there appears to be a trend, it is absolutely appropriate to look at both your past behavior and your personal writings, as you are welcome to look at mine: Wikipedia conduct is public, hence we're unable to have this conversation in private, which is unfortunate.

The fundamental problem as I see it is that you've at least twice relisted something against consensus, but in line with what I presume to be your own personal feelings. You've been given an opportunity to explain both of these specific relistings, but failed to do so with any specificity. I have absolutely no problem with you !voting delete on fictional topics--your personal level of deletionism is far from outside the norm, and is a welcome addition to any conversation. What does concern me, however, is the apparent relisting of discussions on the presumed basis that you don't like the outcome. If that's not the case, then please, take a bit more time and detail and explain the relisting rationale in these specific cases. But if I'm right, all I would ask is that if you see a !vote that's going a way you disagree with, then by all means comment and !vote, rather than relisting against the clear consensus. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think my response to DGG below probably address a measure of your concerns but I did want to acknowledge again that the relisting was a poor decision and let you know that this conversation has given me plenty of food for thought. If I do something off the wall in future you are welcome to leave me a note on my talk page because I do genuinely care about getting the outcome right and, even if its just a sanity check, its something that I can benefit from too. That said, I am generally content with my decision making at AFD and, outside of the Wendy Babcock AFD which was a deliberate breaching experiment to explore the consensus on closing BLP AFDs, I am struggling to remember a recent case where DRV has trouted me for closing a discussion the wrong way. That said, a trawl through the last couple of weeks AFDs does suggest (at least) that I'm at risk of allowing my biases to get the better of me, so I'm going to take a couple of days off AFD closing to give me time to mull over things and properly think through the issues you and DGG have raised. I hope we have come out of this with no hard feelings and better understanding of each other's approaches. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll pile on the apology club--given your response, the outcome clearly would have been better had I just come to you and politely expressed my concerns in the first place. My initial reply, as well, reads as curt and overly direct in light of the subsequent meaningful discussion here. Having said that, in light of your introspection and issue acknowledgement, I don't see this issue as meriting an admin review. If you're genuinely concerned that you have other blind spots that would benefit from additional community feed back, be my guest... but you needn't do this on the basis of this now-resolved (at least in my mind) issue. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz, I seem to have been being irritable yesterday, more than my usual, and I apologize for that. As for your subpage, I actually like it very much, and agree with almost all of it, except the insistence on two sources--I would restore on one if its good enough. But maybe you're right in terms of what advice to give, for, like you, when I advise people, I tell them not how to get things to just squeak by, but tell them to make the article really sound. As to the issue, I think jclemens put it just above perfectly. I'm not sure you noticed the trend. That's sometimes what friends on the other side are for. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the subpage and, while I'm not surprised that we have a slightly different perception of the threashold for inclusion, I'm pleased that you generally agree with the content. I think most admins who regularly close AFds could benefit from something similar in their own area - not just because of the relief it gives in focusing challenges against AFD closes but also because we should all be honest about where we stand in the deletion range. Openess and honesty are one of the most effective ways of dispelling suspicion and bad feelings that I know. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am also joining the apology club because I can recognise today that my own responses were far from optimal and unnecesserily combative and unhelpful. Sorry. I think I started off on the wrong foot and then found it difficult to interpret what you and Jclements were saying because of the red mist obscuring my view. I hope you won't mind my having one minor quibble against your last sentance though. I don't agree with "sides" because its labelling and restricts your vision in a binary "black - white" way. I think the reality is that there are shades of option in deletion and a continuem of varying shades of grey. Minor quibble aside, I certainly do value feedback and advice - not least because one of the ways I can combat my biases is to look at decisions through a different POV. Today I can see the relisting was a poor decision that I will shortly rectify. I'm not going to claim that I'm doing this as a guesture of good will because I can recognise myself that my action was plain wrong and will put it right. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about "sides" this is just a convenient shorthand, and should not be taken to mean that there are inflexible views on either sides. My opinions about various Wikipedia topics has changed since I've been here and continues to change, and I think this is true of most other active people here DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• For information, I have copied this conversation into a user subpage at User:Spartaz/Admin_Review/Background as background to an admin review I just opened. Please let me know if you object to this and I will delete it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that might be better that, if you want an admin review, to start fresh, with less focus on this particular instance. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Hypertension

This article was almost entirely written by someone at the journal's publisher, and although it's likely a reliable source itself I am not sure how to find sources about it. Materialscientist doesn't know where the journal is indexed, so I thought I would see if you have any ideas before this one shows up at AfD.--otherlleft 00:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I did some more revising, and left a note for the editor involved. Thanks for calling my attention to this. W&W is the major medical journal publisher in the US, and in general I would expect any journal they publish to be notable . This one at any rate certainly is, as I'd be prepared to defend from the impact factor alone. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I figured it was possible that a journal like this isn't notable, but didn't really know how to evaluate it. The account's been blocked, but hopefully someone will be along and see the note you left. At least I found it instructive!--otherlleft 04:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

Just so you know, I've been vocal trying to deal with this unnecessary attack on Wikipedia, but I've also been busy sourcing articles in my area of expertise. I know what these unreferenced stub BLP articles look like. Yes I wish others would too. The big problem is the blowhards who just want to delete the stuff they haven't bothered to look at.Trackinfo (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

yes. but yo be fair, some of our strongest opponents do also work on articles. I see some of their fervor in this as impatience that not enough other people have been helping them--and that is certainly true. Some of them have tried to justify it as their desperate try for proper attention to sourcing, and I think they are in good faith about that. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Medical News Today

You removed my PROD on the medical news today because you claims it has notability, because it has a single reference. The single reference is from it's PARENT company's website. How is that notable? Please head back to the talk page and give me some explanation. SeanBrockest (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Search for it in Google Scholar. [16] Cited by many first rate academic and professional medical journals, even BMJ, and PLOS Medicine and some specifically deal with it as a good or typical or widely used source, for example: 4 " The December 22, 2006, Web journal Medical News Today features on its front page a limited and sensationalistic account1 of a recent research report from the Columbia group on the long-term cognitive effects of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) from a key specialty journal, , [17] etc. etc. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments on user essay

DGG - I’ve just completed drafting my first WP essay in my user space: Creating A Better List. As of yet it is not linked anywhere except through the {{Essay}} template. My ultimate objective is to move this essay to the project space, but at this point, that is premature without some feedback from fellow editors. As such I would appreciate your opinion on the essay, especially on two points. 1) Have I made any statements contradictory to WP policy or guidelines? 2) Are there additional examples that could be included to demonstrate my points more effectively?

Thanks in advance for your review and feel free to make any editorial changes you think would enhance the essay. Please provide comments here, as I am asking several editors to comment and would like to keep them all in the same place.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

quick comment: you should really add a fifth reason--as a way of providing some information on topics that do not justify a separate article or even a section of a combination article. I'll look at details further.~ DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't comment there without being invited, but this seems like a good topic for an essay. I've recently raised the subject of bringing the once-infamous List of bow tie wearers to featured list status, and I think your draft is a good start towards a better guide to list building.--otherlleft 02:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Proding of Lists

Hi there. Just wanted to inform you that the editor who has been randomly placing prod-tags into Wikipedia Lists has indicated on his talk page, that in the past 2 weeks he already had 2 articles deleted via prod. It might be a good idea to undelete these 2 lists given the fact that the editor's prod-nomination on these Lists is unnecessary. Amsaim (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Normally, anything removed by prod can be restored at the requenst of a good faith editor, but be prepared for it to be taken to afd. For List of American music artists and List of Greek musical artists, ask JClemens to restore. he was the deleting admin. I see no reason why he wouldn't. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I'll get in touch with JClemens. Meanwhile, isn't such prod-tagging disruptive editing? Amsaim (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

anyone can remove a prod, so don't bother making an issue over it, unless it continues. I and a few others normally check, but I don't usually look at anything to do with popular music, because checking prod requires a ability to recognize what might be notable & sourceable-- I do not work in this area & would make too many misjudgments. The others were in a block, so they got noticed DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thnx again for that info. Amsaim (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination for Mark Sparnon

Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Sparnon, and article whose proposed deletion you objected to. Cnilep (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for R2C2

On February 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article R2C2, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting article. Thanks for writing it. Pcap ping 04:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD of interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softlink, a maker of library management software apparently. By the way, is there a WikiProject for library-related stuff, so I can post there instead and not look like I'm canvasing a well-known inclusionist? (The only other librarian I know here is User:PamD, but she's not active here anymore). Thanks, Pcap ping 04:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a comment - DGG/

Writing an essay

Since you've expressed an interest in these matters before I thought you might be interested to know that I've been working with another editor on this: User:Equazcion/Editing controversial subjects‎. If you have any input it would be welcome. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:57, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I added a little. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I copy-edited a little but it looks good. Feel free to keep tabs and contribute more in the future. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:55, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)

EContent

This was speedily deleted a couple of times, but as far I can tell it's a division of Information Today, Inc. Can you check if that was the article contents, and if so merge it? If not I'll create a redirect. Also, do you have access to the magazine? It has articles on CMS companies that are regularly brought up at AfD, e.g. Ektron. Thanks, Pcap ping 07:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple meanings. Yes, It is one of Information today's publications, but that does not seem what the actual article was about. The publication is in my opinion notable, and I will try to write an appropriate article, or section. Though they used to send it to me, , I do not now have ready access-- but i will check around how I can get to it., DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed prods

I noticed you removed prods I placed on both Matthew Avara and Derek Atkins. I assure you that I did look for sources establishing notability for both of these WP:BEFORE prodding them. Is there anything in particular you feel that I should do with regards to these pages before I list them at AfD (or any reason why you feel at this point in time why they are, in fact, notable)? Thanks, VernoWhitney (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You must not have looked very hard [18] Ridernyc (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate at least a little benefit of the doubt. The top google results are him commenting on Katrina and the cleanup, and there are also google news results with comments from him during his time as mayor, but the only articles about him seem to be local papers about him as a local businessman. Maybe I'm just not seeing how his 11 paragraphs for msnbc establish notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

in general, if you do look for sources, it helps very much to say so specifically & say where you looked--it is by no means the case that everyone who prods does this and that it can be assumed. . Otherwise, when the prods are reviewed, the reviewer will either have to duplicate your search to confirm they are not notable, or remove the prod, as it is not policy to delete for merely being unsourced--not even BLPs.

As for Avera, had you found the sources and not been sure, you should have added some of them at least, so the article could have been reviewed more easily. For anyone likely to have been a public figure, G News is the easiest: among the 225 Google News items for Avara, [19] including CNN and USA today, not merely the customary local newspapers.

As for Atkins, I found some NYT articles also in G News & added a key one. His role however was quite possibly not enough for notability, which would then depend on the importance of his later work, something I have not yet looked at.

Agreed, it is always the primary responsibility of the person writing the article to add good sources, and all contributors need this to be explained to them, and we need to emphasize and insist on it. If they wrote the article in the first place, they had at least some source at hand & could easily have said what it was. But if they do not, it is the job of everyone who has looked at the article and sees what it missing, for we all have the responsibility to improve Wikipedia. That means in particular the person who nominates for deletion--as explained in WP:BEFORE. If the prodder as well as the author does not, I do as a reviewing admin, because it is my responsibility not to delete articles that can be fixed. there are certainly a great many that are hopeless--so far since I have become an admin I have deleted over 9600, about 10/day. The job is telling them apart. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply and explanation, I will begin including brief search notes in any future prods. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Eurasia, Rivista di Studi Geopolitici

You're my go-to guy on scholarly journals. Could you have a look at this new one? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Politicians

Of course I do a quick source check first. However, Wikipedia also already has an established rule that normal coverage of the election doesn't constitute sufficient sourcing to claim notability for the individual candidates — which means that politicians that I tagged don't have very strong evidence of notability that can be added, because they don't have significant coverage as topics in their own right.

I certainly don't think that being elected to office is the only way that a politician can obtain enough notability to merit an encyclopedia article. There are plenty of unelected politicians whose articles I'd completely defend, as well as several that I came across during the same batch that you noticed, but didn't tag either because sources were present or because the article made a stronger claim of notability beyond just being a candidate — such as being the leader of their party, or being involved in a controversy which garnered them more than just brief mentions in generic election coverage.

I certainly don't disagree with the principle that in an ideal world Wikipedia could be a place where we actually had articles about every candidate in a major election whether they were elected or not. But the problem is that such articles are usually written as generic profiles, and quite often cut and pasted directly from the candidates' own campaign brochures at that — they're rarely written in properly encyclopedic style or referenced to actual media. And even if we wanted to, we just don't have the resources to actually maintain well-written, well-sourced articles about every person who's ever run for office in every country on earth. Bearcat (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not interpret the established rule to mean that material about the election is not sufficient--I would accept that material giving the election results without more than mention of the candidates is insufficient. Excluding material about the election for politicians is like excluding material about sports events for athletes.

I think it is accepted that the routine uncontroversial unchallenged biographical facts about a person can be taken from material of which he is the author, if presented in some medium that gives evidence that it is not fabulous entirely, such as an official web site, and I would extend this to official campaign literature. (obviously this refers here as always only to facts, not to opinion about the virtues and importance.)

If we have people writing the articles, we have sufficient people. Maintaining this is no more or less of a problems than with other articles--even if we used sighted revisions, as we probably should, we would still have the problem of updating--a problem none of the current BLP discussions mention much, because we have no way of solving it for any sort of article, unless we restrict Wikipedia to the famous.

I'm nowhere as comfortable about election candidates in Canada as the US, because it is not really a two party system, and which parties are the major contenders seems to vary from election to election. (I am in particular unwilling to assume that the Greens are at this point a viable major party.) Additionally, at this point the G News coverage for Canada seems not as thorough as for the US, and very few US libraries have adequate printed material. I try to work in areas where I can help offset systematic bias, but this aspect of it is too large a problem for me. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you seem to have missed a few by your criteria, such as Bruck Easton, but with such a large number of nominations, I cannot check them all. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course a self-published source such as a campaign brochure can be used to support basic biographical details. But an article can't rely only on a self-published source if the person doesn't actually meet any notability guidelines (the most basic one of which is that the person has been the subject of substantial coverage in sources independent of themselves), and an article can't just be copied and pasted directly from a self-published source without substantial revision and outside sourcing.

As for Easton, I really don't believe there's ever been any sort of consensus that being the president of a political party (or the chair of a government agency, for that matter) automatically qualifies somebody for an article if the person themselves hasn't actually been the subject of substantial coverage in their own right, any more than being CEO of a notable company automatically qualifies a person for an article if the only sources we can add are their own biographical profile on the company web page and a few cursory mentions in 300-word news briefs. While it's certainly legitimate to have a difference of opinion about whether that, in and of itself, should suffice as a claim of notability, there isn't currently any consensus that it actually does — so that comes down to a difference of opinion, not to me being objectively wrong somehow. The party president is an internal bureaucrat whose role is to manage the day-to-day operations of the party's office, so it's a role that exists largely outside of the public eye; it's not the same thing as being a party leader. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that about politicians, it's a difference of opinion; i too recognize that the notability of politicians is unsettled--based on what happens at afd, there does not seem to be a consistent consensus. But I really do not agree at all, though, about being head of a notable company or organization, though it could be argued whether his NGO is a notable one. I certainly think that managing the affairs--even the internal affairs--of a national level political party is notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've thought a few times in recent weeks about doing a bit of a rewrite on WP:POLITICIAN — I don't think the consensus is actually inconsistent, so much as it isn't as well explained as it could be. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've actually started working on an update of the current notability criteria for politicians, which is meant to provide more detail than is currently present at WP:POLITICIAN. I'd actually welcome your input and/or suggestions if and when you have some time. It's at User:Bearcat/Whatever for now, though I'll move it to another title eventually. I'd stress that I'm not attempting to invent new rules here, but simply to codify in more detail where consensus currently stands for various types of politicians. Bearcat (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Attrition and selectively choosing consensus

Sigh:[20]

I am so tired of this, and that is what many editors are hoping for. Okip 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The actual state of BLP consensus is undeterminable because of the complexity of the discussion. As I see it, there was agreement at first that a Prod process was desirable, rather than anything more drastic; various changes to prod were suggested, but it gradually became evident that most were just minor tinckerings to try to tighten it up, or discussions of how fast to do them. the only substantial change, that a prod could not be removed without adding sources, did not have consensus. Overall, it was never agreed that any of the changes were better than the normal way prod is done at present.

there are people at Wikipedia who are willing to do productive work, and people who prefer to discuss how other people should do the work. The people who participate in policy discussions tend to be largely from the second group. As many of them so much prefer that other people do the work that they themselves have no conception at all of what is actually involved, it is futile to argue with them, and I now rarely attempt it. So of course do most sensible people, with the inevitable result that the zealots lead the way, and the ignorant follow.

We will still be able to keep Wikipedia from falling in the ditch, because whatever rules are passed, my experience is that it is possible to adapt to them. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And the more out of sync with community practices the rule is, the more likely it is to be ignored. Bad rules do damage, certainly, but the community is still able to find its way through a minefield of bad policy.

I've been mostly ignoring the BLP RfCs because I was watching the problem actually get solved while everybody jawed at each other. Miraculously, most people involved at the RfCs seem to have caught onto that fact as well, and have accepted that the best solution is not telling people how to fix it, but just letting them fix it.--Father Goose (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that a great number of people are working on these articles, thus proving that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, no matter whether the rest of the wagon is coming apart , but more quietly. Less cynically, projects and campaigns are generally an effective way to get people interested. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A little PROD process critique solicited

DDG - I was reviewing PRODs and chose to remove one from this article. I added appropriate tags and rationale here, and I added a note here for the editor that placed the PROD. I also began some article improvements. Did I apply the process correctly? (Not worried about my rationale here, just whether or not I followed the procedures correctly). Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at what you did, first, yes, you did the process right. (Had it been a speedy, I would have removed the deletion tag before making the improvements--with an edit summary saying I was about to make them-- to prevent it getting deleted in the meantime, but that's not a concern with prod except at the very end of their 7 day lifetime.) I agree with almost all of what you said, also. My own view is that this is the sort of article that should never be deleted by prod for several reasons: first, there are no firmly established criteria for this sort of list article, so it's always going to be controversial and an AfD is required. Second, the history shows that it's the split of the examples section from a very long established article, megaproject. If the stand-alone article is not justified, it should be merged back, not deleted. You clarified the scope, which was needed, and suggested a move to Examples of megaprojects, not List of megaprojects. I'm not sure about that change of title--it does remove the list of ... heading which tends to attract deletion from a small group of people who dislike list articles in general. On the other hand," list of " is our standard wording. "example of" might be seen as indicating subjectivity, which could be considered OR, whereas "List of " would normally include every Wikipedia article that falls within the scope. ` DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

DGG - Thanks good feedback--Mike Cline (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about notability of Journal

Hi DGG, I am hoping you'll be able to give me some idea of how notable the scholarly journal Slavic Review actually is, which I came across in the Mark D. Steinberg article (I see that the article claims it is quite notable, but I trust your judgment more than our articles when it comes to this kind of issue). If this is a significant journal, then would I be correct in believing Steinberg's status as "Editor" probably meets WP:PROF under "The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area"? Part of what makes me wary here is that the associate editor of the journal is his wife, it's run out of his university, and his article was initially what appears to be his CV from the Slavic Review site; on the other hand, I really haven't the knowledge to assess how "typical" this is of a well-regarded journal. Thanks for any thoughts you may have on the subject. Risker (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably the most important English language journal in the field world-wide. Held by over 850 worldCat libraries. It's in WebofScience, which lists very few humanities journals. The e-i-c of it would be unquestionably notable. (He has also published 5 very widely reviewed books. The article is a bit of a mess, due to the incomplete rewriting of a copyvio from his cv, so I'm fixing it, and adding back what is needed. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh fantastic, DGG; I'd been asked to address an issue related to this article for reasons unrelated to notability, and with all the back and forth I was concerned it might be susceptible to a deletion request that wasn't really appropriate. Thanks for taking a look and tidying it up. Risker (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I get a second opinion from you?

While trying to clear up the never ending morass that is Unassessed London-related articles, I've come across Category:Hotels in London. It seems to me that at least 1/3 of the entries here should never have been created, and I prodded what appeared to be the worst offenders; however, most of those now seem to have been contested.

The creator is citing Articles for deletion/Covent Garden Hotel as a precedent for keeping them, but to me that "keep" appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:N as "anything mentioned in the press warrants an article". Middletown, NY is a notable topic and Walmart is a notable topic, but Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on Middletown Walmart, despite the fact that it's easy to find mentions of it in reliable sources; likewise, Radisson Hotels and Heathrow Airport are notable, but to me that doesn't make Radisson Edwardian Heathrow Hotel notable, even though it has no doubt been covered by reliable sources at some point (even if the news coverage is just "New hotel opens"). To me, while obviously the "big name" hotels like the Ritz, Dorchester etc warrant their own article, there's no need for Wikipedia to be hosting unexpandable sub-stubs on generic individual branches of chains which would be far better served (and of far more use) as paragraphs within List of hotels in xxx.

Before it goes to what will no doubt be a foul-tempered bulk AFD (the creator of most of the articles is already bombarding me with personal abuse), can I get a second opinion from you on this one?

(NB; I've also made an identical request from User:MRSC, in his capacity as de facto coordinator of WP:LONDON) – iridescent 15:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hardly "bombarding you with personal abuse". But if we tried to work together to expand some of the 5 star London hotel articles which should meet requirements first instead of doing anything hasty then I would not snap at you. Justification for the existence of many of them is not based on Covent Garden hotel. It is based on the number of sources and coverage in reliable publications which I believe most will pass on.. The question is would articles like Radisson Edwardian Heathrow Hotel be happily unaminously deleted or would people really rather than they were at least tried to be improved first... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see it both ways. On the one hand, we can find 2 substantial RSs for every substantial building, if we really check all possible newspaper sources, including trade papers. Sooner or later, they'll all be in GoogleNews/googlebooks; at the very least , for every building erected or planned before 1920. If we're going to hold to the GNG, we have several choices A. use an increasingly stringent definition of what we consider RSs for WLOCAL -- such as requiring regional sources, but that wont have any effect in large cities B. Make a special provision about LOCAL requiring more than RSs, such as RSs showing notability in particular ways C. Abandon or supplement GNG in favor of distinct criteria that would exclude such articles, such as hotel rating level. D. Use combination articles E. Accept the articles, but require substantial content F. Simply accept the articles . G Use a WikipediaTwo or WikipediaLocal project as a supplement to Wikipedia.

The GNG was originally adopted as a restrictive measure. This is no longer the case. The increase in easily available reliable web information has killed it's usefulness this way. It is now a rule that will increasingly work the other way around. Many deletionists try to elevate it into what they consider a basic policy on principles that are not specifically exclusionary, but rely on confusion of WP:N with WP:V ; many deletionists and others think that in principle it is the only logically defensible way of having a guideline --I wonder whether they will stick with it when it yields the opposite result to what they really want, or yield a result that contradicts their own intuition?

What I really want in G, above, a supplement that will maintain WP:V and WP:NPOV and other foundation principles, but not have a WP:N barrier. The inclusionists will be able to get in essentially everything, the deletionists will be able to remove a good bit of borderline content from the present Wikipedia. (and, btw, I do not consider Wikia an equivalent, for even if we had one that did not fail WP:V and WP:NPO, I remain committed to a free encyclopedia, free in particular from advertising either in the articles or surrounding them.

But we have to deal with the present structure and the present question . Whatever may have been said elsewhere-- which I am deliberately not looking at--what Himalayan says above makes sense to me: it is a combination of my choices C and E above--rely on ratings level, and work for better content. Covent Garden Hotel is at present a very low quality article--the AfD seems based on the possibility of there being a better article. The present one does, in my opinion, violate NOT TRAVEL and NOT PROMOTIONAL. I would have had to support keeping it however, because that is fixable. I would have said weak keep, as Peterkingiron did for the same reason. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hotels are a tricky subject because they are businesses. It is easy to see them as adverts, I've seen hundreds of new hotel stubs deleted because of WP:NOTTRAVEL and DB-ADVERT. But I think those hotels which have historical signifiance in notable buildings like the Langham Hilton etc are obviously notable landmarks. What is the most difficult is writing a full article about them using reliable independent sources which are not trying to sell it to you. Unfortunately most hotels relay little about its actual history and focus more on what they have to offer. That's the difficulty. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 19:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's where the problem is. You need to find information not published by the hotel. There will usually be an article in local secondary sources when the building was approved, finished, and especially when it was opened. There are books about hotels. There are also discussions sometimes in reputable guidebooks that could be considered RSs. I'd consider Michelin such a source, for example--they are known for being NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For instance One Aldwych would seem like a notable building. I think there must be books with a decent coverage of them.. I've requested some photos from flickr anyway but those stubs which can be significantly improved should be. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here you go, EXACTLY the sort of source these stubs need to be turned into decent articles.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 15:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC) 22 Jermyn Street is now "notable" too. I think they probably all are, but just need expansion as with most articles... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, and essentially any other major building of any public or architectural or engineering interest. Thanks for doing the work here. I will remove all the other hotel prods today. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'll try to expand as mamy as I can my workload is just so huge that I get sidetracked from writing the articles on them I had intended. I've successfully contacted 22 Jermyn owner Henry and he has promised to send much needed photographs of the hotel. Some of the historical buildings, even if they have only been hotels for ten years are quite intetesting if adequate history can be found. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good thing is articles like The Bentley London are turning up some interesting sources in google books. Some really quaint books like guides to Britain's best teahouses etc. There are a lot of books mentioning such hotels.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

DRV question

How is a DRV for an article like Ambarish Srivastava supposed to work ?

• Is the discussion supposed to decide if the article draft meets our notability guidelines and should be kept/deleted, or
• Is the discussion on whether the article has changed enough from the previously deleted version, and is good enough not to be speedied, and therefore can be moved to mainspace (and possibly nominated for AFD to judge notability).

I didn't find anything at WP:DRV that addressed this point, and thought you'd perhaps know. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I was also confused by your "acceptable for user space now" vote. Does that mean the article has to go through another DRV before it can be moved to mainspace ? Abecedare (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops--my typo--I meant to say its ok for MAIN space. I've corrected myself at the DRV. You are right that what I mistakenly wrote would have been self-contradictory, and I thank you for catching it. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fastest production car

Hi, could you stop removing appropriate templates, you can say your opinion in talk page --Typ932 ^T·C 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:PROD, a prod tag, once removed, can not be replaced; prod is for uncontested deletions, and if anyone removes a prod, it means they are contesting the deletion. I've explained why I think the article should be kept on the article talk page. If you still disagree, use WP:AFD and the community will decide. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the template "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed,"

you did not give any good reason for removing the tag, its wrongly removed, you explanations in edit summary was not enough, that article is definately deletable material. --Typ932 ^T·C 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I gave the reason as "appropriate list , sourced, not equivalent to any part of article cited as covering the subject" 3 good reasons, answering the 3 key objections to it that had been made. Since any objection at all is enough for a prod, the advice to give a reason is good advice, because saying why is more likely to lead the prodder to consider not sending he article to afd, rather than if one said just "I object". If you continue think it deleteable, send it to AFD. The community makes the decisions there, not me, not you, not the WikiProject. AfD is unpredictable, so I usually avoid guessing in advance, but I think it has better than an even chance of being kept. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP RFC

Hey DGG, I've made a response to you over on the talk page of the BLP RFC---I'd like to see what (if anything) needs to be done so that you can move support.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have replied, with some suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest

Hi, the contest rules have been revamped with your suggestions in mind. I would welcome your input as to how it currently stands. J04n(talk page) 02:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

good work. I like the revisions. Less work with the mechanics means more work with the articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Book

DGG, could I ask you to give me your view on the suitability of this April 2009 book by Nation Books as a Wikipedia RS for the Hugo Chávez biography?

• Just 3 library holdings worldwide – is that a warning bell? Am I missing any other listings?
• The only scholarly review I could find says the author "succeeds admirably in presenting a gripping narrative, but his low standards in investigative reporting make the book extremely one-sided and unreliable." The author, Judith Ewell, is a professor of history and has published multiple books on Venezuela through university presses.
• Foreign Affairs review – short and superficial, but quite positive.
• Review in The Economist – positive, last paragraph ends "His arrest is part of a wider crackdown on the opposition, intensifying Mr Chavez's hollowing-out of Venezuelan democracy. This makes Mr Nelson's scrupulously unbiased account of the events of April 2002 all the more important. It should be read by all those who continue to believe that Mr Chavez is a worthy champion of democracy and the oppressed."

The low number of library holdings and the negative scholarly review make me think it is unsuitable. I've been told in the past that a book with 30 or 40 holdings was still a "fringe source". But I don't know how quickly library holdings build up after a book's publication. --JN466 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this, as I was coming here for another issue. The other problem on Venezuela books/sources is that few libraries or journals carry anything not pushed by the left. It's not surprising that this book is underrepresented in libraries; no one except the left has pushed their POV, and no one cares about Venezuela :) At minimum, it's a mainstream sourced accounting of the "coup" (which by the way, was never ruled a coup in Venezuela, and once Chavez got control of the judiciary he had the ruling that it wasn't a coup overturned), supported by many other sources, well-received, and one that we should at least include for balance against the leftist sources now in our articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As a preliminary, books on current political subjects almost always display a political POV. in fact , I don't see how there can be a neutral POV on this subject at this time--if there is a verdict of history eventually, it will depend on what eventually happens there. As for the specific points

1. Library holdings in Worldcat identities are very unfortunately not reliable--they do not usually sum up editions. You have to get the title, and search under it: JN, your guess was right: there are actually 3 listings for this book. the first shows 352 holding libraries, the second, 3, the third, 1. So the book actually is reasonably well held in libraries. As an aside, Google Book Search links for "find in a library" very often do not link to the principal record. And, btw, WorldCat in about 95% US and Canadian libraries, with a sprinkling from the UK and scattered ones elsewhere. As a rough guess for English language books on topics not of exclusively US interest, multiply by two or three.
2. amazon.uk lists it as 141,428 -- this is incongruous with a very low worldcat result, or a very high one , but reasonable in terms of the actual worldCat count.
3. scholarly book reviews typically take 12 to 18 months to appear--a book like this is likely to get more. The actual academic review so far is from a minor journal.
4. But this is not a scholarly book, and makes no pretentious to be one. Reviews of a book like this in The Economist and Foreign Affairs are at least as much to the point, as what academics might say
5. Unbiased tends to mean "agrees with my point of view". Look at the last phrase of that quote from the Economist, which makes a remarkably explicit declaration of the POV. Neither reviews for frankly political journals nor for academic ones are free from having a POV.
6. We should indeed try to represent all responsible POVs, and this is one of them. Sandy is certainly right there, and it would justify using something considerably less respectable than Nation Press.

In other words, yes, the book can certainly be used. Link to all the reviews. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the broader education than we asked for ... you come in handy :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I echo that. :) DGG, can you tell me where you click to see the holdings for the other listings? Starting out here, if I click on the first listing of the book, and then (further below at "Find more information about") click on "Go" to the right of the dropdown menu with the author's name, that takes me here. If I start off with the second listing (which is actually the e-book) and then do the same, I end up here, which I don't know what to do with. If I start with the third listing, clicking on "Go" takes me here, and I am again at sea. Even if I click on the top Nelson in the list, I only end up here again, with just 3 libraries listed. What am I missing?

Another thing that that has stymied me on occasion is that the site only shows an author's most widely held works. Sometimes I've wanted to look up one of a prolific author's more obscure titles, but the list of their works can only be extended once and then ends. Is there a way of looking up how widely held a particular title, rather than author, is? Thanks for your help. --JN466 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

after getting that first page [21], click on each of the titles in turn. When you get to first one, [22], midway in the first screen there's a section: Find a copy in your library. It gives a place for your zip code, and right under that it says (in this case) "Displaying libraries 1-6 out of 352. That 352 is the count. Do similarly for the others. I think you missed spotting that line, which is not hard to do: on my computer, it's in small light grey type. WorldCat has an interface that appears chosen for appearances, rather than function. They know what I think of it.

The method for finding all the books of an author is to find any one of the works in the regular world cat search page [23], usually best done by title if you have a title of any one book, and then click on the author's name. That gives you a page which will list everything by him in all its editions, including articles in JSTOR journals and book reviews about him published in JSTOR journals. Use the Authority identities page as a checklist, not the first search. I am very disappointed in it--they need a better algorithm; I used it for holdings myself a number of times in discussions here, until I realized how incomplete it was. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. The problem is (as I suspected) due to our difference in geographical location. The site does not know where I am -- I always get an orange box telling me that the site can't recognise my location. I have never bothered to tell it, because I am not really looking for a nearby library that has the book, just for statistics. I'll probably need to register an account; then I should be able to use your enquiry method to get the "1-6 out of 352"-type data for any given book -- or rather, any individual WorldCat listing of a given book. My apologies to Nelson (and to you, Sandy) for having doubted the validity of his book; I'll check over and update the listings on the Hugo Chavez talk page. Many thanks to you, DGG, for clearing the matter up. --JN466 08:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Klim

DGG, I'd appreciate it if you too continued to keep an eye on Christopher Klim. (See its talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The magazine is at AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't be more wrong, and I'm really getting desperate there. Could I be off my meds? If so, at least I forgo multiple exclamation points and the like. ¶ I suspect that the magazine, if it even existed, was not notable (in the normal sense of the word), but that 1500 copies (if true) was rather more than the figure for, say, the Vladimir Nabokov Research Newsletter (later The Nabokovian), which presented the occasional newly discovered fugitive piece by VN himself and was I think notable. -- Hoary (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As you know, for small or niche literary magazines, copy number is not relevant to notabity. A very small circulation publication can have great influence. The reason why this one is not notable is because it was essentially vanity publication, a means to entice the authors, and there is no evidence that anyone else ever bought it. That he published it is a valid part of his biography. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Riverview Psychiatric Center

Some troll created this, it was Prodded, I found it, and voila! I've nominated it for a certain day's DYK. Please, can you help source it? Bearian (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki2Touch

I don't know what you had in mind when you stated that Wiki2touch was a "major software for a major site" in deprodding the article, but reading that article, it would seem to me that the Wikimedia Foundation was not involved in the making of this software. A jailbreak is even required to run it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I was careful to word it for a major site, not part of a major site. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging "List of Presidents of Mexico by longevity"

Hello, DGG. You contested the proposed deletion of List of Presidents of Mexico by longevity with the concern, "needs merging, not deletion -- material not in citd article," but you did not specify which article or articles you think the material should be merged to. Could you either carry out that merger or specify the target you had in mind? The {{mergeto}} tag may be helpful. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thought it obvious enough that it would be merged to a list of Presidents of Mexico, which in this case, is a part of the article List of heads of state of Mexico It would require adding columns for the birth and death dates, and turning it into a sortable list, which would be a good idea in any case. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Boss

Hi again DGG! Do you think the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss Audio was appropriate? I have no idea, but you always seem to know these type of things. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

no; an admin is obliged to follow consensus and there was consensus to keep. If he disagreed he should have joined the discussion. If it gets taken to deletion review I will see it there--but it would help to have some better source for notability available first. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think any of these articles are useful? Perth DBL -Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Legislative notability

I am asking you this because you seem to be fairly knowledgeable, and despite what I said before I think you try to be fair and even in moderation. I think it is clear that state senators are notable, and I assume state representatives are notable. I am wondering though, would you consider candidates for such offices notable. What about for US congress. Would they need to be major party candidates for US Congress.

My guess is that major party candidates for US congress who lose are notable. I would also say that candidates in primaries would be notable at least if they made anything like a real campaign. State legislatures I am a little less certain, but I am thinking that candidates who lost the primary would not make the cut, but major candidates would. 3rd party candidates I am even less sure on. I would say if there is good documentation behind it to show that they actually did more than just have their name on the ballot, and especially if they got noticed, probably they would rate being mentioned.

One other thing. I am hesitant to go on an all out article making spree because of the time when 18 or so of the articles I had created, including one that was on someone who had been the majority leader of the Arizona State Senate, were deleted without even warning me that they were going to be speedy deleted. I tried to get some people to bring them back as user files so I could at least work on them and hunt down more sources, but no one did.John Pack Lambert 03:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Now here is the better signatureJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Members of any state and provincial legislature are notable. (Having a normal citizen's knowledge of the politics of my own locality, and assuming others places may be similar, I can see that this sometimes represents an extension of the concept of notability we might not do in other subjects, but it's well accepted here). You can, in my opinion, therefore can safely go ahead adding your state senators.

Which was the article on the Senator that was deleted? I have been looking at many of the other articles of yours that were deleted. I am going to get Chris Clark (editor), Sidney E. Mead, & Vincent of Scarning. restored, as i have sources. In some other cases the reasons given for deletion were incorrect, or a very over-broad use of CSD A7, and you could try re-creating them-- but there's no point without good sources.

I certainly think that candidates of major parties for a national legislature in a 2 party system ought to be considered notable, & I would extend this to state governors also. This is not quite accepted yet, but recent discussions have seemed to move in this direction, and sufficient search in local newspapers will almost always find information. At least for the US much but by no means all of this has been on line for many years, though through proprietary databases--it is now increasingly visible, being listed in the Googles. I would be very reluctant to extend this to members of state legislatures, and even more reluctant to try to extend it to candidates in a primary. I strongly suggest you do the ones who have been elected first, and make the articles as complete and well-sourced as possible. Remember to explain the person's political views, but not advocate for them. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There are so many incumbents (past and present) for whom we have articles, that I am extremely reluctant to yield to the idea that we should open notability to losing candidates for the national legislatures. First things first, is my feeling. Look at all the redlinks among even members of the U.K. parliament, and even cabinet ministers of many non-Anglophone and developing nations! (It has also been my experience that otherwise-unnotable candidates for Congress tend to get that first article written by their press agent or campaign manager, who sees us as a great chance for free publicity for their man/woman.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)losing major-party nominee for his state legislature

I think you meant, so many office-holders for which we do not have articles. I agree it's more important to find these than to find the losing candidates, but i see no harm in letting people do so if they want. Unfortunately, one of the things that will inevitably always be a problem at Wikipedia, is getting people to write articles unless they want to write them. As for promotionalism,. ditto for the winners. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

my current view of blp

collecting some things I have posted elsewhere, to get the argument together while I think I have the wording right for what I want to say

Every unsourced article is harmful to the concept of a reliable encyclopedia; every inadequately sourced article is too, and every unbalanced and promotional article. The false nature of the problem is the mistaken idea that the unsourced BLPs are in some way exceptionally hazardous. We are trying to conduct a serious project--a project that now has worldwide influence and probably the key substantial information resource that everyone uses as a matter of course . There is a certain amount of pure junk and pure advertising that has gotten submitted and not removed. But the amount of this is more than we can cope with immediately, so instead of honestly confronting with the way to cope with it, which is the difficult and slow process of attracting more editors, people have focused on a particular part they can more easily comprehend: the possibility of individuals from unsourced articles that nobody looks at. The real BLP problems are the bias and error and sometimes defamation in the much larger number of sourced articles.

This BLP hysteria could almost be mistaken for a deliberate attempt to avoid calling attention to what we know is wrong, but cannot fix, by diverting attention to what isn't much wrong, but we might be able to fix if we ignored the harmful consequences of ill-thought out fixes. I'm not that cynical. It's rather an attempt to cope psychologically with the knowledge there are major faults in something we love that we cannot immediately do anything about--and where doing something about them will mean stopping the idiosyncratic and hostile behavior of some of our established users.

The situation leads itself to quack remedies. The principal class of such remedy is to to try to fix something that it looks like we can fix by simple drastic indiscriminate action , however unimportant, and however irrelevant they may be to the actual problems of the site. The BLP situation is just that. The rare serious problems attract attention, for the same reason that individual troubles attract tabloid readers--people identify with them, and ignore the much greater problems of the actual world. The current unsourced BLP issue is a tabloid approach to Wikipedia--sensationalism rather than sense.

I am glad to see that the previously uninvolved users now commenting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people are beginning to realize this. As of this afternoon, the only part that really has consensus is the part presented as part 1, with the exception that there seems to be disagreement on the nature of the "sticky" prod. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

International Journal of Computer Processing Of Languages

Hi David, I am confused about the title of this journal. The second "of" is spelled with a capital O, even on the home page of the journal. Does that mean that this should be out title of the journal article, too? Somehow this strikes me as incorrect capitalization, but for the moment I have not moved the article to another cap title yet. What do you think? On another matter, thanks for taking care of the Bioinformatics list. I was getting a bit frustrated, I think, because there are several bad journal lists like that and it's a lot of work to clean them up. A while ago, I did a rather large cleanup of the List of African studies journals (which originally was 3 separate articles). One of the original editors has been unhappy with my intervention (see my talk page), so I would appreciate if you could have a look at that list, too, to see whether I was justified or perhaps a bit too enthusiastic (not to use the word Draconian... :-) Thanks! Wim. --Crusio (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• PS: I moved this comment down, because it appears you did not see it :-) --Crusio (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cataloging style is not to use capitals at all within a title, so LC doesn't help. Publisher tend to regard the way they present the title as a matter for the design staff, and the variations they make can be annoying. I'd use it as is, and make redirects from the alternates.

The African Journal question is a little complicated. Normally I think we should give some degree of special consideration to publications from such parts of the world, to combat cultural bias. My impression at the time was that you were being over-demanding there. I'm not quite sure what basis to use, though. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bauss

Well DGG, I've approached X! about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss Audio (see User talk:X!#Like a boss). Your input/thoughts would be appreciated. Take excellent care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've gone ahead with the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 3#Boss Audio. Again, take care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your viewpoint would be constructive

Your viewpoint on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of amateur radio organizations would be an asset to hear in the followup conversation that is now taking place. I know that AFD was a while back, but 13 of the AFD mandated stubs have come themselves to AFD (not a mass AFD unfortunately, but ...) There was a move to temporarily close them all while overall discussions take place. Might I ask you to weigh in at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies ? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The general rule is that national organizations in any field and for any country are notable , but nothing under that unless them is some special circumstance like very good sources for notability In my opinion., there are sometimes countries where the national association for a sport of hobby or whatever is so small, that they might possibly be an exception, but it's simpler to permit them all. . It's established practice that there is nothing wrong with a stub article, either. If all that can be said is very little, we say it. Most encyclopedias have had very small articles, amounting just to listings or definitions. Diderot's Encyclopedie did, and most Brittanicas. We have real problems in that most of our articles on anything are inadequately sourced, or not up to date , or both, so why should we bother about trying to eliminate 100 stubs or thereabouts. If only marginal notability were the worst difficulty we face! Live and let live is the only practical way of coping with a very large scale voluntary organization like ours. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RSN input request

DGG, can you comment on the reliability of the publication Journal of Genetic Genealogy at this this RSN thread  ? The debate has been active for over two weeks, and input from uninvolved editors essentially drowned by lengthy back and forth between the disputants (User:Andrew Lancaster, rudra and User:DinDraithou). Abecedare (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey A. Landis

I mentioned this on its talk page, but you brought up the point that his notability as an author is justified by his receiving of a Nebula and a Hugo award. However, there are no sources to verify this. Thus, his notability is still in question, is it not? Per WP:BOLP, biographies of living persons "...must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research." Considering that absolutely nothing in that article is verified and that the only three references listed at the bottom are all invalid (one's a primary source, one's a list of patents, and one's a broken link), we cannot assume that Landis even received the awards to begin with. Please share your thoughts on this; since I'm considering putting the article up for WP:AFD, I will include Notability as an issue if it still is one. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cervantes de Leon. Sorry to butt in, but have you looked for sources yourself, per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE? You should do so. If you did you would find this and this. Seems like a lot easier to put those in than going to the trouble of an AfD that would certainly result in the article being kept. Also better for the encyclopedia. ^Bongo_matic 00:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

First look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. We accept an official bio as meeting WP:V for details, but in the case of awards , they should definitely be sourced, because such awards are sourceable. But normally it our practice even there to accept the authors own statement, unless we have some reason to doubt it. If you do not look, and he does have the awards, someone will find then, the article will be kept & you will have wasted everyone's time., including your own. If you do look, and fail to find them, then you can say that at the afd; someone will undoubtedly check, just to make sure you didn't miss it. And if you do look, & find them, then you can add the source and rescue the article.

I consider it people's obligation per WP:BEFORE to check before putting a deletion tag on an article. It is not a formal requirement, but it ought to be, and I hope the BLP discussion will result in our including it as a requirement. The author should absolutely have done it themselves, and we must educate our contributors accordingly, but most Wikipedia articles have started out uncited altogether or poorly cited.

btw, to spare both you embarrassment --and to spare me embarrassment also, I have just checked , and the awards can be verified. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I rest my case for lack of further evidence to proceed on, though I'm still left slightly irritated at the complete lack of citations in that article, especially with regards to the categories the page is listed in (*coughWinnetka, IL*cough*). Back to work, anyways. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm at least as irritated as you are--much more so in fact--because I deal with many articles of this sort, and many much worse, without even a specified primary source--there appear to still be several tens of thousands BLPs in that state, which should never have been tolerated. the job, however, is not to remove them, but to source them all if they can be reasonably sourced. There can be expected to be half of them that cannot be, and that will be deleted. I primarily work here trying to save articles, but since I have been an admin I have needed to delete 9000 articles that could not be rescued. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Flash from the past: User:Digitalcollections

I fear that this is in fact a role account. After a very long quiescent period, they've slapped links into half a dozen or so articles today. Could you reinforce your excellent warning of two years ago? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the links are appropriate, but some could have been added at better places. . Please let me explain again on their talk p. I should mention I have recently been contacted by the head of collections development at another university, who quite sensibly wanted to find out in advance how to do it. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have explained it to them, and will follow up. Let them have a chance to fix these voluntarily. I remind you that if we do block the username, we'll have to keep watch for what one is made use of next, so it is better to get cooperation. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin advice re Jason Sarrio

I was wielding the mop and bucket while in the airport in CSD and came across this one CSD-G7, where the nominator is actually not the author of the content and it appears that the author challenged a PROD but blanked the page, then re-added something, that was then blanked by another editor. There's no doubt it needs deletion but CSD-G7 doesn't seem appropriate after an apparently contested PROD. Thoughts for a novice admin??--Mike Cline (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Eeekster obvious lost track of just what reason to give. I always assume good faith in that, especially with G7, because it's easy to select it when you mean A7. I have even made that mistake myself a few times--though I have also seen once or twice occasions when G7 was added clearly not in good faith. tyrenius, an experienced admin, did what I would have done, which is deleting it via the obviously intended reason, which was A7--since a quick check of Google shows no reasonable listing for Jason Sarrio, e.g. [24]

However, a check in Google for the name of his company (which in actuality I tried first, though I cannot say why--perhaps because i unconsciously guessed that tyrenius would possibly have already checked the person name) shows that he is not a real person, but a fictional character in Battlestar Galactic, & thus not covered by A7. Unfortunately, actual reading of the BattleStarWiki page and a search there shows the inventor of the Meta-Cognitive Processor in the story was Tomas Vergis, who might or might not need a separate article, and that there is not actually any character with the name of Jason Sarrio. (Checking yet further, the invention shows up in [[List of Caprica episodes|episode 1 of the prequel Caprica, but the name of the inventor is not mentioned there, nor has anyone ever tried to write an article on him. Thus it would make sense to simply add the name to the description of the episode, which I am about to do, without even making a redirect, as the Battlestar wiki does not indicate that he ever actually appears in the show, which is my criterion for when a redirect is needed. The obvious conclusion is that someone wrote the article as a joke, presumably JS or one or his acquaintances, and that A7 is right after all.

Thus a nice case study about the need to check thoroughly. . Do I check every speedy this carefully? no. Ought I to? yes, but there are so many articles to check that we need to use reasonable assumptions based on intuition and experience. This is how error gets into the encyclopedia, and why the only solution is to a/develop more systematic ways of checking, and b/get more active people here to do it. Nothing I did required admin powers, except looking at the content of the deleted article. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Book in mail in the morning--Mike Cline (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice about copyright

I confess that I was lazy and sloppy! That article was one of my earliest attempts to incorporate CRS material. Subsequently, I had somebody create {{CRS}}. The info that you put into the ==Source== section is now reproduced in that template.

By the way, kudos for your comment at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/poll ("The proof that this is a bad idea, is that people are voting for it without knowing the details."). It changed my vote. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 03:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I have a bridge you might be interested in buying

this was less than helpful. This is, presumably, a BLP. At least, we can give it the benefit of doubt of being a BLP, we don't even know the subject's first name, nor if he is alive, or if he ever was. On account of the article giving zero references, not even dodgy googled ones. Just none.

Seriously, how long have you been on Wikipedia? Not long enough to realize that people will make things up as they go along? Especially if the topic has anything to do with India? Here, Mr. Sambasivan is "Neuro Surgeon & President of World Federation of Neurological Societies". That's funny, because there must have been a mix-up at WFNS, because their website claims their president is one Peter Black of Harvard.

You are not doing the project, or anyone, a favour, of extending the benefit of doubt to absolutely every piece of trash people park in article namespace. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I use my own judgment & experience about what is likely to be sourceable. Sometimes I am wrong, but not often. We'll see on this one--I am perfectly open to the possibility that I might be in error. If what were asserted were harmful in any possible way, I'd have deleted the article myself. I am not the least reluctant to delete articles--if you check my log, I have deleted so far 9815 articles in my three years as an admin patrolling prod and speedy. I asked for the mop in the first place so I could delete the actual trash that I found while trying to save articles.

I was in a bit of a rush yesterday, but I have just now verified it in PubMed, where he has 18 articles--considering the generally weak PubMed coverage of India, this is significant. I will of course add it to the article. You could have done the same. It is rather common for academics to use only initials for their first name, especially in some countries--it seems rather common in articles about people from India in all subjects; I do not take it to mean they are imaginary. In fact, that's how PubMed lists him, and how he is listed on his papers. I did find his first name in Scopus, which makes an effort to add them, & added that also, along with citation counts to show notability (Scopus, alas, is not freely available, so perhaps you could not have done that part, but I'll check there on request for any article). I am aware of the possibility of exaggerated accomplishments. He may have been president in an earlier year--or he was an officer of a branch of the society. I'm looking for a complete list, not just a current one, but I may find the position in one of the papers in pubmed. since this is a major medical school, it does not sound implausible. The university web site does not seem to be working except for the main page, or it would be much easier. BTW, I do not understand your suggestion to merge to the college page, because if he is not in fact notable, we would not include him there. WP is not a faculty directory. If he does have an article, only then do we list him as one of the distinguished people from the university. I look at a lot of university pages, & one of the things I routinely check is additions of people without articles or not obviously qualified for one, & I always remove them.

Confirms my position: First look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. The opposite approach, delete if nothing is visible on the face, is what does not help the project. I would word it much more strongly than that if this were a general discussion. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the additional item. I think your removal of currently unsourced information about his honors was inappropriate, though, as was your hypercriticism that the links showing him at the medical school and hospital did not specify his exact position. One could dissect almost any bio article except the FAs in that manner. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Query about a article

Hi, I posted a proposal a section for deletion [link title citing the reason it was not relevant to the subject of article. I just noticed you removed the deletion tag without specifying any reason to do so on the discussion page. I would appreciate it, if you could cite a reason as to why this is related to the subject of the article. I thought deletion tags could not be removed without a discussion, perhaps I may be wrong in that. If so I would appreciate a feedback on the same. Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion tags are only used for deletion of entire articles. I said this in the edit summary. ( You said in the tag that you only wanted to delete the section, not the entire article. ) As for removing tags placed properly, with the intent of deleting an entire article, anyone at all can remove a prod tag, even the author. For a speedy delete tag, anyone can also remove it, except the author. What cannot be removed is the tags for articles for AfD discussions. -- See WP:PROD & WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy

As for the substantive issue of deleting the section , the correct course is to propose it on the talk page. Technically, you could simply remove that section according to WP:BRD, but that change would be certain to be reverted, so it is more practical to discuss it in the first place. If what you object to is overcoverage, though, it would seem to make more sense to shorten it. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information. It was helpful :). I hope you didn't mind me asking as I have recently joined Wiki. Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

About WP:PROF

Please refer to [25]. Here are additional thoughts.

1 or 2 papers with 20 citations each might be sufficient for notability if that work considered basic and fundamental to the subject. For example, we do study the work of Newton, Leibniz, Euler, Fermat, and Pascal... in colleges and so their work is found in textbooks. Their work is not difficult to understand, but they are very basic and fundamental to the development. Here is an example of Vijay Kumar Patodi who died at his young age. Any work appeared in standard textbooks or work that is basic and fundamental to the subject might be considered for notability (it could be 1 or 2 works).

About 10 to 25 years ago, many Ph.D.s in Physics and Math especially in the US left academia for a job with software industries to get good income. There are like this that left behind their good research work done during their Ph.D.s. Under the present guidelines set in WP:PROF, it would be difficult to account for them.

Chair/Head in the US colleges/universities: “but it always is one of the higher ranking ones--as they need to have the respect of their colleagues.” Most of the time, respect comes mainly from the behavior. If that is the case, it would not be fair.

From WP:PROF 1. Item 1: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. (Set the guidelines what h-index or Google scholar finding is accepted for each science, engineering, liberal arts subjects etc. Link it to another page). 2. Item 7: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. (This is vaguely written, needs paraphrasing) 3. Add a new item 10 describing how his/her work is basic and fundamental and is introduced in college textbooks/wiki pages (This is somewhat similar to item 4 from WP:PROF). Wiki pages might be important too for wiki notability (This sounds like Erdos number 1 or 2!)

Also Use commonsense and be considerate depending upon whether the person is no more, age (Seniority) and backgrounds etc. --kaeiou (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fields and periods differ. first, in earlier periods in the sciences, most of the important publications of most workers were books, not journal articles. The modern methods of science education and the organization of scientific research and publication are generally consider to have arisen in Germany in the second half of the 19th century, and earlier examples are different. . Fortunately,the earlier periods are covered well by works on the history of science, so we can rely on secondary sourcing and coverage in specialized encyclopedias. The book tradition continued longest in mathematics, which is characterised in contrast to other subjects by a greater dependence on books, by having longer but fewer journal articles than other subjects, by a very long time to citation as compared with the experimental sciences. As a result, impact factor does not have the same significance--certainly not the 2 year impact factor traditionally calculated by WoS. No information scientist , to the best of my knowledge, has ever claimed that naïve citation analysis worked across subject fields--although there have been many attempts to find a normalized measure.

We are not capable of judging what work is "fundamental" -- this is the task of historians of science, and we can of course report what they say. But this is not usually relevant, because this essentially corresponds to "famous" and notability is much less than being famous. What appears in textbooks varies by subject field also. In medicine , for example, it is the convention of even basic textbooks to contain essentially complete bibliographies of their subjects, often including work below the level of what we would necessarily consider notable. In a physics textbook, on the other hand, there will be references only to key works of the famous. In some fields, such as, organic chemistry, there are textbooks with each style of referencing.

As I mentioned, it is indeed very difficult for us to judge the notability of scientists in industry, just as you say. Where there are formal distinctions we use them, as for IBM fellows. But the inadequacy of our coverage is also due to lack of interest. While members of all the National Academies are considered unquestionably notable, we have articles on most of the current member of the National Academy of Sciences, but of only a minority from the Institute of Medicine, and a farcically low number from the National Academy of Engineering. I've always been meaning to start a project to correct it, but , like most of my writing projects here, I've been diverted into rescue. We need to remove junk, but it would probably be better to leave marginal articles alone, and concentrate on writing the missing major ones.

As for chairmen, thinking of the departments I know at Princeton and Berkeley, it takes more than behavior, though administrative talent and congeniality certainly help. Without exception in such universities, the choice is from among the top people, basically because the provost needs to trust their recommendations. Even at schools of much lower quality, which i also know , but refrain from naming, the chairman is normally someone who will project as good an image of the department as possible, including in terms of scholarly competence. Schools can of course cary, which is why this is not a formal criterion.

As for WP:PROF, I consider the way item 1 and 7 are written is deliberately vague, because it is impossible to make generalities. Nor is there a need to make them, for the level we accept is better defined by see what level we accept in practice for the different fields. Considering the diversity of fields and subfields, I do not think we could prepare a valid table. I especially distrust anything based on Google Scholar, because they use unknown standards, and change them, sometimes quite radically. Unfortunately, in some fields of study there is nothing else available. There is beginning to be some work showing that the numbers do in fact correlate within a field with WoS & Scopus--I should probably review it among the review i was talking of of current scientometric measures. I do not see the need for no.10, as i said above--in many fields it simply corresponds to famous, in some it is inappropriate, and is in any rate covered by no.1. I see no urgent need to change. As guidelines go, the WP:PROF guidelines work very well and uncontroversially. When there is major dispute, it is because of some extra-academic reason, such as the association of someone with a particular religious or political movement--sometimes people will try very hard & unreasonably to get borderline people with these characteristics in Wikipedia, and sometimes people will try very hard and equally unfairly to get them out. This is even more acute with people representative of fringe academic subjects, or unpopular academic ideas.

Personally, my own preference is to use broad all-encompassing criteria: I would simply include everyone who is a full professor at a research university. Agreed, probably 25% of them wouldn't really deserve it, but I don't think it matters. It's as understandable a criterion as being a flag officer, or appearing in an Olympics, and the fact that some of these too may not be notable in a common-sense way doesn't hurt us. Some people here have suggested we go down to Assistant Professor--and here I think that level would be low enough that we'd be verging on NOT DIRECTORY. We do need some notability standards to avoid being ridiculous. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. One final thought: Computer science (CS) is historically a byproduct of Math and Physics. On an average, CS professors (say notable one) tend to publish 5 times more than the Math professors and also have higher number of h-index/citations. May be it is because of the nature of the subject within CS. How does our current WP:PROF guidelines see these numbers differently for CS and Mathematics? They cannot be the same. There is out there who vote fails to understand the complicated abstract disciplines in mathematics. Witting a paper in abstract fields such as Topology or Lie Algebra etc. are much more difficult when compared to writing a paper dealing with algorithms, networking, database, security and so on. Likewise with the other subjects. I wonder who they are voting on wiki. What percent of professors take interest voting on wiki on notability nomination? Is it 5% or less? I also see some amount of bias involved when it comes to whether he/se is from US (they are favored). Likewise there is some kind of bias involved coming from politics and religions while voting. Thanks. --kaeiou (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Computer science is a problem because of the specialized nature of its publication pattern, where the publications that really rank the highest in most specialties are those republished from the proceedings of a limited number of highly important conferences. The usual criteria of what amounts to a peer-reviewed paper apply, but have to be used in a specialized fashion. In fields other than engineering, conference papers are secondary to journal articles, but here its the other way round. It's not numbers, but type of publication that's the primary difference. In both fields, a few very influential papers are worth more than any number of mediocre ones--which is exactly the problem with the h-index.

As for faculty, some care a great deal too much, and some have such a low opinion of us they couldn't care less. Our job is to counteract the positive and negative bias by writing articles in a NPOV fashion ourselves, and not leaving it to university press agents and enthusiastic but ill-informed students. Very few of them are here, but a great deal more ought to be and I think will. The problem is they need to accept our rule that their formal authority gives them no particular credibility here--those who can;t adjust to it tend to get very angry at being challenged. In some but not all Wikipedia areas , there is a fairly significant representation of excellent academic people--many of them try not describe themselves as such, but just let it be evident in their work. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. One more: Recommendation: After writing a new page, it is recommended that, after one month if you think that if someone has flaged it for notability check, you nominate it for an early afd or ask help from admin to nominate. Thx. --kaeiou (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do understand the afd process and I have followed it technically. The difficulty with me and many is how wiki defines the WP:BEFORE. They have failed to list the tools that users need to identify whether a particular page needs the afd process. I recommend wiki listing in WP:BEFORE all the tools such as [26]that wiki admin uses to find out why someone is not wiki notable. That should solve my problems of nominating wiki pages for afd process. Thx.--kaeiou (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In practice, it means to search where things would likely be found, which is something to be gained by experience. But as a rough guide we have the automatic search appearing with an AfD nomination--ideally , it should occur before--and it only works if the title of the article is actually a good search term. For most current non academic topics in politics or sports or the arts, I find the most useful search to be Google News Archive. If a US topic of that nature yields no results, it's certainly indicative of problems. For anything academic or historical, Google books + google scholar. (in principle everything in GB is supposed to be in GS, but it just isn't so). For topics in popular culture that if notable would be widely discussed in google, google is a good place--otherwise it gives too many hits and needs checking very far down. For books, the place is worldcat. WorldCat also now searches all book reviews that appeared in journals covered in Muse or JTOR, so it is very useful in seeing if an academic book is significant. For the publications of an academic author in science, Scopus or WoS, which are unfortunately not free, so people use PubMed in biomedicine and Google scholar for the rest. You are right that this should be written down and kept up to date. I'll give it a try. Nobody can search everywhere, which is why there's the 7 days for people to look.

But the key thing is simply to say where you looked! If someone sees you did anything at all, they can check the other places. (It's also good to give a link to your search, so people can see if a better search term might help.

However, I disagree with you about : "After writing a new page, it is recommended that, after one month if you think that if someone has flaged it for notability check, you nominate it for an early afd or ask help from admin to nominate." If after one month nobody has added anything, there are two steps to take: one is to remind the author. the second is to look again yourself. A third, if it looks like it ought to be notable but you cannot find anything, is to ask at the Wikiproject. That;s what the wikiproject banners are for. but this depends on degree of non-notability--if it's borderline, I now just leave it be, in order to get rid of the stuff that's way below borderline. It's when you think its completely or mainly bogus that you need to be sure to follow up. Leaving these things in is very harmful. It's tempting when cleaning house to take off the top layer of dirt, but what is really needed is to get at the utter filth that's hard to spot. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see the URL of these: WorldCat, Scopus or WoS, UAD search in WP:BEFORE or in a separate section called "help for afd - Tools". Does Wikipedia have a license for Scopus or WoS? Can these licenses be shared with users? What is the process to withdraw a nomminated afd? Sorry for asking so many questions - Saturday/Sunday are the only major days that i try to spend time here on wiki -also during evening hrs if possible. thx.--kaeiou (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

/w does not have a license for Scopus or WoS, nor is it imaginable that we would get one. The rate for each of these databases, depending on the size of the college and options, is usually between $20,000 and $100,000 a year--and upwards. As we are open to anyone in the world ... , we'd destroy their customer base. However, the possibility of getting access in some manner to some commercial databases has been discussed on the Wikipedia lists, and I am willing to open negotiations with the various providers, but these two are among the least likely. If however you are enrolled at a college, it is probably that one or both of these are available, and if they are, they are almost certainly available off campus and you can connect through your library interface as a bookmark. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Worldcat

Dear D - you weighed in recently on Worldcat's limitations; I added a section on this to the Worldcat article, only one sentence, but it looks like there's a lot more that could be said. There's what looks to me like a blizzard of info on the web, including maybe licensing issues. (As an ordinary user I've been stymied by its insistence on starting from what it sees as my zipcode and hanging for hours after trying to cross the ocean. This problem has been talked about on WP and on some blogs, but it would be nice to get some reliable sources on it). Thoughts? Novickas (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

problem on a topic like this is, that everything that is formally published is out of date. I'll keep this in mind, though, as I see anything usable. (you can eliminate the zipcode problem by making an free account, or by going through your local library--most of them have a worldCat portal. I also find Safari is best at getting zip codes right, especially if you use igoogle as the default web interface.) DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try those suggestions. Yes, that WC info quickly goes out of date, especially in terms of participation, is clear. I guess I was hoping you could point me to some library journal articles that discuss other (possibly long-term) difficult aspects of Worldcat as a global integration of library holdings - cataloging system differences, transcription of other alphabets, personpower/cost issues, etc.

Re the Mažosios Lietuvos enciklopedija - I'd appreciate your thoughts on the issue of whether the raw number of holdings in Worldcat is a good standard for a work's notability, since this may come up again. IMO holdings by uni libraries and national libraries [27] carry extra weight, but don't know how well this angle of argument is received on WP. Best, Novickas (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i'll start looking for those things--but as you know, the problem is really the same as the problem with uniformity in cataloging rules in general. The safest search is often by title, not author.

In my opinion, The number of holding for a work in Worldcat is a valid measure of comparative importance importance for works in he same genre and time period, for those topics and languages likely to be heavily held in US/Canadian public and academic libraries. when I use this as a measure, I usually give a qualifier--as for example, for a 1930 UK children's novel, that even a few dozen copies are held in the US is a measure of high importance, because public libraries do not generally keep older books of this sort, and the UK/US children's book market is different; for a US current children's novel. For a 2008 US children's novel, anything under 200 or 300 copies is a trivial holding. And this is the problems with using academic libraries as a count: by and large, they collect only academic books. Here it depends on field and language even more critically because the numbers are lower: worldcat holdings for an academic book in Turkish on any subject except Turkish history & politics would be a proof of importance if there were more than 2 or 3, as almost no US/canadian libraries collect substantially in this area and language. A negative or very low result in WorldCat is significant if it is a subject that would normally expected to be heavily held.

National libraries are in my opinion, meaningless, except for a negative result from the home country, because of required copyright deposit. As a supplement to worldcat, I use karlsruhe: [28]. It has its own peculiarities. I have mine set for the German, French, Italian, & Spanish catalogs, adding others as needed. (I search BL separately). For an academic book in the recondite areas of the traditional humanities, I usually find it doubles the count if added to Worldcat. worldCat is making a serious effort to add national libraries, but Karlsruhe will still be needed for the other academic libraries in those countries. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Campus (CCNY)

Hi DGG, regarding the declined prod for this article - I searched for refernces from 3rd party sources as per WP:BEFORE, but could find none that provided sufficient in-depth coverage to confer notability. I'm concerned that the prod has been declined and the article still sits unsourced and possibly unnotable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Since so many people do not look, it speeds things up considerably if you say you did in the nomination, so we don;t duplicate work. I'll look myself to be sure, but at the very worse what you would want to do is propose a merge into the main article on the college, or the subarticle on student publications. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for Discussion

How do we get the momentum back to get this implemented? I was reminded of it as Sebwite is getting impatient and is proposing yet another process, see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal:_Articles_for_merging_.28AfM.29. We've got consensus for a name change of AfD and for it to incorporate merges, so the rest is detail, but it is getting bogged down in people rehashing the arguments that were already resolved. Here's what I think needs to be done:

1. Rename WP:Articles for deletion to WP:Articles for discussion, and ensure that all linking pages in policy and guidelines are updated.
2. Change the wording of WP:AFD to make it clear that nominators are allowed to propose merges and redirects using AfD (and should specify that this is what they are doing), that merges may still be discussed on talk pages, and that merge or redirect is an acceptable outcome of an AfD discussion (even if the article is originally nominated for deletion).
3. The templates also need changing to include fields for whether it is a deletion, redirect, or merge nomination.
4. WP:BEFORE should have a sub-section for what nominators should consider before proposing a merge, summarising and linking to Wikipedia:Merging.
5. Wikipedia:Merging#Pages to merge should note that WP:AFD is now a venue for proposing and discussing merges.
6. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers should be marked as historical.
7. Help:Merging should be updated to note that controversial merges go via AfD.
8. Update WP:DRV so that it becomes "Discussion review" and notes that reviews of merge decisions made at WP:AFD are allowed.

Have I missed anything? Fences&Windows 17:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a mockup of a merge template for AfD: User:Fences and windows/AfD. It could be incorporated into the existing AfD templates by using a parameter "type" that would take "delete", "merge" or "redirect" as an input (defaulting to delete), or it could be a separate template, whichever would be the most user friendly. Fences&Windows 17:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's one remaining problem I did not consider adequately before: RfD. Unlike RM, it is still active, getting about 5 to 10 requests a day. Looking there, it seems that half of them are trivial changes, but half deal with things that should better be presented at AfD, including at least one current attempt to defeat an AfD consensus at a less conspicuous spot. I was thinking of doing this as a second step rather than reopening the discussion to include them now. It would mean merging the processes.

Also, it needs to be emphasised the merges that would not be likely to be contested need to go to afd. I'm not sure I completely prefer the actual removal or RM instead of keeping it to list them. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We can roll in merges and then worry about RfD later. Perhaps if it is being misused as a sneaky way to delete articles (e.g. Timeline of the War on Terror) then such discussions could be 'upgraded' to AfD by an admin (by closing the RfD and opening an AfD). I agree that it should be emphasised that AfD will not be the only merge discussion venue, and I can see the value in leaving RM where it is (though highlighting that merges can now be done through AfD). So, how do we get all this prepared? Fences&Windows 22:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about how to do redirects, but then we need to be careful not to say more about redirects than we are actually proposing at this time, to avoid confusion. That upgrade concept sounds a possible way, and we can think how to word it later. Thing is, then the p. will be even more invisible, and we might simplify things to just roll it in. another 5 a day will not hurt us.

I suggest: Revise with respect to mergers, and copy it on a new subpage of AfD talk. , with a note on the present talk p. and ANB, and possibly elsewhere Expand to a more detailed list of changes, ask for other pages affected to be listed, and ask for people to propose key wording changes there & if OK'd, on the talk p. of the affected notice. and then once the minimum key parts are written , to make the key changes on a particular date, and then fill in the others. Announce that we are collecting suggested wordings at ANB and AfD talk. we also have to notify some of the people who maintain the various gadgets). Suggested target date, for changes, March 16, 10 days ahead. It doesn;t have to be perfectly synchronized. I'll watch your contributions page, and follow up afterwards saying i agree with the process DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose that a template and category be created to tag and track pages requiring changes. I'll write something if you think it's a reasonable idea. Flatscan (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Fences&Windows 00:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I whipped up {{Afd rename}} and Category:Wikipedia Pages requiring changes for Articles for discussion. Feel free to edit or rename them. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

they seem good. Next in line, the statement of AfD talk about the steps to be followed. ` DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this. if I had a wish as to a mess that needs sorting, this is it - i.e. the funnelling of the all-but-ignored merge discussion pages into the highly polarised AfD. Where do I sing up? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

start thinking of how to change the instructions for WP:RM and related pages. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP discussion

Hi DGG, whether we have always agreed on various issues or not, I can't remember, but I have always appreciated the quality of your comments. I notice that you have contributed a few times to the BLP discussion. In an attempt to keep it on an even track, I have proposed splitting the discussion into its true component parts, because the scope of the original discussion starting from Phase 1, was too broad, and has fostered not only confusion, but some incivility; some users of the kind we need in such discussions have even abandoned ship in exasperation. One user has gone ahead on my suggestion and created the first of these workshop pages. Whichever side you are on, you may wish to visit this page at WT:BLP PROD TPL and judge it on its merits. It would help keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole fiasco towards a decision some kind or another. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

my personal view is that we ought to decide something, even if it is something without very much real meaning, such as a repeated commitment to sourcing articles. Perhaps, though, we should take advantage of the opportunity to assure that articles do not get unreasonably deleted beyond the present precautions, such as a requirement for BEFORE. I have made some comments that might help that along. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions

I was helping clear out CAT:CSD this evening and found that I was declining a surprising number of tags, especially A7's. Could you take a look at [29] and [30] and make sure that I'm using reasonably criteria. If you don't have time or energy to do it, that's fine too. Thanks! Eluchil404 (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rehman Azhar is a correspondent. Most such news anchors do not make it past afd. He has a more extensive career than most, and he just might. It was probably tagged without realizing it was a little different. (obviously there is a question about whether we should speedy an article if the only basis is that in practice it would be 99% likely to fail afd--according to the rules we should not, but if it is clear enough some admins stretch the rules here, instead of using PROD.

Rhye's and Fall of Civilization passed afd. It should therefore never have been nominated--but I think you too did not check the history.

[Rsbot]] was tagged as an A1, no context, not A7. The context was pretty obvious. A1 is often used wrongly, to mean "i think it is an inadequate article"

Sandhosh kumar certainly passed A7 and might or might not pass afd. However, you should have moved it to the proper capitalization. There actually are some people who tend to look for failure to capitalize the last name as an indication of incompetent writing and at least partial grounds for deletion.

Sarah Killin I would have speedied--since you declined it I sent it to AfD. Being chosen at random for mention on a tv show is not in my opinion a plausible claim to notability. I consider it a classic BLP 1E. But who knows what the community will think. You may be right & I wrong. If one thinks the community will support something I myself think ridiculous, that does mean I should not speedy it, for it would be a controversial deletion.

for the user page, the relevant criterion is "Where there is no significant abuse and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page and user subpages be deleted" from WP:USER. But the user history on this one is a case where there was significant abuse and an admin need to retain the information.

I have not yet reviewed the ones you did delete, but the proportion that you didn't is no higher than usual. Of course the proportion one finds depends on when one does it and what one looks for. I try to look for the ones there several hours than other admins apparently preferred not to figure out, and i delete only about half of those. But if I do a random assortment, what you found is not at all unusual in my experience. I looked to see if it were perhaps one person tagging them, which would require some advice to them, but this wasn't the case. When it's isolated cases like this I do not notify the person whose tag I removed, because they should be able to figure it out from the edit summary. If tagging by whoever wants to do it gives a 10% or 20% error, it would not be more than would be expected. That's what we admins are here for. the hope is that between their tagging it and our check , there will not be more than a 5% error. This is too high from the point of view of treating new editors properly, but it's as good as can be hopen for by our processes. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks a bunch for taking a look. I certainly can't be sure Rehman Azhar or [Sarah Killin]] would pass AfD, but if they don't meet speedy criteria, I'm not going to delete them based on my personal reading of WP:N. I don't consider BLP1E to be a speedy criteria. Though I remember a DRV where I endorsed a speedy under it on the grounds that the AfD outcome was morally certain. As I recall, you disagreed. The close was messy and I don't recall what the exact outcome was. I knew that Rhye's and Fall of Civilization seemed familiar, and your right, one should always check the history when considering a speedy deletion. RSbot was the worst tagging I came across, not even close to a genuine A1, I made the fuller comment to note that I had considered deleting it under A7 in the alternative. Wolfteam Prides that I deleted earlier had been tagged A1 which it didn't meet but as it was a clear A7 I deleted under that criterion instead. As I said before, I am very grateful for your input. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In the past, we have sometimes declined to undelete at Deletion Review on the grounds that the article is hopelessly unlikely to pass and instead userified the article--sometimes this does serve the purpose of being the most useful way of potentially getting a decent article, but it has the disadvantage of not sending the appropriate message to the admin who did the incorrect deletion. I consider the second of them the more important in some cases where the admin makes frequent errors of the sort, and I have usually opposed such decisions. I wish I could figure out a way of doing both. It is only repeated reversal at deletion review that will have an effect on some closers, and, if necessary, build material for an RfC. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC) .

Hi, please let me know what portion of the David F. Alfonso page contained copyright infringement, I would like to tighten that up so that I may re-post. Thanks.AcquisitionGuru (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Science Vision

I would certainly like to be tolerant of this one, too, but the problem is that I could not find a single reference. I'd have left it alone if there had been a link to a homepage (or if I could have found a homepage), but I couldn't. It's not in JournalSeek or WorldCat. Perhaps you have other ideas how to find sources? --Crusio (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP mess

DGG, Thank you for your kind thoughts and encouragement. Maurreen (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't promote the existence of poor quality articles!

It promotes the existence of poor quality content such as plagiarism and violations of the neutrality policy if you are encouraging editors to do an internet search and then add a ref to the existing article content if they see evidence of notability in the on line source. This is a poor way to edit and one that should not be encouraged. It is this mentality that has caused Wikipedia to have growing number of poor quality article. While the situation is worse with BLPs, this applies to all articles that are poorly sourced (including completely unsourced material). Editors need to be taught the correct way to write a good article. Article content need to supported by a specific reference. I'm not seeing that happen at deletion discussions and for that reason, I think that the current deletion processes are a major obstacle to raising the quality of Wikipedia content. So, any changes to the deletion process need to consider how it will effect the overall quality of the material. For this reason, I can not support demanding editors look and add a single source instead of identifying the article as unsourced and prodding it. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 06:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think I advocate the unfortunate practice of finding anything with the term or the name and adding it without any caution. I do not do that, and you know I don;t , nor have I ever advised anyone to do so. couldn't disagree more. Articles grow incrementally; we start with one source, and find more--you know the way articles have grown under Wikipedia editing. The best way to get them growing, is to start them off. I do not see how that plagiarism is in the remotest likely by taking an article and looking for sources. If you mean that the material might be a copyvio, looking for a source is likely to detect it--and it should certainly be normal practice to check for it additionally in the usual ways. We should certainly add it to the minimum suggested requirements. But for simple bio articles, when I do find copyvio, I normally simply rewrite it, using the original page as a source and listing it as such. Not that people are obliged to do that in a normal check, but i do it. similarly I do not se how NPOV is at all likely either, any more than in any other article. the basic facts will be documented by the source--if there are interpretation problems they will be evident. I do not advocate a bot like approach to this.In fact that's why it takes a little time to get it right, and why reasonable time must be allowed. I find I can do it at 4 min . each for simple articles, but I'd expect much people to take 10 minutes. If it were done without due caution , it would take about 1 min each, and anyone screening articles at that speed, whether to add or delete, is normally going to fast , unless they hit a run of total garbage so bad it doesnt need checking. I wish to demand editors look and see if they can find sources--I never said that finding one is optimum. It depend what they find. if there's an article on a prime minister, and I find one unquestionably reliable official source for the person holding the position , it is enough. if it's an author, and I find a book but can't tell if it is self published, it is not enough. I expect to find about 1/3 sourceable and possibly notable, 1/3 sourceable but unlikely to be notable, and 1/3 unsourceable--and they get kept, sent to prod or afd, or deleted, accordingly. It's perfectly reasonable to prod , saying I looked for sources via [this search] , but couldnt find anything significant. It';s perfectly reason to do that and say this is what i found,but it doesn't show notability. It's perfectly acceptable even to speedy, saying nothing here gives any indication of possible notability even if it were sourced. You know I work carefully. I want to help others work carefully also, and I'll be glad to join with you in any reasonable scheme for doing it. You probably mean, people might take what I say, and use it carelessly.-- but people can take any advice and work carelessly. They can delete careless, and they do, as much as keep carelessly. I came here in the first place to raise standards, in the light of my experience and training in knowing what real standards are--and my experience in teaching them. I have not forgotten my initial goal. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that "you" are doing it but I do have concerns that some editors that are less familiar with good writing practices are being encouraged by your comments to rescue articles that would be better off either deleted or re-directed. Unless an unsourced article is re-written to match the newly found source, there is a significant chance that misattribution will occur in some instance---and that is plagiarism. It is important to remind editors of this point. Instead, I see with these discussions the idea being promoted that it is possible to save the article by doing a internet check for notability and adding one source. The way that you say that you are doing it is fine if you are rewriting the material. But the problem is that right now we are being pressured to re-write material incompletely, or not touch the article at all. I'm not as optimistic as you are that gradual article improvement is happening across the board. Instead, I see a growing backlog of poor quality articles with no plan in place to improve them. Speaking of neutrality violation, it is poor writing to not give a well balance over review of the topic. This is especially a problem for articles that are rescued by people that are not knowledgeable about the topic and not spending time doing extensive research. We need to recognize that converting unsourced material into a good article is not something that can happen in every instance even if the person is notable. In those cases, I have no problem with either deleting the content or redirecting to another related articles until someone finds good article content. Keeping poor material is not the best solution for the reader. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 07:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not think your specific concerns are justified, as I have already explained. Misattribution and POV problems can occur at any point in almost any particle, and often do. We both know how this is a continuing concern throughout the encyclopedia. They are obviously not good, but they cannot be avoided in a crowd sourced project, and our susceptibility to these will always be among our limitations. (Myself, I am concerned more about other problems, which are equally pervasive and in some cases much more harmful: outdated content, hidden promotionalism, unbalanced content, obsolete sources.) If some day an encyclopedia of proper scholarly standards can be built on the basis of Wikipedia, that will be excellent, but it will be a very different encyclopedia, and it remains to be seen if it can be done with our methods. Myself, I think such a work will always need editorial control,not our present methods. The concept that a definitive encyclopedia can be constructed at all is probably beyond the nature of humans, who will never agree on what presentation of a subject is definitive, and the very nature of scholarship implies that the understanding of not just science, but all aspects of the world, will be continually changing. Even without questions of interpretation, I do not see how any work can ever be completely up to date and completely accurate.

I see no reason why these articles will be more susceptible to it than any others. We will at the worst be adding 20 or 30 thousand low quality articles to the existing million of them. I am not concerned that every article be of high quality, just that it can be passable--it can be improved later. Almost every current article was at one time in a minimal (or, in many cases, sub-minimal) status, and has been improved over the years, and will need to continue to be improved. The basic concept of a project like this is that we supplement each others work, and that articles grow in this manner. If you seriously propose to go through the encyclopedia and remove every article that is not up to good article status at present , I think that is a very different encyclopedia than most of us have in mind. Had this been the original goal, we could never have gotten started. Were this the practice now, we would never be able to expand coverage into new or developing areas. I remind you of the experience of Citizendium, which has very high standards for approved articles, and consequently has approved very few of them.

To make our differences clear, I think that finding a reference for verification of the key aspect of notability of an article is quite enough to keep it from deletion. That is indeed all I ask people to do as a minimum. I try to do better on the topics of my own choice, but if I need to work quickly, I too actually do stop at that point. Most of my work here is in fact salvage. I'm a populist, not an intellectual aristocrat, in the present context. Wikipedia is a place where articles are made by people not knowledgeable about the topic and not doing extensive research. It's not idea, but the world seems to find it not merely adequate, but better for its general purposes than anything else available. Our strength is our wide coverage, not our quality. When we upgrade quality, it must not be at the expense of coverage.

I hope you will not retard progress on this issue by trying to impose your dream of a different encyclopedia upon the present project. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

On a more positive note, if you do want to make a step towards quality that might be compatible with this project, perhaps you can help me figure out a practical method for the periodic revisiting and updating of all our articles. As time goes by, this will be a problem that whose severity will inevitably increase. and it won;t be easy. As only one aspect, essentially every number in the encyclopedia needs to be checked to see if it is still accurate. every author and artist needs to be checked to see they have not produced further work. Every statement with a date after 2000 is likely to need changing, and every statement without a date is needs checking to see if it needs changing. Every reference list needs checking to see if there are newer works, and if the old ones are still the best. Every external links section needs checking to see not just if they are alive, but if they are still the best for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Restore Burn and Wound Research

Hi. Thank you for your help to date. I just wanted to ask how to establish notability and cite sources.The only source I have for the intro is the Restore Annual Report which is available on Restore's website and is a published document lodged at the Charities Commission in the UK. Similarily the Officers are also cited in that document and on the website.I did try to input a reference to teh website but did not succeed. I also presume that I do not need to cite the sources for the Publications since sufficient detail is provided ? I know that you deleted quite a few of the Publications but wonder why as many of them were in well known scientific magazines.

Is there anything else i can do to fix? I am very new to Wiki

Thanks Conman98 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave you some additional advice on your user page. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of Softlink

I noted my entry for Softlink was deleted, and whilst this was part of a discussion, I feel that it does warrant an entry due to the number of users worldwide, and it would be a central encyclopedic source for verified data. There are other similar entries for comparable products, so I am curious as to why those were passed while Softlink was deleted?

At the least could you please restore to my user page for me to work on, or even up to Softlink (software)

Is there anything else i can do to fix this up? Sjritchie (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete it: you need to ask User:Cirt, who closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softlink. Ask him to move it to user space, which he will probably do. What you need, quite simply, is to find some articles or reviews that discuss it or talk about it in a more substantial way. Nothing else is really likely to work. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP template workshop

Hi DGG. Your comments are some of the most valued and most mature in this entire BLP issue, but I think we may be interrupting the workflow by discussing policy, particularly that of the technically unenforceable WP:BEFORE, on the workshop page. I have suggested we create a new sub-page for this kind of discussion. What do you think? --Kudpung (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it belongs where I put it, in the section on finding a compromise. The discussion is about which of the proposals to include in the compromise, and this is my suggestion. If a previous suggestion for compromise suggested leaving it out, I can suggest leaving it in. If people do not like the suggestion, they can say so. I have no objection to discussing it elsewhere as well. How we would enforce it would be another matter. I can think of several ways,though i would not want to have any of them drastic as the way proposed to deal with people who remove tags. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not the only person who wants BEFORE. I do think it will get in the way of compromise.

I think group can decide not to decide about people removing the prod prematurely.

But it's better for me to discuss all this at the workshop, not personal talk pages. Maurreen (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:) Maurreen (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

G7

I don't want my name on these biographies. Please delete them. If you want, recreate them yourself. -Atmoz (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Usually the request is made by someone who realizes what they have been writing about cant possibly make a sustainable article, and there is then good reason to remove it. Sometimes there are special cases that can be taken into account. When i detag them I take responsibility for them., so you need not worry about maintaining them, if that;s the problem. Or do thepeople have views that you now disagree with, or what? What is the case here? I don;t follow the topic, so if there is something special going on, you'll have to tell me. Unless you convince me, I'm not deleting them, you irrevocably released the material, and it is no longer under your control. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing special going on. These people are just as Wikipedia "notable" as they were when I created the articles. I doubt their views have changed. What's changed are my views. G7 doesn't mention any of the nonsense above. It says that if an author requests deletion in good faith and the only substantial text was contributed by one author. That it. So by declining my request, you're saying it wasn't in good faith. I don't see why you want to keep these crappy articles. They're going to stay like they are from now until Wikipedia gets shut down. The only edits will be by people adding the words poop or other nonsense. Nobody cares about these people. They are not public figures. They do not need biographies. And the bit about "irrevocably releas[ing] the material" is nonsense. Thousands of articles get deleted everyday, and they all irrevocably released the material. -Atmoz (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• DGG see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility / application of G7 which is related. I think Atmoz is saying above s/he doesn't want their name attached to these, so perhaps maybe to fulfill their wish, the article could be deleted and you could re-create it under your hand (noting the other previous minor contributors in the initial edit summary). If Atmoz releases their contributions to the public domain their name does not need to be in the edit history. –xeno^talk 20:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

as i commented there just now in more , the license is irrevocable, some of the people are unquestionably notable-- Lin is a member of the National Academy of Sciences--and the editor does not own the article. I regard what I did as correct; I would have regarded deleting the articles as incorrect, for I do not consider it a reasonable request. Anyone has the right to remove a speedy tag from an article (except the author)--this isn;t even an admin matter. Atmoz has now been blocked by another admin for comments related to this; I do not want to make this personal, and I have expressed my willingness to unblock , but someone has objected at AN/I. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Keith Briffa

Atmoz also tagged Keith Briffa for speedy deletion as G7, and User:Juliancolton deleted it. You might want to take a look at the deleted article and see whether notability can be established for it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw much less of a case. He's a member of the unit, not holding titles of distinction otherwise. I didn;t do a thorough check beyond that I've moved to it your user space as User:Eastmain/Keith Briffa. If you feel justified, move it back to mainspace, but if you do, please notify Julian DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I don't want to get involved in Wikipedia politics--regular politics is harsh enough. BUT: Briffa is indeed notable (perhaps against his will) because he is the object of attack by some involved in the controversies over climate change. For example: the Climate Realists blog has a post claiming a Wikipedia conspiracy to protect Briffa by taking down his page (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5395). I'd put the page back up myself, but as I said, I want to avoid involvement in some big deletionist admin battle! So why don't one of you do it, OK?!Jeangoodwin (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans Breuer

"In S r 1991". You sourced it to http://www2.augsburg.de/ but a ctrl+F of the term Breu came up with nothing on that page. When you get a moment, could you fix the sentence and/or the source if that's needed? Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I copied that from the deWP. I'll check. It should be possible to source it completely indepedently in any case. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gutenberg-Jahrbuch

Could you have a look at this one? The publishers website gives IBSN numbers ofr the different annual volumes, so I am not sure this is best described as journal. I am also at a loos how to categorize this one, History journals? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that you asked, but unmistakably notable--the leading publication in the world for the field. How to catalog annuals is one of the variable aspects of library cataloging. The distinctions between journal, periodical, and serial are remarkably complicated, and have changed from time to time, and make frequent use of the words "usually" and "typically" In this case, i consider it essentially a periodical because each issue contains articles on a variety of different topics by different authors. My tendency would be to simply call this a periodical in the text, but to categorize it as a journal as the closest category we have. Many series of all sorts have separate ISBN numbers for each volume, to deal with the possibility of someone wanting to buy just one volume. I see it has an ISSN, 0072-9094; I see LC calls it a periodical in the subject heading, and several hundred libraries classify it that way [31]. At Princeton, there were some annual series held both by the chemistry and biology libraries, which one library dealt with as individual books, and the other as a periodical. (I say "was," because by now such duplicate subscriptions are a thing of the past even there). DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ISSN, I'll add it to the article. I indeed didn't ask about notability, because it looked fine to me. I'll call it a periodical but categorize it as a journal. --Crusio (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Edinburgh University Press

Another question: somebody has been adding several articles on UEP journals. Some of them are very new (2008-2009 or even 2010). Would you regard journals from this publisher immediately notable? I have prodded the 2010 one, but not the others yet). --Crusio (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I will need to look at them individually. I think it would depend to a considerable degree on the sponsorship & the editor. a journal published by a leading international society or with a very famous ed. in chief might be immediately notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here are this user's contributions (now blocked for promotional username). --Crusio (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

fortunately, most are continuations of established journals. I'll follow up with the necessary redirects. I am thinking of putting in a note about contacting us or the Working group in advance in one or two of the most read email lists, which are the main way librarians & publishers communicate. I can make it unofficial--a personal update on what I;ve been doing the last few years. I'll do a draft. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Most are indeed fine and I have them on my list for some cleanup/categorizing/and such. Probably tomorrow... A note on these lists would be good, could save everybody some work. I have no problem with being included in such a note, of course. --Crusio (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship

Final question for today :-) What do you think of this journal? Is it notable? The website looks rather amateurish. It is listed in a few databases, but I don't know how significant those are. --Crusio (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The question of how to judge e-journals of this sort is going to be a quandry. We cannot go by circulation; since they are free, many libraries simply add them all to their catalogs. This one has been going a number of years, which means it at least is able to get articles. (I checked a few, and they are not really worse than the rather low average quality for the subject field.) The contributors are from reputable libraries; the ed. in chief holds a significant university position. The publisher sponsors a number of such journals, some of which are a little better, some a good deal worse. there is no house style--most such journals nowadays actually use a web designer--they tried to do it themselves. (But some of the pioneering e-only journals , even the good ones, were and remain almost as primitive.) There are two major librarianship indexing services, and it's in both of them. Both of them are moderately selective. that puts this one above the bar. I think the safest course at present is to hold to that principle. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD you might be interested in

DGG; I've nominated an article you de-prodded 8 months ago for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disgraced United States politicians You said it has potential, but I don't see it having been developed- I thought you might be interested in the discussion, and I would like to hear your opinion if you're so inclined. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Would a redirect be appropriate here?

I'd like to get your opinion about the article Kevin Foster (murderer). (Not real fond of that title, BTW). This is classic BLP1E to me. The crimes did get national attention and there was a book written about it, but the young man was completely non-notable prior to his crimes and since he is under a death sentence, probably won't become notable for anything else. I also think he falls short under WP:PERP because there wasn't "persistent coverage of the event". Like most of these, there was coverage for a little while, then life moved on. 10 years later, someone wrote a book, so Dateline did a piece on it, then it dropped off again. Even though he is a convicted murder and will die in prison, he is currently living and still falls under BLP. Would you mind taking a look and see what you think? I'm thinking this should be redirected to Lords of Chaos (self-styled teen militia), particularly since the only information it provides that isn't in the Lords of Chaos article is his birthdate. Other than that, it's merely a sorter version of the LOC article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I consider this an editing question, not BLP. It would make more sense to merge the articles, and possibly to remove some of the trivial detail-- like the song --from the group article. I personally think the only BLP concern is not having an article under the name of the victim. The application of BLP is still subject to common sense; some people's privacy I just cannot get concerned over. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not concerned for his privacy. I'm saying that the article fails the applicable notability guidelines and was asking if a redirect seemed like a better choice than taking it to AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it fails the notability guideline. Given that he is substantially discussed in the 2 books and the NBC video about the events, I think it might well hold. The question is whether merging is a better decision. there is at least one thing that needs merging that is not in the original article: The subsequent conviction of him and his mother. So the thing to do is to go ahead and merge it, it's the safe decision. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Potential essay

I liked your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. C. Johnson where you respond to the statement "notability is not inherited" and you frame it as an "improper use of the term" -- I think there's a potential useful wikipedia essay in that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

yes, but it might be simpler to revise WP:NOT. Please go ahead and try -- either or both! DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

One aspect of mentoring success is demonstrated by the slow process through which your words are captured, studied, parsed and re-examined in a context not anticipated in your original remarks.

I do not know whether imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; but I do know that I have adopted your words as if they were my own here.

I would prefer that you construe no flattery. Rather, I would hope you think that this only shows a recognition of common sense reasoning.--Tenmei (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Incidentally I see that I had made a typo in line 1 of pt A, which I just now fixed in the original; I'm not sure how closely part C fits the situation., but I have no objection to the way you used them. Good luck with it all. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor review

Do you ever have the time to review an editor, DGG? If you do, I think I could benefit from you doing a more in-depth analysis of my work. Either way, thank you for your consideration.--~TPW 17:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

not formally, especially with all the current nonsense going on, but 2 small hints: 1/be careful not to mark an edit minor when its a nomination for deletion, 2/ some of your edit summaries are a little snarky about the subject--NPOV applies there also. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of the War on Terrorism

Hi DGG! I sincerely hope I'm not overstaying my welcome on your talk page ... please tell me if I am! I was just looking for your input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the War on Terrorism, and the resulting discussion here. I certainly don't expect you to read through all that, but was wondering what your opinion was (and of course don't agree with me just to agree with me (not that you would anyway)). The question seems to be about whether the article was to be deleted as original research, or kept as fixable and sourceable. Again, you have no obligation to make any notice of this, but at the very least have a good day. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

it will be easier to make the new article than convince the admin about the old one, or to go to Del Rev about it. The simplest way is get it into user space and work on it there. I'm sure Jayjg will move it for you. If not, ask me. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks greatly DGG! You always seem to give me a solid second opinion, I hope I don't call on it too much for your liking. Take excellent care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky prod

Hi DGG. I saw your recent comments on Maurreeen's talk page. Don't jump to conclusions - it should have appeared clear by now that your comments are among the most valued, and I am an avid supporter. However, one of the problems on the workshop page, was that some people were still attempting to turn it - in good faith - into a discussion on poiicy, while others appear to be simply peppering it with eloquent but cynical remarks in order to have something to say. I've now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that we can get on with the template design, while development of policy can take place unhindered in its own space. When the functions are finalised, we can then merge the policy bits into them. Also, although I've been bold with the moves, I've actually been quite conservative in shifting the content, so if you see anything else that can be collapsed or split please don't hesitate to go ahead. Now that Maurreen has definiotely left the project, I don't know anything about programming bots or template actions, so rather than just do page housekeeping tasks, I might be the next one to run away, not that it would make much difference if I did  ;) --Kudpung (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look, but I am now too demoralized by the bitterness at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt to do anything substantial. I trust you to arrange the content fine--that's not the important part. the important part is to realize, that out of two samples each of 20 new BLP articles, 80% of the unsourced BLPs I found were deletable by speedy--and they have been either deleted or tagged accordingly. It will be easy enough to deal with the 10 or 20 a day that actually do need rescue no matter how we do it. DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said somewhere else, I don't really care whether the deletionists or the inclusionists win the day. My concern is to know what to do with the 500 unsourced BLPs on my projects, and what to do about the new ones that will arrive, without trying anyone's patience, and getting scolded by some twit of an adolescent, self-appointed, Wikipedia policeman. I will help to implement the design, set up, and launch, of whatever policy is adopted. Nevertheless, that policy has been decided and adopted and work is going ahead to make all the required templates, warnings, and bots. IHMO, I think what has been decided is fairly middle-of-the-road, and has something in it for everyone: The newbies who don't understand the rules, the trigger-happy edit count freaks, the rescue squadron, the CSDists, and thse who feel that unsourced BLPs must go sooner or later. The sad thing isn that after an RfC that had over 400 participants, only FOUR users are left who have actually volunteered to do the dirty work, and none of us are template or bot programmers.

I understand your feelings on on the MQS RfA. It's not an RfA, it's an inquisition, worse even than a Desysop discussion. The whole thing is a disgusting fiasco including the the contrived questions in the first part. The whole thing should be taken to Arbcom or whoever is the authority on such crap, with a request to delete the enire RfA from the records so that not even admins can see it, start over, with a ban on anyone (and that means of course also, unfortunately the supporters) who voted or commented, from re-voting.--Kudpung (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

as for the re-run, it would be enough to limit everybody to a single vote and one or two replies. I think something like that would help many of our processes.

as for the BLPs. as I understand it the existing unsourced BLPs are not what is at issue here, this part of the discussion is about dealing with the incoming ones. They are different, and need different approaches. The incoming ones don't really need limits to prevent it clogging up the process and keepable articles deleted from lack of time and attention. I'm doing a larger survey, and it seems we get somewhere around 50 unsourced BLPs a day that would not be dealt with under speedy. The first problem, is to make sure absolutely none of the hundreds of speediable ones escape, because they're the ones that really do damage. Then the remaining ones basically need to be returned to the authors for sourcing, on the grounds that this is the time when they are around, and can do it best, with the backup of a period for the rest of us to look at them and see what's worth trying. One particular problem I've been seeing a lot of is people carrying over the lead paragraph from another Wikipedia, but not the references. (a harder one is those in the WPs that have not been insisting on references for things they think can be obviously sourced)

The existing ones are on the other hand a matter not for a rush to keep up, but of patience and persistence. To say, we've tolerated this for years, but now were going to get rid of them all, is not rational, but perhaps more of an attempt to hide the shame of having permitted them in the first place. But i see from your work here that you deal partly with one of the most difficult areas: the countries where the web is not as developed, and where such online materials as available only go back one or two years. I can help source things rather generally, but not with this sort of material. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You may find funny a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death, which asks its members to discuss what to do with living people within the coverage of their project :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that I also deal with some topics that are extremely difficult to source - to the extent perhaps that my contribs there look very much like OR. However, I look upon the fact that they have not been contested as a positive sign. Anyway, they have got nothing to do with BLPs. I agree with all your points above, and somewhere else I have mentioned that you can reply on my support for WP:BEFORE.

I've had another look at the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt. MQS was finally bullied into withdrawing in spite of still having nearly 30 more supports than oppositions. Under the circumstances I think I would have done the same. However, this was an extraordinary RfA with a lot of deliberate muck-raking, and silly, irresponsible, off-topic questions to the candidate by a clan of users from a specific conviction. I can oly assume that something had been going on behind the scenes. I seriously think this RfA should be brought to the attention of whichever authority is competent for this kind of bullying and character assasination. You can't do it, DGG, because you are an involved party. I don't know Schmidt or his work at all and didn't vote or comment on his RfA so I have no reason to be biased. Perhaps I could be instrumental in getting something started; not necessarily for Schmidt's sake, but for the sake of Wikipedia policy and clean debates across the board. It's the danger of crap like that that prevents me from accepting a nom for RfA, and maybe a lot of other potential admins too.--Kudpung (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Vlanalyst

Thanks for the note, but I don't at all deal with BLPs enough to know what to do. I encountered these ones while deleting expired PRODs, and obviously I found the others problematic. No complaints about deletion; after all, I was asking for them to be deleted :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

North Carolina School for the Deaf Bears

Thanks for the suggestion to merge into the article for the North Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind. You know there isn't such an article, yes? Ironholds (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But there is: North Carolina School for the Deaf, DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghost wars

Hi DGG,

This is to request your opinion on Talk:Ghost#Is this a pseudoscience topic? I suppose this is canvassing, but since I am only canvassing one person, know you will mention my request in your reply and have no idea what your view will be, think it is acceptable. Often when I ask for your opinion, I sort of wish I hadn't because you tend to give the wrong answer. But somehow I keep asking for your opinion. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't decipher out the course of the discussion well enough to even figure out what your opinion is. But as I said there just now, I think it better to hold to a rather restricted definition of that term. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Makes sense. I only got involved a week or so ago. My opinion is that this article is a bit lop-sided, overly focused on Western beliefs, but could grow to be an interesting article about the rich subject of ghost lore in different cultures and religions around the world. Unfortunately it has turned into a battlefield over the very minor aspect of "paranormal research", which is strangling further development. The main arguments are "is so", "is not" and "you're another". Maybe this RFC will help to calm things down. Thanks again, Aymatth2 (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

BEFORE question

Hello D - what is the standing of WP:BEFORE, in your view? It's not described as a guideline; I've never seen any AFDs that were speedily closed after an editor posted multiple reliable, online sources in the AFD itself, or pointed to a topic's inherent significance (e.g. Nursing in Pakistan). I also haven't seen that adding refimprove, no refs, etc. templates to an article can prevent or end an AFD, despite BEFORE's wording. The deletion process does sometimes galvanize editors into improving articles. So then it might be framed as a means v. ends issue. If this has been discussed elsewhere, pls let me know. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I know what WP:BEFORE ought to be--it ought to be a very strong guideline about how to proceed before nominating any article for deletion by PROD or AfD. It ought to be enforced, by delisting , & returning such nominations when there is no evidence of prod to the listers for proper searching and reentry if necessary. every nomination by either method should require ea statement of why merge, redirect, or stubbify is inapplicable, and , when relevant, where sources have been looked for. There so far has not been sufficient consensus to adopt it firmly as a requirement, but I think there now might be, and if not yet, that there soon will be.

I think many AfDs have been closed when people find sources and bring them up for discussion during the afd. Usually this occurs when the nominator see the material, and withdraws. Otherwise, if sourced or added during the discussion, I would disagree with a speedy close, for I think it would be normally less subject to abuse to let the discussion run the full time, or, if added late in the discussion, be relisted.

I think also many good people who challenge an article do refrain from nominating when sources are added. The problem is with those who do not. A few careless nominators can make for a lot of unnecessary work and trouble. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC) .

Excuse me for butting in on this thread DGG , but you have my every support for a stricter implementation of WP:BEFORE, even if it's not technically easy to enforce. Please let me know if have any ideas how it can be done.--Kudpung (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be possible to have the number of Google News, Books and Scholar hits of prodded and/or AfD'd articles reported somewhere. Abductive (reasoning) 05:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, having it as a guideline would cause the closing admin to give weight to arguments along those lines. I support the concept, as well.--~TPW 18:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a first step. After all, we have many rules we have no real way of enforcing. But what I had in mind was something like what Abductive suggested, to have a nomination process which would require the the listing of the standard search in Template:Afd2 using Template:findsources, devised by PhilKinight back in 2007, but using it before , rather than after, the AfD is actually entered, with a place to confirm that the nominator wants to proceed with the nomination. (not that the standard search is particularly good, if applied mechanically, but it's at least a start to weed out the obvious) -- see [32] where an ed. objected to even including it in the template with the wording, " Anyone who wants to link to Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for an AFD can do so. " I think we've come a good way since then, and it's time to do the next step, moving this to a stage before the nomination gets entered on the page. . What I'm not competent to figure out, is how to program this. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, DGG. Why don't you have a chat to Kingpin about it?--Kudpung (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Quoting you

Hi David. I hope you don't mind my quoting you here. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

27 JSTOR articles

Greetings, DGG. I have entered the world of academic research rather abruptly, and have amassed in the span of one day this list of articles from JSTOR. Daunting, I know. I should be grateful if you could send me copies of, or otherwise give me the opportunity to read, at least some of those. I am not in a hurry, so if you decide to assist me you can work your way towards the bottom of the list at your own pace; whenever you decide you've had enough, I'll go bother someone else and they can pick up from where you will have left off. What do you think?

PS: Comments about my use of {{Cite journal}} are also welcome. I have probably included more information than what appears to be the default. Waltham, The Duke of 05:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: the above project has been completed. My thanks to all those who have offered or considered offering their assistance. Waltham, The Duke of 04:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bernardo O'Reilly

I've contested merger, but User:Crusio merged it without any argue or talks. Talk:The Magnificent Seven#Bernardo O'Reilly. What should I do next? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed r [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardo O'Reilly]]. I closed the discussion as "merge", because I thought that was clearly the consensus--I expressed no particular opinion on this one, but it seemed reasonable to me also. Crusio had initially asked for deletion, but by the end of the discussion agreed that merge was a good solution,. I consider that discussion to have been the way AfD discussions ought to be, not a conflict, but as a search for a generally acceptable resolution. If the question is how much material is merged, it should be discussed on the merged talk page. Note that some of the material was merged not to the article on the film, but the article on Bronson. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It even worse than deletion. Because if it would be deleted, I would requested to replace it in my space, corrected, fullfilled and expanded. Instead it was in a critical way cutted by nominationers, eventually becomes a redirect link. Now there are scattered remarks about it in M7 article and in Charles Bronson. You can easily check it.
As for discussion result, it's not obvious. There were no conflict but there were a clear split: 3 users (+ me) voted for keep, 3 for merge, and 2 users has't defined point whether to keep or to merge. So I expected further debates on the talk page after I posted there. But there were no discussion. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

But you can and should expand the sections in those two articles from the material in the edit history of the original article. That's the advantage of merge--as the sections grown, they can be expanded, and if there are eventually enough secondary sources, they can be restored to an article. In fact, I think from the edit summary of Crusio's last edit, he intends himself to merge further material --"to be merged here". I think leaving it as a bare link is entirely against the intent of my close--it's a redirect, not a merge-- and if I had thought he would want to do that, I would have argued for keep. I would suggest adding about one long paragraph--you can do that as well as he or anyone else. As I am guilty of never having seen the film, a situation I ought to correct as soon as possible, I'm not the person to do it myself. There's been a lot of discussion over articles like this, and I often vote keep on them, often enough that if I think a disputed one is a keep, I will join the discussion, but I will not close a disputed discussion in accord with my own opinion. People would really complain if I did that, and rightly so. But i will close against my opinion if that's the clear consensus, and I will close as a compromise close. My feeling is that we should be focussing on increased content, not necessarily on increased number of articles. I've mentioned my comments to Crusio, and I expect he will comment here. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I merged most information that was contained in the "Bernardo O'Reilly" article to The Magnificent Seven, except for some information that was more about Bronson than about the character, which I merged into Charles Bronson. I then redirected the O'Reilly article to the article on the movie. Some text was deleted ("further reading"), as I did not know what to do with that. If there's anything useful in those sources it should be added to the articles and the further reading sources used as proper references. As far as I can see, no useful information was lost. I thought this was what you intended when you closed the AfD as "merge", but let me know if I erred. --Crusio (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the part about Bronson, which was a good merge. I do not see anything merged into the article on the film. I would have expected the paragraph about the "Description" to be added. Had I done the merge, I would have included both parts--your idea to separate it was a good one, better than my idea, but it is only half completed. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• • You're absolutely right! I have no idea what happened here, I definitely remember merging stuff to the film article. I'll have to check my other computer later tonight to see what happened. Perhaps I didn't click "safe" or something. My apologies to you and SerdechnyG. I'll correct this as soon as I have time. --Crusio (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

you may have clicked save, but received the message , "sorry , no longer in the cache" and not noticed it. I've lost a number of edits that way if I keep windows open too long. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• My home computer did not solve the riddle, so I just did it again. Let me know if you feel I left out something worthwhile. --Crusio (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• My question to DGG: Is it possible to delete the article, and to replace it with all its history in my space for further edition? Or to create such copy without deleting original? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So... Is it possible? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No we cannot delete the article since the content was merged. Yes, you can create a temporary local copy from the history in user space to work on it. I would suggest instead, though, that you work on paragraphs about the other characters for the main article. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC) .

Yes I would. But I don't want to make one extremely big article, but a few convenient articles which are connected by navigation template. Thanks. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you, please, move this tread into Talk:Bernardo O'Reilly. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Citing h-index on BLP without OR?

Hi, DGG. I have not been able to locate any policy or comment regarding how an h-index might be added to BLP's of scholars. Someone is adding h-indices to sex researchers (fine), and someone is removing the one that was added to the Ray Blanchard page (which I do not edit myself). Is looking up an h-index on scholar.google or other engine OR or is it considered permissible?— James Cantor (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider h-index a valid measure of anything, even with in a subject, though some others are not as skeptical. Most of the academic activity in bibliometrics for the last year or two has been trying to find alternatives to it. The problem is that none of the dozens of suggested alternatives have been sufficiently accepted either at this point. Raw h values without adjustment for subject are particularly meaningless. Biosocial topics include a number of subfields in which the literature citation patterns are very different. I consider h values usable here only in argumentation, not in an article. What I will sometimes say in an article is the fact that, e.g. " X has published 20 peer-reviewed articles of which 10 have been cited 10 times or more in other peer-reviewed journals". Google scholar covers more than peer-reviewed journal articles, and what it covers is not exactly known, as the company refuses to specify. It has clearly been getting broader with time, and now includes quite a variety of non-commensurable literature types, not all of which have scholarly significance. Which articles have had them added? I will try to find a more acceptable way of presenting the data. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Although obviously not ideal (to say the least), I consider the h-index at least somewhat useful. In real-life academics, it is still very common to judge a researcher's production by the impact factor of the journals that he publishes in. This is a perversion of what the IF was intended for and as an editor, I don't really like the fact that my editorial decisions may have direct consequences for someone's career. Many articles published in high-profile high-impact factor journals are never or rarely cited and some articles published in much more modest publications are highly cited. At least the h index evaluates somebody on an individual level, not at the level of the mean citations of all articles published in a certain journal. I also think that h is more sound from a statistical viewpoint, being basically a non-parametric measure. The IF is a mean value, calculated over a distribution that is highly non-normal (because it is J-shaped), which will make any statistician howl with indignation. In addition, I have personally always been amazed about the fact that scientists, used to presenting their data as "means +/- sem" and testing for significant differences between groups with different means, suddenly all forget about variance and variability when talking about the IF... Just my two cents...

On a more practical level, to calculate h from Google Scholar constitutes OR, I think. (Although I use a Firefox add-on called "Scholar H-Index Calculator", which automatically calculates h, g, and some other indexes whenever I do a GS search, so perhaps thatis not OR...) Using the Web of Science, one might argue that it is not OR: one looks up the "page" of a certain researcher and the h is displayed. Of course, if the researcher's name is "John Smith", this is different and a lot of OR has to be done then to extract h. Another disadvantage of Google Scholar is that I find it highly imprecise. Being somewhat vain like all researchers, I have on occasion looked up myself in both GS and WoS. Some articles that received many citations according to WoS get much fewer on GS. And then suddenly I find some obscure commentaries that according to GS received 50 or so citations. Upon checking, it then turns out that it is the article that I commented about that was cited, or some such error. Amusingly, for the longest time GS severely underestimated my h, but when I checked just now, it actually is higher than what I get from WoS... (Of course, this is partly because of the kind of errors that I just mentioned). In short, when I write my annual reports, I mention h as given by WoS, not GS, and when evaluating others, I do the same. --Crusio (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not arguing for going solely by IF of the journals in which someone published. Though not all articles in top level journals are highly cited, article there are much more likely to be so than journals published elsewhere; that there are some exceptions does not negate the generality. The responsibility of an editor and reviewer is precisely that of being the first level screen for the quality of the work--the second and decisive level is the subsequent citations. My objection to the h index is that it disregards the highest level work--the actual notability at the highest level is a factor of the wide influence and importance, which is shown by the best papers. It is the highest portion of the Pareto distribution which is the significant part for scientific creativity, not the tail, and not even the middle. That said, for notability in a Wikipedia sense, we are not limiting ourselves to the highest level, which would correspond to famous--any more than we limit ourself to those athletics who have come first in the Olympics.

We both agree that for various reasons the calculation of a h-index from GS is invalid. Myself, I think almost all the reasons apply to WoS and Scopus also. I suppose I should do an essay here (possibly an article, as it won;t be OR) summarizing the various bibliometric proposals--but the field is not static. The best place to see the state of things is the archives of SIGMETRICS-L. And in the context of the question asked, it was asked in a field where the literature is fragmented, with no real consensus about the value of the different scientific approaches. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Clement Bowman

Dear Mr. Goodman,

You kindly offered to rewrite the article (biography) about me Clement Bowman. Reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clement_Bowman.

The article does a reasonable job in documenting bibliographic information about me but I wholeheartedly agree with you that it could be improved. In particular, it does not fully portray the global importance of the Canadian oil sands (the resource is of size comparable to the oil in Saudi Arabia), and the role that I was fortunate to play at three key stages (helping to launch the first surface mining projects in the 1960s, initiating joint government/ industry projects on the deeply buried oil sands in the 1970s, and currently addressing the major environmental issues as Energy Task Force Chair for the Canadian Academy of Engineering). There are also a small number of facts, patents, supporting citations and 3rd party references that do not appear in the article yet are of significance to the organizations I worked for.

If you are still interested in rewriting the article, I will gladly assist you in whatever way I can. I have references for the items mentioned above as well as other supporting information that may be of use or interest to you. I must admit that at 80, I am not comfortable attempting to edit an article on Wikipedia. I am however, most willing to assist someone who is.

Thank you for considering my request.

Kind regards,
Clem Bowman (e-mail) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clembowman (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've begun, though I have a good deal more to do--in my experience, a relatively short article is more likely to be acceptable. Please do not add back material I remove. What will help is add the following directly to the article or it's talk page" 1/ third party cites for each of the awards. 2/Are there any articles written about you besides the two in CCN? 3/is there evidence of your personal responsibility for the Calgary proposals? 4/Are there any additional sources for where your methodology has been used? I very strongly suggest you not edit the article except for providing such factual information. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Goodman, thank you for your time, questions and revisions. I have posted responses (references) to your questions on the article's talk page User talk:Clement_Bowman. I welcome any further questions or requests to verify the content.
Kind regards,
Clem Clembowman (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

List of proverbial phrases

DGG - When I came across the AfD for the above article I was encouraged by your Keep comments and thus closed the AfD as a Keep. Since then I have written a Lead-in with concise inclusion criteria based in-part on what you said--I can find sources for all these. If you concur with the inclusion criteria I stated in the lead-in, I will help begin the process of finding sources for entries that meet that criteria. Please modify the lead-in if necessary, no pride of authorship here. Thoughts?--Mike Cline (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the criterion, i'll work on them as i get a chance, but "similar to proverb" is not that great as definitions go, & I'll see what I can find to replace it. ` DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I just sucked the defintion from the Proverbial phrase article.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because you participated in this TFD. Some of these have been re-nominated here, where you may wish to comment. Thanks, –xeno^talk 14:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User Essay on Inclusionists and Deletion

DGG - I just put this essay in my user space. It still needs some work, but would appreciate any thoughts. Also, who else might I ask to weigh-in to help improve it? Am on the road this week in Pittsburgh and South Carolina so I'll have some time to work on it. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

		The Socratic Barnstar
		for your eloquent, well reasoned statement at Request for clarification: Summary out-of-process deletions [33] Pohick2 (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

it seems to me, that lacking leadership, we need to provide leadership such as you. i've been looking for a Wikipedia:Improvement Cabal, modeled on the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, building on Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive; Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform/Attrition/Study. (adding to your statement) some of the problem is the peter principle, where editors who have become admins are not trained, or experienced in the management of an organization or process.

we need to improve quality using the principles of Edwards Deming; a cabal could implement continuous wiki improvement, apart from "official" channels, using consensus.

do you agree? how would we recruit like minded users, and implement some quality improvement? Pohick2 (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

we are already in a process of continual improvement, and I support any effort to do it better. In my view, the main problem --and solution -- is the education of contributors. People need to learn how to write and references. The skill of writing clear prose and doing effective elementary research for sources is not natural or inborn, and we can not assume that it is taught effectively in schools--and least not in the United States. It is learnt by guided experience. What I try to do is better called teaching , than leadership--except to the extent that it is leadership by example. Our current approach to people who have problems with the articles they are writing is to give them a general notice and a link to an exceptionally complex and confusing ill-written mass of instructions. What they actually need is individually tutoring, and the more experienced editors will need to take the responsibility.

to a certain extent, the admins are one such group of editors--as we have the responsibility for deleting impossible articles, we have the responsibility of helping improve the possible but still unsatisfactory very poorly suited for this. Admins here do not need to know administration in the ordinary sense of the word, any more than our editors are editors in the ordinary sense. They are administrators in the sense of routine web site administrators: they have the ability to remove material, block individuals. and carry out a few technical functions. fortunately, none of this requires knowledge of management, though some of it requires an understanding of people.

Wikipedia is an example of trying to do without formal management, except to the extent needed to operate within the rules of legality and to raise funds to support the technical resources. Leadership, to be sure, we need and we have, in the sense of the informal leadership characteristic of human societies. What is distinctive here, is the extremely large scale at which we are trying to work in such a pattern. I do not think there has ever been so productive an organization with so little formal structure--except perhaps the open source movement of which we are a derivative.

There is one special problem basic to any approach to quality: we do not have what Deming called a constancy of purpose. We do not have the same vision of what the encyclopedia should be, and we have no means of obtaining one. We have no source of authority, and have permanently rejected having one. The necessarily detrimental effect of this on quality will need to be tolerated. The best means of producing a quality reference work remains the conventional method employing professional writers, editors, and publishers. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(adding my 2c worth) the more I think about this, the more we move to a professional-looking referenced encyclopedia, the absolute critical processes worth bolstering are DYK, GA and FA process - also Peer Review. These are where folks learn by example and I think the majority of the real spit and polish of substantial articles takes place these days. Unless an article goes though here, one often sees little change despite lots of edits over months or even years. I also promote them as places we can get 'points of stability' where we can compare articles after some vandalism or degradation has taken place (like a maxiflagged revision). Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have an argument for these processes. I think we could agree to use external consultants on these, at least for FA, not as decisors, but to guarantee a fresh but informed viewpoint. I'm not sure the other projects are worth the effort involved--though I am personally not satisfied with the quality of vetting at DYK. If you make such a proposal at the VP, I will support it. ` DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

we have Arbcom and Whales acting as management, which in the volunteer environment seeks change through coaching, and leadership, (and less effectively through "crises" like BLP) i see little acknowledgment of quality improvement principles. rather we have ad hoc rules, built in response to the latest crisis.

i would like to see quality improvement organized in a proactive way, either from above, or below. Pohick2 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

.

Adamantius

Hi, I got a message from Alastair Haynes on my talk page about possible new evidence for notability for this journal. What do you think of this ARC list? Does the fact that it ranks a journal high establish notability? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Chippewa Middle School

We need a way for information on Chippewa Middle School to be shown on Wikipedia. Go to Talk:Chippewa Middle School, Shoreview, MN for more info.Ratburntro44 (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been consistent practice that middle schools and elementary schools are not ordinarily considered suitable for separate Wikipedia articles, unless there is some special notability, As our general WP:N rule, the notability must be shown by references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases, or routine notices of events in local newspapers. Experience has been that very few such schools do have such sources. The sort of information that has proven significant in the past is Blue Ribbon status, or some award at a national level. State level awards are sometimes, but not always, taken as significant. Pinewood Elementary School (Mounds View, Minnesota) was named one of the "Minnesota Schools of Excellence" for 2008-2009 Turtle Lake Elementary School received a GreatSchools rating of 10. Sometimes that level of a GreatSchools rating is considered significant; the Minnesota rankings by the state's association of elementary school principals might possibly be. but I would personally be reluctant to support that, because. There are 950 elementary schools in the state;[34]; 140 of them have been endorsed as schools of excellence, which is not a very high proportion. [35]

My advice is to write expanded sections in the article on the school district for each of these schools, including the ones with existing articles, and then make a redirect from the school name. The first step in expanding them would then be to make a separate combination article for the elementary schools, and one for the middle schools. It will be possible to expand these eventually.

I'm just saying what we normally do, and giving you the best advice I can as an editor with considerable experience here with all sorts of school articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave an example with merging Greenwood Elementary School just now. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dave Favis-Mortlock

Taking up your offer, I have closed this MfD as "keep for DGG to improve and restore to main space". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

One more

I am disappointed in the decision reached in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bergil. That makes two articles in the last year that were not, in my opinion, properly kept at AfD. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Two?. So far this year I could probably find 200. Checking my guess, there's about 100 articles a day, 80 days so far=8,000 articles. If half were deleted, and there's a 5% error rate = 200. since the bias at AfD is towards deletion, that makes probably 100 improper keeps as well. It's unrealistic to expect that a chaotic process like this, relying on the consensus of a half dozen people chosen not even at random, but as those who have definite feelings one way or another, could possibly do better. Now, on to the next stage of the problem, which is making sure all the material gets merged. And then on to all the other articles.... The only way to keep from feeling hopelessly frustrated here is to not look back. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Residence halls AfD's

Hi there, I saw that you commented on the AfD for New South Hall and thought you may want to also comment on some similar discussions I've started. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darnall Hall, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schapiro Hall, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodward Court. Thanks--TM 03:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

one keep, one maybe, one delete. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Harvey_J._Levin article

Hey DGG, Just wanted to drop you a line since you were involved on talk:Harvey_J._Levin. We did indeed receive permission to use the page so can be used if you want to follow-up there but of course doesn't change your main argument :) James (T|C) 07:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

speak of efficiency! DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Great big-picture ideas about Wikipedia improving its processes

I'm really glad I stopped by to read people's comments at an important discussion at ArbCom.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Statement_by_DGG

I hope you'll forgive me posting a short positive critical comment here on your ideas offered for community consideration.

You made a number of points, several struck me as very practical and positive, even if a bit of a challenge for us to actually embrace as a project. The first point that I want to highlight is: "the entire thrust of Wikipedia policy should be devoted to the encouragement of new people". I think that is very much in keeping with modern management best-practice. A deliberate strategy of recruiting and mentoring new staff has been advocated and proven to be effective in organizations for something like a decade now, and I think it's enlightened of you to see how the Wiki project screams for some such deliberate policy. Now I'm phrasing this positively, but I think it is salutory for us to appreciate that we not only fail to encourage new people, we have bad habits that work precisely against this aim.

The next point I'd like to note I appreciated was: "The proper reaction to an unsourced article is to source it, ideally by teaching the author how to do so". This follows as a very practical implementation of the policy of encouraging and mentoring new people. Of course, the truth of this is obvious. What is valuable imo about your comment is that you dare to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. What I mean is, we permit people to be "Wikilawyers" and use policy standards to delete things, which is very short-sighted. The policy standards are not grounds for obstruction, they are pointers to what kinds of additions are necessary. In many cases, sadly, we see tendencies in the current (hopefully temporary) culture of the project that mean we are shooting ourselves in the foot, destroying content and intimidating potential recruits from being partners in the project.

Even more practical, a third point struck me as absolutely spot on: we need more stubs and fewer lists. A stub invites contribution, it demonstrates care, it sets an example. A list looks daunting, it feels like work. Perhaps, if the truth be known, people who don't want certain kinds of material at Wiki, will content themselves if sketchy articles and stubs are removed and simply become redlinks on lists.

Returning to an abstraction, but perhaps the most profoundly good suggestion among all your points, you said: "the thought that we would want to remove what we have not looked at is about as rational as removing every tenth article from the encyclopedia blindly". You said this in a context that made it clear that you believe there should be some kinds of qualifications for those who'd propose deletion. As it stands, people can propose deletion in seconds, waving an arm in the general direction of a policy somewhere. Of course, that'll be fine in obvious speedy cases, but in other cases, it simply precipates unnecessary disharmony, between people who know something about the content and care that content remains available to readers, and those who insist that unless they are personally satisfied a topic is worthy it should fall to the censor's pen. It's a conflict systematically biased in favour of pedants and interest groups who want to silence "the opposition".

Although your solution is not fleshed out in detail, I like what I can pick up: essentially, if deletion proposers are required to actually "write for the enemy" first and seek sources and so on (precisely what academic standards normally presuppose), although this might not lead to a change of perspective, it would lead to more information being made available for decision making (delete or not), hence the possibility of rational conclusions based on common sense (read consensus), rather than the council of despair: "we don't know, so it must go!"

To draw what has already become too long to some kind of conclusion, you also boldly said: "the only people qualified to judge are those who are prepared themselves to work". Of course, I expect you recognize well enough that there are plenty of places where willingness to work can be presumed on the evidence of contribution-history and so on, but I, for one, really take to heart your point, even in the specific case of any individual deletion discussion. I'd offer the following refinement of your argument. The reason only those who've worked can be qualified to judge is because at Wikipedia editors must be presumed ignorant and their opinions irrelevant, only those who've worked sufficiently will know the reliable opinions that can be discerned from sources. Donors expect the Foundation to uphold processes and the volunteers who staff those processes, who will provide access to reliable sources, not censorship, nor decisions that reflect the inexpert opinions of volunteer amateur editors, however good their faith.

To conclude, I must thank you Dave, because you articulate ideals that I thought transparently obvious from the policies I read when joining the project some years ago. Very early on, however, I observed that there were plenty of administrators and editors who did not seem to be clear about these principles. So be it, thought I, we are all learning together. Policy describes ideals. Getting the policies right is only step one. Working together to help one another strive for and progress towards those ideals is, as in "real life", an ongoing imperfect work. But that's precisely what Wiki is and always will be. At least until human beings know everything there is to know, and everyone is a Wiki editor, that is.

Thanks for your service to readers, donors, Foundation and editors, Dave. Keep it up! Alastair Haines (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

teNeues

I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Teneuesbooks/teNeues taking up your offer to look after this article, and moved it to the mainspace after a bit of tweaking and de-peacocking. I have added a reference to an interview with the boss, but I couldn't at a quick look find much comment about the firm, though there are enough listings about their products to suggest that they are indeed notable. Regards JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy Stockall

Nancy Stockall is probably not notable, but you might want to take a quick look at the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank for the referral. asserting someone is a professor of any rank at a university is an assertion of sufficient possible importance to pass afd, because the bar there is deliberately very low. Unless those papers of hers' are very highly cited, I agree with you that its not too likely she would pass afd. ` DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Correcting and Reposting

I will be rewording the David Alfonso page (22:05, 12 March 2010 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "David F. Alfonso" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G12, was an unambiguous copyright infringement. using TW)) and then will seek to repost the article. Wiki asks that I contact you first. Is there a way to revive the deleted page? As for the reason for deletion, I can fix that easily. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AcquisitionGuru (talk • contribs)

I am not the only admin to have deleted it. I deleted it under the name David F. Alfonso]] as a copyvio of http://foundation.fiu.edu/docs/alfonso.htm . A year ago, the almost identical same material was deleted under the name David Alfonso by Ged UK for being "does nothing but promote some entity or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. " -- it had not yet been checked for copyvio, which it was also.

Alfonso is probably notable as chairman and CEO of Empire Investment Holdings, which is a sufficiently large investment company.

I see no reason why you need the original article: you already have it in the original of the copyvio. As you have an email, I am emailing you the reference list. Though they prove he is ceo of the company, they are not about him specifically, but rather routine coverage of the mergers and acquisitions of the company, so I can not be certain whether any of these will be considered to show significance, and you should if possible find a reference providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, of him specifically. Expect that the community will decide this at AfD.. The correct title for the article, btw, is without the middle initial. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I did receive your email, thanks. The reason I ask is that the entire article cleary wasn't copied from the FIU site, thus saving me the time difference between rewriting the entire thing versus correcting the copyvio issue. Last, your recommendations are well received and noted. Thanks again AcquisitionGuru (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you review Workplace listening and nonverbal communication, its talkpage and the creator's talkpage? This article is a re-creation of a a7 SP

I don't think you did. A PROD is the worst way to go because once removed, the article should proceed to AFD. Thanks mucho. Forgot to sign and sorry that I was so blunt but this is a re-creation for the fourth time. --Morenooso (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Morenooso (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have been somewhat careless, but in fact the controlling factor is that it was deleted at a prior afd -- with what I consider minimal participation. You replaced the a7 speedy tag, which is not quite right either, it should be g4 if the material is unchanged, which I am now checking. Checking, I see that the text was considerably rewritten but is open to the same objections--it is if anything worse than the article that was elected because it doe not even have the minimal referencing there. I could justify sending it to AfD, but I've deleted it by G4, recreation, as the simplest way to deal with the inevitable result. I considered protecting against re-creation, but there is no reason why a decent article could not be written on this subject. Thanks for calling my attention to the error. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding on this issue. As a Page Patroller, I try to learn as much as I can when I review an article. When I looked at its creator's talkpage, I felt like "here we go again". I see many re-creations as I keep deleted pages on my Watch list. The mechanics of nominations sometimes eludes me. I felt saved because you did not close the PROD brackets which is why I went back to a mechanical entry of a7. I'll have to look at G4. --Morenooso (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

G4 is one of the things that actually requires an admin role to judge, because others cannot look at the deleted versions. But anyone can still take a guess, based on the previous discussion, of whether the article seems substantially better than it is likely to have been at the time. (The place to deal with really disputable G4s is deletion review, where a number of people will look, and the deleted article can be temporarily restored so everyone can see it.) But again, I need to thank you-- for it was my responsibility to have checked the user page and the log. This is one of the reasons I support not having admins delete single handed without a prior tagging, so more than one person alone will always look at it. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, I am really confused. When I saw the article come up as new on the Recent Changes page, I only knew it was a7 Speedy Delete. In looking at the talkpage is where I discovered this user had re-created it three times prior. I've seen in some that a user has re-created that were stored in my Watch list that it was the same article only the name had been changed. When I saw that this user had just changed the name a couple of times and then re-used in this case, I would have to assume that he re-created the article. Which would be better at this point, A7 or G4? --Morenooso (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

there's no way to tell, the article will be removed in any case--had my prod on that article been removed by the author, I would have taken it to AfD & there's no doubt about the outcome. You did the key thing that a patroller needs to do, which was call enough attention to the problem to get it fixed somehow. don;t worry too much about using the right procedure--it makes things smoother, but the point is to do something that will in the end be effective. But we have both fallen into the trap of concentrating on how to remove a persistently inadequate article--that's not our real priority--our priority is to try to teach the user write an acceptable article, since it is an acceptable topic. (And even when the topic is never going to be acceptable, to find a topic that will be). I tried to explain a little of this on the user;s talk page [36], but I know I did not really say enough. What is needed is to try to give specific guided help to examining the related articles, seeing what's needed, finding suitable sources, and figuring out how to say what needs saying. I rarely have time to do this, and neither does almost anyone else; I try to make time every once in a while, and have even rewritten the article as an example--especially if its one of a group of related poor articles or the author could go on to write other similar ones. We need to spend less time on process altogether , and more in helping new people. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes helping new users is much better than what I usually encounter. Although, I do pick up articles in my wiki-travels that I save, add to or try to improve. And there's today when I get a chance to edit an article like Thomas Grace (California). I am better adding to an article versus creating one although I do have one in mind. Thanks for your advice! --Morenooso (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Klim again

I hope that I've got this right, but please feel free to contradict me (or to "finesse" [ugh I hate this verb] what I wrote) in one way or another. -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

the word you are looking for is "adjust" ; but no adjustment was needed. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Jebheimist population‎

The Jebheimist population‎ hoax page that I flagged and you speedydel'd has reappeared, from the same user. I'm unsure of the best method to keep this from becoming an endless loop. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I protected it against re-creation. Standard procedure when this sort of thing happens. Given the user's talk page, also blocked them from editing. Also standard when necessary. Ask whenever needed. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave...

...for taking care of Bill Bob from Arkansas. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities

Thank you for your comment. I'm new to this project, and so I'm curious the best way to proceed with the kind of guideline I proposed. I fully agree with your response. A lot of these issues came up because a particular editor nominated a lot of dormitories en mass. I think those AfDs may playout on their own, but how do you think the best way to proceed is for a guideline and for the AfDs that are still in discussion? Shadowjams (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two approaches to rule-forming at Wikipedia. One is to adopt a formal guideline, as outlined in WP:POLICY; the other is to do something consistently. The second is normally much easier--see WP:OUTCOMES. To adopt a guideline one needs first to propose it exactly, then invite discussion, and after a month, some uninvolved administrator will come and decide if there is sufficient consensus. But even a formal guideline does not settle the matter, because the community can always choose to interpret it as it pleases and make what exceptions it wishes. The discussion you have begun is the right way to go for now, and I will follow it up. The next step there it is to make a formal proposed guideline page, or section in an existing page, once we know what we want to say. In this case, it would I think be best added as a paragraph to the section Student life, on the page Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines . As for the afds, they must reach a conclusion. If they do not reach some degree of consistent conclusion, there is almost certainly not enough consensus for a formal guideline.

For the best discussion of the whole matter , see the free online version of Chapter 13, "Policy and your input" , in How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in print) . DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

An accident

Hi Dave,

I accidently created a mainspace list at List of ARC religion journals. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, actually, because when I realised it was live, it forced me to put in a brief lead and some external links that verify the material (and answer broader questions too, like the final review committee membership).

If you happen to drop by that page, you may like to try hitting the final ARC Rank column of the sortable list. Of course that puts top, A-ranked journals at the top of the list (but retains alpha-sort within that).

I would rather like to start from the top of the list by rank, and stub some of these journals. I've had others catch the vision for such work when I've kick-started things before.

Anyway, just thought I'd let you know I'd done this, accident that it is. Of course, the same thing could (or might be prefered not to) be done for other disciplines, and/or other national or international research ranking organizations. I've little preference myself, just so long as there's a list of major theological journals somewhere.

Cheers, Alastair Haines (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the page. I had not gotten around to discussing it with you. We have lists of journals in .... at various places, but we make them ourselves, & they contain journals with articles or obviously qualified for one only. As you know, I think the list to be prepared by a dubious technique, but it is a widely known one for which references to the list can be found. If they are added, the article is probably supportable. DGG ( talk ) 13:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback permission

Hi DGG. As I'm editing more and my watchlist grows I find I'm involved in reverting more and more vandalism, particularly in areas prone to unambiguous vandalism such as popular videogames. I'm now at the stage where rollback permissions would make that work easier and less prone to error. I was wondering whether you would feel comfortable enabling rollback on my account, for use only in cases of clear an unambiguous vandalism? Naturally no problems if you don't feel okay with that; I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll jump in and grant the request. Scanning your recent edit history, I see nothing to suggest you would misuse the rollback tool.--Father Goose (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll endeavour to use them well (and sparingly). - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skater 2

We could use your input, one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Emailed you. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar and Academic Libraries

You may be interested in this article. I don't know what to do with it... Seems like OR, but there are references. The title probably needs to be changed, though. --Crusio (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

a little on the naive side; The writing style makes it seem more OR than it is, but it's unbalanced. I'll leave some comments. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

American Policy Center

Does policy not give seven days before an article gets deleted? You gave me a few hours. Can you explain to me your reasoning for such a speedy deletion? mark nutley (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm restoring it. I was probably too fast, even though the rule is that if it makes no claim to notability it can be immediately deleted--anyway, I should have recognized the name. Please add a ref. making some claim to notability right away, and go on from there. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i am waiting for User:Cla68 to come online, he has access to infotrac and is great at getting refs, I have copied the article back to here in case he is not around for a bit :) Thanks for giving me some time to get something notable mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

the under-construction tag I put on should be enough to give you a few days. Remember to show how it is independent independently of its founder. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Joedames

Care to have a word with this guy? He doesn't seem to get it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Viking Airlines destinations

Hey DGG. I saw your revert of my db-corp tag on this article and your edit note said that it didn't seem promotional. Maybe you were thinking of db-spam? I'm not going to revert it as I'm starting to learn that I don't really know much about Wikipedia lists. I know you've been around a while and know your stuff so perhaps you know more about lists than I do and can help me understand. OlYeller^Talktome 13:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. I meant to use my standard wording: "indicates at least some importance, so not a speedy. If sufficient importance doubted, use PROD or AfD." any indication of notability is enough to defeat A7--it's a very low bar. (obviously db-spam and db-corp tend to go together, and if relevant, I often give both reasons when I delete in order to avoid arguments) As for the article, lists of destinations of this sort are normal for airline articles, either separately or combined. Whether it is appropriate for a charter airline is an interesting question, which would need to be discussed at afd. Or propose a merge. Myself, I have no firm opinions on which way to go for this. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Communicating in small groups

I have nominated the page Communicating in small groups, which you earlier proposed for deletion, for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communicating in small groups. Your comments are welcome there. Cnilep (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hanso Foundation

See WP:Articles for deletion/Hanso Foundation. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggested a merge there.

Re comment made in Woodward Court AfD

DGG - You made the following statement in the AfD - Every major work of a famous artist is notable. Given that statement, would the statement Every major work by a famous author is notable be equally valid? Not debating the statement you made, because I like its simplicity, but can we take this logic further into other genera? Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I intended to indicate exactly that. I used the word "artist" in a very general sense, meaning much more than visual artist. I think that in general this has been our practice--with the problem that some writers and some artists are extremely prolific and we do not have people to write the detailed articles. Note that I used the word "famous", not merely "notable". I also said "every major work", not "every work", but at the highest level of world-wide fame, "every work" is appropriate. This even satisfied the GNG, for famous can be defined as those artists whose every work is discussed to a significant extent in secondary sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Was wir sind

FYI, The Was wir sind article has been updated. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I would like you to redact your claim that myself and other editors are "bullying" others made at this page. Apart from the fact that such a claim is clearly untrue, it is also a personal attack. Given your experience here I have refrained from templating you. Black Kite 21:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(removed) not by me--BK has chosen to remove some material here added by Okip, and his reply to it. As seen below, I agree that it was not wise of Okip to have said it here, and that BK's reply was almost equally unwise; so was BK's decision to remove it, but I have decided not to restore it, in order to avoid exacerbating the matter yet further. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the material was removed by Ikip. Jack Merridew 06:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, I advise you not to respond to baiting. BK, I had not directly named you, but it seems you are intent on demonstrating that I would have been correct to do so. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry :( I will unwatchlist your page. I just don't want you to feel overwhelmed, and feel like you have other editors who support you.

The AFD has become a who's-who of editors I have argued with in the past, many who I think are reflective of the continued combative attitude of wikipedia. To echo what many journalists have said.

"Whilst Wikipedia and Wikimedia are, in themselves, exciting projects, their structure, design and combative social norms do not currently make them the friendly or the protected space that museums tend to be comfortable operating in." Powerhouse Museum.[37]

Okip 21:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I know very well where I have support, and where I do not. I am not disturbed by criticism; either I am I right, or I am grateful for being convinced I have been in error. I wish I had realized as much in elementary school. Anyway, I have other things to do this evening. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The material BK asked me to redact is at [38], where BK chose to remove it himself, citing NPA. Looking at it again, I see it did not name him. This all the more demonstrates what I already said, that he was indeed engaging in the conduct I was talking about in general. Again, i am not restoring it to avoid making matters even more difficult. I see it is, after all, possible for what happens here to bother me. Tampering with other people's comments on an editor's talk p. and with his comments on AN/I is a fairly sure way to get anybody angry. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That edit disturbs me. The collegiality expected of administrator-to-administrator disagreements appears not to have been sustained in this particular redaction. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter who is named. Accusing people of "bullying" is a violation of NPA, made worse when it isn't even close to the right definition. Bullying is persistent psychological or physical harrassment of a person for no reason other than to inflict suffering on them. It is definitely not calling out someone who has made a Wikicareer of attempting to end run past our policies and guidelines, who has previously been blocked and warned by ArbCom for it, and whose efforts now appear to be catching up with him. To claim it is, as Mr Z-Man says in the ANI thread, is nonsensical. DGG doesn't have to agree with that, and probably doesn't, but if you're going to accuse people of bullying you're seriously going to have to do better than that. Black Kite 07:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and DGG - yes I removed the attack from ANI and would do it again. However, I think you'll find it was Okip who tampered with your talk page. Black Kite 07:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

An accusation isn't a clearcut enough violation of NPA to warrant editing someone else's comment. It's always going to be a subjective matter, whether or not an accusation is unfounded, but everyone pretty much has the right to make them. If you see an accusation that you think was made in haste and needs to be reconsidered, it's better to ask the accuser to consider striking. Removing statements from people's comments is rather drastic and should probably be reserved for extreme circumstances; not to mention editors who haven't yet earned the benefit of the doubt. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:00, 4 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiBullying. I was not talking about the dictionary definition.

Yes, I removed the comments to stop exacerbating the situation. Sorry for the confusion DGG.

Black Kite, bad faith comments against me aside:

"someone who has made a Wikicareer of attempting to end run past our policies and guidelines", "tampered with your talk page"

...it is important to point out that the administrator who blocked me for canvassing lost his adminship in that arbitration. I got a warning.

DGG, if you no longer want me to comment here I will not, you are welcome to delete my comment too. Okip 09:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

@Equazcion - I did ask DGG - it's the first post in this thread.

@Okip - that ANI thread doesn't even meet the Wiki definition (which is an essay and merely someone's opinion anyway). No-one said "you must not do this or you'll be blocked" - the thread (not started by myself) was along the lines of "Okip has previously done this and been censured for it - could the community consider whether the current behaviour is a repeat of this behaviour?". My opinion - and those of others - was that it is. I am also interested to see your implied thread of de-adminship should I continue this, considering your claim of bullying. However, this conversation will no doubt go nowhere like many on this issue, as you are clearly incapable of admitting to any fault, and it's merely clogging up DGGs talkpage, so I'll withdraw from it here. I still believe I was correct in my actions - you and others are of course welcome to disagree. Black Kite 09:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I could be wrong but it seems that while you did ask, you didn't wait for an answer, or for DGG to edit his comment himself, and you edited his comment for him. I could be wrong. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:14, 4 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, I did reply to BK, saying "BK, I had not directly named you, but it seems you are intent on demonstrating that I would have been correct to do so". I intended him to understand by that that I was declining to redact. BK apparently understood it as I intended, and decided to redact it himself--a step to which I think very wrong of him, but have decided not to pursue further. One of the results of redacting people's talk pages tends to be confusion about the sequence of who did what, and that is the case here also. It's essentially the common problem seen reverting, or deleting and restoring, or oversight, that one is apt to inadvertently remove good edits as well as bad, or make the sequence of discussion unintelligible. The best way of redacting one's comments on my talk page, if anyone cares to do so, is to strike-out. The best way of redacting others comments here is not to do so. As for AN/I, removal of comments is something that may occasionally be necessary, but should be done by a neutral party, on the analogy of Arb Com editing by the clerks. If I say on that page something someone objects to, they should object right there, (as another person correctly did) but not remove it themselves. I avoided naming anyone specifically, but left it open to people to infer what they would. Naturally, this can have somewhat the same effect, but i try to avoid names in such discussions as a way of trying for at least surface politeness. I use them only to clarify whom I am responding to, as I do here. As for my actual statement, i continue to think it correct. I have, for that matter ,expressed the same thing previously regarding the treatment of that particular editor by other parties. But my own feeling is that we have enough substantive disputes to deal with, and should avoid extend them outside that sphere--our energies are better spent of the actual issues than on each other's behavior. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether BK acted before you answered or acted despite your answer, the result is the same. We are basically in agreement though. There was no reason your comment should've been tampered with this way, especially not by someone involved. You're not the kind of person to ever really defend yourself when someone starts with you directly, but that only compounds how wrong this is. I'm surprised that someone with Black Kite's rather sound reputation is acting this way, and isn't recognizing his own involvement and subjectivity. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:21, 4 Apr 2010 (UTC)

• (unindent) I said I wouldn't respond again, but I think I need to quote WP:NPA - "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I believed the text I removed ("This is part of a patten of bullying weaker people who try to rescue articles and succeed ... to attack a weaker opponent is almost the definition of bullying") to be a clear-cut personal attack (even without regarding its accuracy). Hence I believe I was acting according to policy. Black Kite 20:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Whether an accusation is a personal attack is a very subjective matter. If one possibly needs to be removed, that should be decided by an uninvolved party. An involved person saying "Your opinion of his actions is unfounded so it needs to be removed" is something we see often and expect from inexperienced or petty editors, but not from seasoned and respected editors. If someone makes a characterization you disagree with, and you're involved, you need to argue with it, at most; not remove it. Discussions of editor behavior need to involve characterizations that not everyone will agree with. If everyone were to remove the characterizations they disagree with on the basis of NPA, discussions would never get anywhere, which is why that's basically never done. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:40, 4 Apr 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, that depends. If the comment had been "I believe you're attacking Okip unjustifiably", then that's clearly an opinion, even if it's a negative one; not a personal attack. However my judgement was that "This is part of a pattern of bullying" shifts from opinion to statement of fact, and from negative to personal attack. Hence my redaction. Anyway, given the way the ANI thread has continued, I think this is probably moot now; I'm not going to comment further there or here. Black Kite 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
      • The characterizations in behavioral discussions are very often made as statements of fact rather than qualified with the more PC "I believe" or "IMO". In a subjective discussion it's basically understood that everyone is stating their opinions without having to explicitly state as much. I sometimes feel like saying to an opponent "...you mean 'in your opinion'", because I'm offended by a characterization, but that again would be a petty remark. You certainly don't see much comment removal on that basis, if at all. It's better to simply accept the fact that in a behavioral discussion people are going to say things you find distasteful, rather than crying NPA, even though on the most technical level you're allowed to. Again, most seasoned editors have figured this out, which is why what you've done here is pretty much never done. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:02, 4 Apr 2010 (UTC)

A charge of doing something wrong is not necessarily a personal attack. the true meaning of NPA is an an attack on someone as a person, instead of discussing the issue involved. A discussion of someone's behavior is inherently personal. People have to be able to say that other people are doing wrong. Bullying occurs, and when it occurs, it is wrong. We can dispute whether a particular series of events is bullying, but to say something is bullying not a personal attack, unless it is being made instead of discussing an actual edit or policy issue. Indeed, at that very discussion, the accusation against the original party was considered by theose who made it as justified by the misbehavior, but was characterized by me and him as a personal attack based on having lost a group of afd debates. Yet if he or I had deleted the complaint, it would have been abuse of AN/I. There is almost never a need for personal comments at an article talk page , and rarely at a policy talk page, but one of the roles of user talk pages is to make complaints, and, particularly, at a page one whose primary purposes is to resolve complaints and settle disputes such as AN/I, one must be able to make the complaint and talk about the dispute. But apparently some think that only one's own side has the right to complain, because the opponents must inevitably be wrong and any complaint from them is persecution and attack.

As far as I am concerned, I would prefer to let the matter rest here. I do not intend to debate against those whose reply to me consists of deleting my comments--nothing could be more futile. Nothing could be more unnecessary. DGG ( talk )23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully protected your User page for 1 week per a request at RFPP. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks. curious timing. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

SAIS Bologna

Hi DGG

Last year, what appears to be the communications department of SAIS Bologna made this edit, which despite some promotional-sounding stuff, I didn't revert.

Now they have done this number on the article. Is a wholesale reversion appropriate? Would you be willing to have a word with the editor? I feel your nuanced approach is likely to have better results than other avenues.

Thanks, ^Bongo_matic 00:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

removed most of the promotional material and protected the page. I will warn the editor. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I edited the SAIS Bologna Center Wikipedia page and am confused as to the problem with my edits. I am a current student and am beefing up the article to make it more like the SAIS DC page. I understand if there is a problem with linking to the faculty pages on the BC website, but am confused as to why it is promotional to list the available concentrations and languages taught. All of this information is on the SAIS DC Wikipedia page, which I used as a guide. I'm just trying to make the two pages more similar in their format and include more information on the BC page as it is significantly less robust than the DC page.

Best,

Rebekah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communications-BC-SAIS (talk • contribs) 01:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall check the DC page also; thanks for mentioning it. The problem is that praise of how good the program is is appropriate to promotional media or the school website, but not an encyclopedia. Additionally, a list of all the faculty is not appropriate, nor a list of all the academic courses. The degree programs can be mentioned too, but not such details as the specific levels of the language courses available. If the concentration lead to a specific degree, it might be possible to add a list of them, but we normally do not list all the major available at a college. I am not sure a view of the city as taken from the campus is relevant either, there are a good many promotional details to remove still in the article. I am a little confused at your user name; you say you are a student there, but the school does not offer a program in communications. Such a name is more likely to be associated with a public relations office of the school administration--and you earlier said in an edit summary " I represent the Johns Hopkins University SAIS Bologna Center" . In any case, it implies an official connection with the school--and no such edit names are allowed, whether or not they refer to any actual relationship-- see WP:Username. Please choose another. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Understood. I've changed the username. I am a student at SAIS BC who works for the Communications office. I was tasked with making our Wikipedia page more substantial by making it mirror the SAIS DC page. Please let me know what is acceptable/unacceptable so I don't waste time making edits that will just be deleted. Is is OK to list faculty, concentrations, and languages as long as I don't put the levels offered or link to the BC page? Can I put in a section on our Speaker Series and/or the History of the school? I'm just confused as to what is considered OK/not since I'm merely reformatting the DC page for our program.

Thank you for your help!

Rebekah —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdetteBR (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

One more quick question. There are some factual errors on the page that I would like to change, but I can't figure out how to edit the sidebar/overview. They are: 1) the building renovation was completed in 2006 and 2) there are 190 students in the program (sidebar). Additionally, can I change the main heading to: "The Johns Hopkins University SAIS Bologna Center" instead of 'SAIS Bologna Center' since that is our official name?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdetteBR (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The sidebar is called in our jargon an "Infobox" ; when you edit the page, the code for it is at the top . It's easy to mess it up--use the preview button before you save. As for the name change, I have just done it.

It is not OK to list faculty, unless you limit it to those who have a Wikipedia page, or are so notable that they would be clearly entitled to one, ether for their academic distinction, or for other aspects of their career. Call the section "Notable faculty" not "Faculty". for the ones with WP pages, just give the link to that page. Check the page to make sure the link to their current official page at the Center is given in the external links & add or adjust it as necessary--that's where the link belongs. For the ones without pages, you need to give a link to some evidence to show their obvious fitness--you might want to consider making pages for them, but see WP:BIO for the standards-- academic distinction in the social sciences is normally shown by having a number of published books from major university presses, or major national level awards. Notability in public service is normally shown by being an ambassador, or a civil servant of similar rank, and having references to reliable published sources about them.

Personally, I think that a foreign service school offers languages is a matter for its own web site. Similarly, the various concentrations tend to be fairly obvious, and are best suited for that also--I cannot see how any of the encyclopedia users not considering applying to the school would care, but some articles do include it. . I will be removing the various promotional wordings unless you get there first, as well as the picture of the city. And the reference cited for ranking seems to refer to the entire school, not this center, & is therefore irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear DGG,

Thanks for your help! A few more questions: 1. Since the Bologna Center is a part of JHU SAIS rather than a separate entity (about half of all incoming students spend their first year in Bologna and their second year in DC), it is appropriate to have the ranking up as it encompasses all of SAIS' campuses (DC, Bologna, and Nanjing). We are one institution with multiple campuses, not separate universities like CSU- Long Beach/CSU- Fullerton. 2. How can I upload a photo of the school? I understand that the view from the terrace isn't necessarily relevant, but I'd like to upload a panorama of the school building.

Thanks!

Rebekah —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdetteBR (talk • contribs) 14:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is the ranking for the main program, it belongs in the article for the main program, not in the article for each center as if it applied to it specifically What you have just said is in fact a good argument for not having a separate article for the Rome campus, if it is merely the location for one year of one program in one school of a university. JHU gets an article as a matter of course, and a prominent school within it such as SAIS justifies an article, but a separate article for the Rome center of SIAIS within JHU is a little dubious and can only be justified if the center is independent. . You're trying to have it both ways--the more I think about it, the more I think the original idea to put this information into the main SIAIS article with only a redirect for the name of the center might be best. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prods

Hi DGG'! You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention.
There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process. I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. --Maurreen (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I screened the first 20 today at WP:PROD. About half were in fields where I think myself competent to search. Almost every one of those was either actually sourced, or very easily sourceable. Most are in my opinion actually notable, though a few might possibly not pass AfD. This seems to have the net effect of switching the work from article authors to the more conscientious among the reviewers. Agreed that we screening admins know how to do am adequate job of sourcing, but we should develop the skills of the beginners, not do it for them. Ridiculous amount of fuss for the meagre results. One of its proponents, recognizing the minimal yield, justified it as having deterred the people who would write unsourced articles. If it persuaded those editors to source them, good; if it scared them into not even trying, not so good. The higher we make the barrier to entry, the sooner we will die of attrition. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Sticky prods have arrived, and I strongly doubt there's any turning around on that point.

But you can help pick whichever proposal you think is best, or give suggestion at the talk page. Maurreen (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What i shall do, is what I am required to do by the role I volunteered for, just as before: to see that unsourceable BLPs get deleted by this process as they ought to be, and to do my best to see that the sourceable ones do not, as is appropriate for them, while dealing appropriately with the ones that may be sourceable but should be deleted for other reasons. The community has often adopted things which make proper work here more difficult, just as happens in the outside world, and I am used to coping with such things, while continuing to make people aware of the situation. Much of my career , after all, has been devoted to helping people find reference material legally, despite the efforts of copyright law to interfere--while simultaneously arguing for the slow process of change. Free access to information is how and why I came here, and I will help people add it legitimately, despite the efforts to interfere. I give you my highest tribute for your efforts to try to attain the least unreasonable set of rules despite the extraordinary difficulties, but it is what we do with them that counts. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and best wishes on your end! Maurreen (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Re List of proverbial phrases

DGG - You'll remember this one from an AfD a while back. I had slowly been adding sources when User:Toddst1 deleted all the unsourced entries to the talk page a few days ago. I notified him that I intended to revert that edit and informed him of this source: "Meanings and Origins of Phrases, Sayings and Idioms". Gary Martin. Retrieved 4 April 2010.. I used this source for inline citations on all the uncited entries. Additionally, I added a number of sources to the lead-in as sources for proverbial phrases. User:Toddst1 tagged the article as a copyvio while I was doing this and I removed the tag and continued adding sources. He has added the tag again today. Although Gary Martin may well own the copyright to his website, I don't think he owns the copyright to the individual proverbial phrases he lists on that site. Its evident that whoever originally created this list, derived the idea from Martin's site, but that doesn't automatically make it a copyvio. Since any alphabetical list of these phrases derived from any sources would mimic Martin's list, copyvio just doesn't seem like its there. But, since I've been involved in improving the article, I am reluctant to challenge the copyvio claim again. Any thoughts or help you might provide would be welcome.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

if you copy or paraphrase closely the definitions from that site it's copyvio, otherwise not. Just including phrases on that list and using it as evidence for inclusion is not copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks again. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For deletion

I see that you removed the tag for deletion for Huping Ling, and will respect it -- but you simply assert she's "certainly" notable -- the issue wasn't that the article needed editing (it did, a lot, and needs a lot more). The issue was that there are no third-party refs to indicate WP:Notability even for WP:Prof. Are you aware of some? DavidOaks (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

certainly notable because included in the standard reference work Contemporary Authors. That's a third party reference, though the exact link needs to be specified. Otherwise I would have said I think she;'s notable, but I consider a listing there definitive for notability, since WP includes what is in other encyclopedias. Sorry if I was too crytic in my edit summary. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

Hi. I noticed you removed the delete tag from the Henry Smith article I had nominated for deletion and was wanting to discuss this with you.

This article does not seem to follow the sources it cites, and after reading seems to editorialize (not meeting neutrality standards). Albeit this is a particularly gruesome case, but the article seems to call in things that are not cited. Within the article itself none of the claims are sourced, making one wonder if the original author used original research or simply didn't cite a source.

If you take away the statements in the article that lack factual evidence based on the sources listed, it seems to me it again falls under the WP:N standard. 74.193.87.155 07:24 (UTC)

I have re-read the sources. Ref. 1, the NY Sun article documents the lynching, in about the same terms stated in the article. Ref .3, The book about Wells gives background; Ref. 5, the contemporary book from LC covers the subject in great detail, but its perhaps more of a primary than a secondary source.I am not sure in what respect you think the article does not follow the sources, but the article talk p. is the place to discuss it. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Survey on quality control policies

As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Toggle

Hi David,

I noticed that you placed a merge tag on Toggle (Doonesbury character), suggesting that it be merged into Alex Doonesbury. When suggesting a merge, it is best to place a "mergeto" tag on the article to be merged and a "mergefrom" tag on the receiving article. It is also preferable to start a merge discussion on the talk page of the receiving article as linked from both tags; starting this discussion allows other users to understand your reasoning behind suggesting the merge. Without starting this discussion, most merge tags are eventually removed without the merge taking place. For further information about how to propose mergers, check out this how-to guide.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I must confess I take shortcuts, especially late at night. ; I am one of the very few prod patrollers, and I try to screen soon after they are submitted every prod that is remotely in my subject competence (basically everything except actors, athletes, popular music, and some kinds of computer software).. My priority is to make sure I at least begin the rescue of what what can be rescued. I count on others such as you to notice, and finish the process, as you have in fact noticed. DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you help explain what is not OR or SYN

I see that you contributed to the AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Could you help explain to one of the editors that some things are not OR or Synthesis? I think she has a severe misconception about what is or is not OR or SYN, but I don't know how to explain it so she understands. (Conversely, if I am wrong then perhaps you can explain it to me.) Her response to your comment indicates that she has a very restrictive attitude about NOR and Syn. If you read her earlier comments in the same article, she seems to think that if she can't find an almost verbatim version of our article in RS then we are engaging in OR or Syn. Thanks in advance. (And I say that just as much for her behalf as for the article under discussion. She will be a better editor if she better understands WP policies.) Sbowers3 (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

a number of people there have made some odd objections, so could you give me a diff, or tell me just whom you are thinking of. I made another comment at the end, which may help a little in this direction. . DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It was dumb of me to omit the editor's name. It's SaltyBoatr. Here are some quotes:

• As to the "timeline" article, I don't see any coverage of "timeline of Tea Party protests" in the reliable sourcing so creation of such an article here would be synthesis, and disallowed per No Original Research policy here. It probably could find a home in some other Wikimedia project, but wouldn't fit here in this encyclopedia.
• My point is that I don't see any reliable sourcing that paints a picture of a "timeline of Tea Party protests". Editor's here should not be connecting the dots of the individual events into a timeline because that act of connecting the dots amounts to "synthesis of published material" that we don't see "clearly advanced by the sources".
• According to my reading of the policy, connecting the dots amounts to synthesis to advance a hypothesis, in this case that these series of events are cohesive, "a timeline". They may indeed be cohesive, but we can't synthesize that conclusion ourselves, we need to find it in reliable sourcing

She seems to think that unless RS has a chronological list of all events and the RS labels that as a timeline, then we cannot arrange events in chronological order without violating SYN. You'll probably want to look at her comments in context. Thanks again. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Birney Elementary School Shooting

Since you regularly level the criticism at me; read the article before commenting, next time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birney Elementary School Shooting shows exactly what people think of your assertion that this is even a "school shooting". Ironholds (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I did in fact read it, so I understand what you mean: it is not perhaps in the true pure classic american sense a school shooting, but a shorting at a school; this arouses similar emotions. You are welcome to think me in error, or even perverse, but I did not make the particular mistake you think I did. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorin Adam Matei

Notable per WP:PROF? WP:GNG? I found lots of Ghits, but am still not sure. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

not sure either; added link to CV. I see he has written at least one paper about WP. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Assistance to rename an article

Hi DGG. The article San Carlos, Costa Rica has the name awfully wrong. The content refers exclusively to the town of La Fortuna, Costa Rica which is a district of San Carlos (I am from Costa Rica and the place is well-known because of the Arenal Volcano). There is already an article about the actual San Carlos: San Carlos Canton. Can you help me in redirecting or renaming this article correctly?--Mariordo (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. It doesn't actually take an admin unless there is an article that has to be deleted first. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't know, I though only admin had the tools. I am going to check how you did it so I will do it next time. Thank you for your prompt action.-Mariordo (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 04:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tenchu Characters article

Article: Characters of Tenchu. I just want to reconsider your disapproval of the proposed deletion of the said article. My intention is actually not to merge it with the main Tenchu article but to spread the contents on each of their respective videogame articles (since the article contains different characters from different games) thus, deeming the list a redundancy if that will be done. Also, I won't "direct copy" the contents but instead, I will try to search for more reliable sources and re-write character descriptions in a more Wikipedia manner. Therefore, I'm asking for the deletion. I hope you could reply to the matter. Thank you very much.--JCD ^(Talk) 06:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

that's not a deletion, that's a split. It should be discussed at the article talk page. If you cannot get consensus at the talk page, you can proceed by placing a RfC asking for outside opinions. The alternate way is to simply write the expanded articles and see if they stand, and if so, keep this one as a WP:SUMMARY. But be aware that such individual character articles are very frequently subject to attack, and although the results are unpredictable, some or all of them are often deleted. My advice is to instead expand the sections in place in the combination article. If you can expand them enough, with good third party substantial reference, then the split will be much easier to get consensus for. The important point is to get he content, not how it is arranged. I generally support keeping individual articles if they exists to be sure of retaining the content, but I rarely think it worthwhile to make them if they aren't already there, and risk losing the work. I've commented accordingly at the article talk p. . DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks for clearing the whole thing but I'm not really intending to create individual articles based on "each" of the description/per character but instead, just insert them on their respective articles. Example (specifically), the character Rikimaru, I'll insert him on Tenchu: Stealth Assassins article and there, write what he is on that videogame, no extensions but of course with a solid source (if I could find). Then, put him again on Tenchu 2: Birth of the Stealth Assassins (a sequel) and do the same thing. Then maybe a split? His general description (what he is on the whole thing) on the Tenchu (franchise article). Hope this isn't confusing...--JCD ^(Talk) 05:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It would not be confusing , except that I do not know this series. Normally in such series many of the characters continue from one part to another, and there is an advantage in discussing them in a centralized place, instead of repeating the background in separate discussions of them in every every article. If an individual character is important to a particular part and unique to that part, it may still be cleaer to discuss them in the context of the other characters. On the other hand, if this is a game where the characters are different for each part, and only the general theme and setting repeats, then the characters may indeed be more clearly discussed with the parts. Remember that you are writing for people like me, who may at most have head of the game and want to learn something about it, rather than regular players looking for specific details. That sort of expert user is best served by an external site, not WP. All of this needs to be discussed with the other people working on the game, for unless you have some agreement on how to handle it, there is no good way to make progress. If you all agree on what you want to do , and need some advice or help how to accomplish it, ask me, but what I cannot do is tell you what solution will best fit your own situation. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I see.. Thank you very, very much for that word of advice! I think I misunderstood what I want to happen hahaha. I believe your advice would work best specially your mention of those who aren't familiar with the series; clearing things about it would be better to talk about same characters in a "centralized place". Well, honestly, there really aren't much different characters on that game as the main cast simply continue on a sequel and such. Your words have made make up my mind. Again, thank you very much. --JCD ^(Talk) 11:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)--JCD ^(Talk) 11:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

further thoughts on prods

(message to an editor, placing it here as it will apply to a number of others as well, and it will serve as their answer should they come to comment)

I have just been checking prods, and I checked 10 of the articles you prodded in the last day or two. For 9 of them I quickly found references, generally in the obvious places in the googles. One was an obvious copyvio, and I marked for speedy accordingly. Of the 8 others, a few have dubious notability, and were so marked. But at least three or four of them were extremely notable, and will certainly hold at afd. This is not careful work. The point of blp prod is to remove unsourced articles, while keeping the ons that can be sourced. I would blame nobody for not trying to source articles that looked clearly non-notable--most editors would not think it worth the work, though I myself always check if there is anything likely at all, because the article does not always express the notability very well. But any careful editor would, I think, do at least a quick g-check on the ones that, based on the information presented, would certainly yield a good source. Otherwise, you're throwing the work on others who do care about both deleting and keeping articles according to the merits and sourceability.

You will probably argue that it is by prodding that we give the authors incentive to source--but we need to be nice to newcomers, or we will not replace the editors we inevitably lose by attrition, and almost all will source if the need is explained to them without the threat of deleting the articles. For the others, the deletion processes may have a role, but that's the exception.

Myself, I did not support the current blp prod policy, because I thought it both unnecessary and harmful. Since it has become accepted, I of course enforce it as an admin, as I do all policy. I delete unsourced BLPs that have been prodded if I cannot find a source--I deleted 4 or 5 of them today. But the method you are using is a very strong argument that the policy as adopted is a mistake, at least without the requirement of WP:BEFORE. I unfortunately can't stop you from prodding without checking, but I certainly can and will use the prods you have been making as an argument for why BEFORE should be a requirement. If you disagree with me that it's needed, as you probably do , why not give me less material? DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Plz approved my request Ian Rhel Datu--89.147.0.108 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)ian

Please check your talkpage history

It appears an anonymous IP wants to edit a protected page. I thought the edit was vandalism and rolled it back because it was a massive deletion. Please decide if you want to cite this IP as it is a level four. --Morenooso (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for catching it. It seems however to just be an error from a somewhat confused editor with a repeatedly deleted and protected article, not our previous vandal. DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Gil-Sung Park and Articles for deletion/Gil-Sung Park

Dear DGG, could you have another look at Gil-Sung Park's article and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gil-Sung Park? Would you have any tips as to how it might be saved if enough has not already been done. I hope this is not too big an imposition. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

RiCEST article

Hi DGG. As someone who participated in the deletion review for the Regional Information Center for Science and Technology article, would you have the time to take a look at the notes I'm making here? What I'm looking for is comments on whether an article is feasible and (if possible) help in drafting an article. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

checking.... DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

finally got to it; I think it will hold. What is struck me as remarkable & not to our credit is the redlinks for the universities. 00:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St.Paul-O.L.V school

There is a notable fact in the school's history that appears on their website. In 1892, the World's Columbian Exposition which became the predecessor of the Chicago World Fair, was held. It was Columbian because it celebrated the 400th anniversary of Columbus' voyage. I tried searching down that this school received an award at this exposition as per A Brief History of St. Paul School www.stpaulchgo.org. Their site states that the school children won excellence awards at what amounts to the first Chicago World Fair. Unfortunately, I can find no WP:V or WP:RS site to confirm the entry. What do you think? --Morenooso (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

checking.... DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the article will be merged. I tried to find some of the articles I saw the other night before my computer dumped. One that mentions Catholic participation is An inventory of the Catholic Educational Exhibit, World's Columbian Exposition, Chicago, Photographs at The American Catholic History Research Center and University Archives libraries.cua.edu. It is too bad that as with WP:BIO that WP:ANYORG does not exist stating, Any nonprofit organization that 100 years of serving a community is notable. --Morenooso (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

PlaneShift deletion

Please review the deletion log of 8 April and in particular the deletion of PlaneShift article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_April_8 There is no reason in the world this article cannot stay on wikipedia. Thanks. --79.40.27.216 (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

this is not a subject I usually work on, nor did I ever edit the article, nor did comment in any of the AfDs. You have seen what comes of such canvassing--Not only does it get you blocked, but people resent it and comment accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor Fix

[39] I assume that was correct? Apologies if not. Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

sure. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Question re line of argument

At this AFD [40] I seem to be pursuing something along the lines of a tip-of-the iceberg argument; that is, if an editor can find multiple Gbook search results on an article's topic, it's presumed worth an article. There's an underlying assumption there - that Gbook search results are always only a partial representation of what's been written - and so (especially during an AFD) showing some Gbook results implies wider coverage. Yes, there is the issue of only passing mentions in those results (which IMO doesn't apply in that AFD case); but am seeking your opinion, links to precedents, Gbook cultural under-representation that would lend more weight in some cases, general thoughts, etc. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

aha. you have discovered the real secret of our article writing practices. Except for a relatively small number of particularly conscientious editors, a great many of the references in Wikipedia are not really trustworthy. A trustworthy reference is based upon reading and understand the material. Many citations in all sorts of articles here are based upon finding an item in the googles but not actually reading it. Sometimes this is because it is not readily accessible except in the largest research libraries; sometimes, though reasonably accessible through the sort of public library resources most of our editors have or from some free site not obvious in the google citation-- but they do not bother trying; sometimes, even if it is right there linked in public for anyone to read,--still they do not read it. A culture where a three paragraph comment tends to get a tl;dr objection is not one where people will likely read all of a hundred page document pdf, or the relevant chapters of a PD book, or even all of an article from an old PD encyclopedia or from an open access journal.

No librarian would be surprised. It is a basic result of information science that people when they want information get it in the easiest way they can, even if they know it is not a very good way, and stop looking when they have got the very minimum they think barely enough. (After all, that's why so many readers come preferentially to Wikipedia in the first place.). People do not normally want to work with information, they want information so they can work. The abnormally interested, the ones who consider it their work to find out as much as they can, become scholars or dedicated hobbyists.

in an afd, it is often enough to show that information is available. One of the virtues of the googles is their manner of summarizing the critical information in the excerpt in the search results--a summary taken from the whole item, not just the part that is unrestricted for display. By now, their algorithms for this are truly splendid, and to me even more impressive than their method of finding results. Of course nobody would trust them for serious purposes; and it is just one of the reasons why nobody would trust Wikipedia for serious purposes--except for those purposes where our method of sourcing is in fact adequate and our contributors sufficiently skilled at using it.

As for what is or is not worth an article, as I've said before, our concept of article-based notability is basically a hold-over from the days of conventional print encyclopedias. We organize our product as people expect to see it. There's no sound basis for how we do it, except keeping the articles short enough for dial-up connections. It is influenced by another factor: our readers , and the world in general, consider having an article here as a sign of importance for the company of person or school or product. WP:N goes to some pains to explain why this is not the case, but everyone inevitably acts as if it were. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

hey ignore the man behind the screen, don't disillusion the newbies, the sargasso sea of laziness is gonna swamp this thing, you left out the love of the online blog link, versus the hard text in the stacks. how is it we can make it fun for the experts and stylists to contribute? you shouldn't underestimate the wikimedia google nexus - it shoves the wiki to the top of the search queue, making it the first word on the online conversation. (this is why i think it particularly important to get bios on writers; artists done so that interested readers can find their other work.) Pohick2 (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey D - thanks for your reply. I plead guilty to wishing I could just call Katherine Hepburn at that library and get a brief, authoritative answer to any question. But in a larger sense, I was looking for your input on how an AFD argument along the lines of 'here are some mentions of an entity - they imply wider coverage' is currently accepted. Sometimes I come across such things - in the form of Gbook snippets or pay-to-view scholarly snippets - but because I won't add them as references they don't seem good arguments in an AFD. Something like a snippet 'In K. Hepburn's analysis, the Rights of women in Foobar improved during the reign of...', but if all I can get my eyes on is a series of snippets like that...burden of proof issues. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Some background - not to say anyone should create an article based on snippets; but the issue of pointing to potential sources during an AFD, when not followed up by actually adding the sources, was raised at the Village Pump a day or two ago [41]. Novickas (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you try?

If you get the chance, can you try explaining to this guy just why unilateral blank-and-redirect of everything he doesn't think is important isn't a good idea? I've reached the banging-my-head-against-a-brick-wall stage by now as the error in the statement "Newspaper reports are primary sources and so can't be used" doesn't seem to be sinking in. He might take it better from someone like you who demonstrably has never expressed an interest in his pet area (railroad stations) and thus can't be accused of protecting their corner. – iridescent 22:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that; hopefully it might sink in now. (I do think that merging-keeping-all-content is an option that should be used more often, though—to my eyes, A1 road is far more useful to all concerned than St John Street, Goswell Road et al as a dozen separate stubs—but I think outright-deletion should always be a last resort, and the attitude among the newer editors seems to be that the project has grown too big and needs to be trimmed back.) – iridescent 23:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello and a question

Hi. You've been a big help with my questions before so I thought I'd ask for your perspective. Someone brought Shane Salerno to my attention because the page mirrors that of the man's IMDB page. That being said, the whole article reads at best like a resume and at worse like an advertisement. Both violate the NPOV WP seems to strive for (or at least people like you do). I've made some efforts--predictably sloppy and recursive--that has brought the not-so important article some attention but I'd like youre take. It's also being discussed on the conflict of interest board. Thanks in advance. Jim Steele (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I gave some advice on the COI noticeboard. To be exact, I just repeated what Off2riobob had previously said. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nabble

Hi. I came across this thread with these navigation links at the top: "Nabble | Old Nabble1 | WikiMedia » Wikipedia » English Wikipedia". I got to this discussion, somehow, (I don't know how) from "Signpost". Essentially, my question is - what is it? I noticed that you participated in the discussion dated April 2 (or so) about the fix PR reps find themselves in when promising clients an article on Wikipedia. I guess that is why I am asking you - becaue I recognized your Wiki-name. Thanks. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure I understand your question, but if you are looking for the thread it is at [42] and my posting is [43]. You'll see my position, as supported most clearly by [44] is that PR people can write good NPOV articles if they are willing, and learn how. I usually tell them that one mark of a skilled professional in PR or advertising is their ability to adapt to the medium. Some understand; some do not. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your view completely. I wasn't actually asking about your position, since I agree with it. I guess I wasn't clear about what I was asking. Sorry about that. I don't know what that discussion forum is. My question is: Is it a Wikipedia general discussion forum of some sort? Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is where I saw the discussion [45]. If you notice at the top of the page there are Navigation links such as "Nabble", "Old Nabble", "Wikimedia", etc. , etc. If I am still confusing you, don't worry I will figure it out eventually. No need to waste a lot of time on this question. Thanks in advance. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nabble is a gateway and archive of a great many mailing lists, & includes the WP related ones. SeeWP:Mailing Lists for general information about the various WP lists --the full table of all of them is at [46] The posting is at WikiEN-L, the principal list for off-WP general discussion relating to the English WP. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeat AfD

Please see this--Fiskeharrison (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

said again what I said at earlier afd. I consider this an appropriate nomination, since I had participated earlier. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Carol Smart

Could you please look at Carol Smart? I suspect that she is notable enough for the article to survive AfD, but you might be able to improve the article. My last edit is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carol_Smart&oldid=355483370 Since then, another editor has restored some detailed reviews of her work that I had removed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

clearly notable. I adjusted the bibliography. If the material returns it may need protection. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You've been mentioned...

Wikipedia:ANI#Okip_creating_battlegrounds. Not saying that I think you should respond, but your previous statements on Okip are currently being caricatured in this thread. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

so I have noticed. Let them continue mentioning it if it amuses them. I have just now written something there myself. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Leahey

What do you think? Bearian (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

commented there; I had hoped to say keep but on analysis I had to say delete. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind to match yours. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Johanna Budwig

Thank you for taking part in the recent Johanna Budwig deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Budwig. The proposer of the deletion has gone on to attempt to trim the article substantially and, consequently, the article has been temporarily protected from updates. I would appreciate the comments of others interested in this article at Talk:Johanna Budwig. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

replied. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I've added my comments to Talk:Johanna Budwig. I'd be interested in your views, particularly on restoring the other ACS reference and tackling the Nobel Prize canard. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

...for the List of food products article. In the old days it was virtually impossible to start any list at all without it being tagged for deletion. Exceptions began to occur when the lists were restricted to other Wikipedia articles. Had I started this article from scratch I would have therefore looked for Wikipedia article on various food products and included only them in the list. I did look at the Wikipedia Egg white article for one but found no nutrition facts label nutrient information. Consequently I had to resort to the food product labels themselves which are legally binding and published documents along with legally binding and published register receipts and bar code labels found on the food products themselves. UPC and PLU code have been included to be sure similar foods with different nutrients amounts were not accidentally or mistakenly substituted when attempting to move from the information to the real world.

Thanks again,

Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In the old days? In the present days it is difficult to start any type of article without people trying to delete it n the first minute. the thing is, this table is not useful unless it's much expanded. I would suggest doing so very quickly, right now in the course of the discussion: to get them, go to the page for the template I mentioned in the discussion, and look at "What links here" The work will not be wasted in any case, for if deleted it can be moved into your user space for further additions. However, one of the initial arguments the anon gave for supporting it was its usefulness in a specific diet plan, and that is a very poor argument, for that is precisely the sort of thing we do not try to do here. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

East Indian people

Hi, since you have removed the speedy delete tag on East Indian people, maybe you would be interested in this discussion related to this article::The confusion regarding "East Indians". --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mother Superior / abbess

Can I get an opinion from an experienced Wikipedian? It's been recently drawn to my attention that the most common use of the phrase Mother Superior (the head of a religious order) is a disambiguation page with a dictionary definition at the top. I had intended to start a dedicated stub (Mother Superior (religion)), but then realised that anything I could write that was stub-length would just be a duplication of the article abbess. However the definition of Mother Superior would ultimately be wider and broader than abbess, although I'm not qualified to write that full article, or interested in doing it. Also, possibly as Mother Superior (religion) is the most common use, possibly it should usurp the basic Mother Superior article and move the rest of the contents there to Mother Superior (disambiguation). As someone of experience, what would you recommend as the best way of resolving this tangle? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What you want to do makes sense, but I don't really see the point of bothering until you or someone is prepared to expand the article. As iti s, people will still find the right article they want. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to Film PROD

Would you reconsider this, or start an AfD, given that there already is a summary at List of Community episodes? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What is needed is somewhere between what is here and the over-brief descriptions in the current list. As I am not familiar with series, I'm not the one do the rewrite. That would be a proper merge, not a redirect, which is what you seem to want. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sun Youth Organization - deleted page

Could you please be specific about why the page was deleted? I posted a comment the deletion board indicating the organizaiton is an important Montreal based social justice organization in Montreal Quebec that has been a leader in the development of community service programs. The profile was prepared by a student who is not affiliated with the organization. He used several outside sources in preparing the profile. We used models of other wikipedia pages profiling community based organization in preparing the article. Please explain why you have deleted the page and how to reinstate it. Thank you. RELI312 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it for several reasons. One, there was no indication of its importance. According to the article, it engages in various programs in the Montreal area, but there was n indication of ts impact--the only indication at all was a $9 million dollar budget, which is actually quite small for a social organization. Th importance was supported by almost no third party sources. The only significant one at all was an article in the Toronto Gazette, which was not properly cited but is partially quoted in http://www.newmansownfoundation.org/Content/368.php, where the source is given as "Metallica Cuts Sun Youth In On Their Haul" By Bernard Perusse September 22, 2009, The Montreal Gazette. The link to the full article of the newspaper site does not however work & that fact in any case does not necessarily show importance. . The only other outside source is general one & I doubt it refers to the group at all--if it does, a quotation should be provided. Second, the article is highly promotional, no matter who wrote it. It talks in detail about all the activities, however minor, and gives nonspecific praise of the group's efforts. It contains mainly such material as "It is important for all individuals to wear proper clothing, especially during some tough winters that Montreal has had, but sometimes it can get expensive. Sun Youth helps people through their hard times by outfitting them with either new or previously used clothing as long as it is in good condition. " The first part is general background, & not needed in an encyclopedia. The second part gives no definite information.

It is possible that an adequate article might be wrtten on the subject. A search for the group on the Montreal Gazette site shows a number of articles. Most are trivial mentions, some describe its activities. It would be possible to write a decent article based on these. Best way to do it is like this: I moved the present article to User:RELI312/Sun Youth Organization. When you're satisfied, ask me or another experienced user here to have a look at it. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We will work to update as per your comments. All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RELI312 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD for reference work

Could you please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest African Americans? The discussion could use your expertise in library sciences. Abductive (reasoning) 00:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion on notability of a professor

Hi there DGG. I was planning on writing an article on Thomas E. Wartenberg, but I would like to seek your opinion on whether he meets the notability criteria first. I have written up a short blurb so far, but I would like your opinion on whether or not it would be worthwhile to continue. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

yes, as the author of multiple well received books from major academic publishers he meets WPPROF as an expert--he mayalso meet it as author of widely used textbooks. Additionally, he meets WP:AUTHOR. ; I filled it in a little, using only WorldCat. It would be useful to check other reviews, even on amazon, to get some information about his date of birth and his degrees. adding the other books is optional, but normally I add every book, and just count the articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

update on of blp prod

As a follow up to a discussion above, I was curious to see how the sort of blp prods I do not usually work on were doing, so i picked three athlete blp prods about to expire, Mustafa Tiryaki, Romana Tabaková, & Jamie Phoenix to try to source them minimally. I managed to do it for all 3 in about 6 minutes, using just plain Google on their name or the team name, --one from a good newspaper, 2 from their team's official website. I recognize this does not prove WP:N, and I have strong doubts on at least one of them actually meeting that standard. It does however provide WP:V for their existence, the existence of their athletic career, and the spelling of their name. For all three, additional sources are of course needed--I did not try to verify all the points in the article, but leave this to those interested in the sports involved, who can undoubtedly do it better. But why did the original prodders prod them instead of looking even the the most basic of places? Even more, why did nobody --in the 9 days they've been listed on WP:Prodsum --try to work on them? Sometimes I feel like I am almost the only person who actually does care in a practical way about sourcing articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've processed about 12 so far, and declined the BLPPRODs on about three which had sources in ELs. A 25% decline rate is about 5x what I experience in standard PRODs, which lends credence to the fact that more careful scrutiny is needed on BLPPRODs than standard PRODs, because on a standard PROD, you know at least one editor approached the article; on BLPPRODs we aren't guaranteed even that. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the proportion I get also that do in fact have refs. Question is, do you search for sourcdes for the ones that do not if you think that the person might reasonably be notable? DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if it's any help, I BLPProded 50 articles on April 4/5. It was new to me so I made the mistake at first of not checking for sources before prodding. Subsequently I think only 3 where actually deleted. So I think checking is working. Btw since my initial rush of prods I been finding sources. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 06:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember our earlier discussions, and I'm glad you've realized. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I did 14 additional BLP Prods today. 8 were easy to source or already sourced... and five I didn't even try because the names looked like they would generate an unreasonable number of false positives and/or the notability asserted was so tangential I would have been deleted them had they been tagged A7 to begin with. So for today, I'm keeping 89% of what I actually look into. This is just one data point, but I wonder if it will prove to be a trend, and/or whether someone had already gone through and taken the truly terrible PRODs and left the marginal/salvageable ones intact. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

update on GBOD

Hi, DGG I've made changes to the GBOD page to try to make it have appropriate language for Wikipedia. When you have time, please let me know if you approve. I appreciate your patience. GBODtom (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Catalin Partenie

An article that you have been involved in editing, Catalin Partenie, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalin Partenie. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Help with sourcing from databases

Hello! I spoke to you about a year ago about how I could improve my references from lexisnexis, especially when I was unsure about whether there was any free equivalent content available online. If I remember correctly you advised me to include quotes with my citations so that other people could verify what I was citing.

This has gotten me into a little pickle at the Lisa McPherson Trust article. I've put in quotes for every citation but it looks a little bulky. Could you please advise me on the best course of action to take?

Thank you in advance! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability proposal for deletion of articles on reference works

Given your background, I believe your reasoned input could be invaluable for the discussion currently brewing at WP:VPP in the thread Wikipedia:VPP#Notability_requirements_for_reference_books_and_other_reference_materials.

My particular reservations are expressed at Wikipedia:VPP#Need_for_the_work_to_have_a_review.3F, but I'd defer to your expertise in this area. Jheald (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been there; I'll be there again. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods

Hi, perhaps you can have a look at this (marginally-notable) journal, where two editors are butting heads... --Crusio (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

school

Hi DGG. I know you are highly experienced in the norms w/regard to school notability, so would be interested if you have a moment w/your input in this discussion. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Tx for your input.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

May I bother you as a librarian?

We have a problem with the article for Herbert Schildt, who is widely known as an author of programming books. A lot of people seem to like his books, but experts generally agree that they are riddled with extremely misleading inaccuracies and can't be recommended. (I like an Amazon review best: "The American National Standards Institute sells ISO 9899:1990 (the C language standard) for around $130. Schildt's annotated version sells for about $30-40. The price difference reflects the value of the annotations.") These criticisms are very well known on the internet, but it appears that none of the detailed critical reviews has ever been formally published. But without that the article would be incomplete. Do you know any special methods for locating formally published book reviews that are not filtered through the publishers of the books? Hans Adler 07:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well known problem; most academic review sources tend to review only what they can recommend. I'll see what I can do, but another approach is to look for published reviews on other books on C, which might compare them to his. Another is to look for comments in truly reliable blogs or mailing lists that will be considered as RSs. I don't know this field, but, for example, CHMINF often has postings calling attention to bad books in chemistry from highly thought of librarians who can be shown to be authorities . DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! "[C]omments in truly reliable blogs or mailing lists" is basically what we already have, but somehow it doesn't seem enough for BLP concerns, especially given the extremely negative nature of the reviews. What we currently have is self-published reviews of two books from one ISO standardisation committee member each, and a mention in the C FAQ, which has a print edition.

The idea of looking in reviews on other C books sounds excellent, although the field seems to be suffering from a general lack of formally published reviews and I wouldn't know where to look for them. But I will keep this in mind. Obviously any further help would be very much appreciated.

Incidentally, your first sentence sounds very familiar from my own field (mathematics). Hans Adler 07:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• These are dangerous waters. Please see The professor, his wife, and the secret, savage book reviews on Amazon for a recent example of an unpleasant maelstrom. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but this is different from your case. Three top experts have made their criticism public, with detailed proof, in the informal way that is usual in their field. That's very different from anonymous Amazon reviews. Hans Adler 09:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that as long as you kept the reported criticism strictly to the books, it would not be a BLP violation, any more than reporting that a work of fiction was not well received, although I can see how it could be considered as such. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

the distinction must be made between saying the author is incompetent and that the work is incompetent. An individual of the highest quality can sometimes do low quality work. Making an incorrect calculation is different from not knowing arithmetic. (cf. Perscitia). DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem in this case is the consistent poor quality of the man's books. [47] They are full of beginner's mistakes. Another problem is that a certain banned user regularly tries to remove all criticism from the article, and as a result we regularly get new users not familiar with Schildt looking at the BLP situation. Hans Adler 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The usual way is to report the information book by book and let people draw their own conclusions. Unfortunately, they are published in a typical pattern for the field with a great many overlapping titles, and the reviews can be expected to be spread out fairly diffusely. and semi-protection can help a little; I applied it. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at that issue when the BLP noticeboard complaint was around, and found a published magazine that has numerous critical reviews, C-Vu from the ACCU (organisation).[48] That won't satisfy our friend who defends Schildt to the last drop of blood, but should satisfy our reliable source standards. --GRuban (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an excellent find. It appears that the ACCU restructured their webpage dropped many reviews, and dropped the indication of where the reviews first appeared. It's very fortunate that the Russian mirror was not updated and still has all this information. I will see what I can do with this. Hans Adler 17:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

It's not the article that I edited, and it's up at AfD again. For what it's worth, I made a complex argument that was wiped out post hoc. Keep, delete, or TransWiki? Bearian (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems a matter for the audit subcommittee. Do you have a copy of what you posted? DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresimir Chris Kunej (2nd nomination)

I'd love to hear your reasons--it's pretty obvious to me that this subject is not notable for having published a whole lot of publications that are being cited or even held in major libraries. Most of the WP:PROF guidelines are immediately non-applicable (subject isn't a professor, far from it), and what subject did for the profession of translators and the rules for private schools is entirely unclear--the only thing that is clear is that he was interviewed on TV, for this one thing. Hell, I'm more notable than this subject. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree the notability here is borderline. I said weak keep, not keep. To me, weak keep or delete means the alternative would also be reasonable, and that I'm not going to argue the issue-- as contrasted to straight keep or delete, where I will argue it if challenged because I think it's definitely the right answer. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

uri

Sorry about my April problems. Uri Amir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhall10067 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Kratos Multi-physics

21:32, 23 April 2010 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "Kratos Multi-physics" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.cimne.com/kratos/)

"A tag has been placed on Kratos Multi-physics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. "

Indeed the content of "Kratos Multi-physics" is a mix between two source pages: http://www.cimne.com/kratos/ and http://kratos.cimne.upc.es/kratoswiki, and there isn't any copyright infringement because these external website belongs to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier.Mora (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

you need to follow the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, either by marking the web pages as free content with an appropriate , or donating the rights to us in the formal way specified there. However, there are two other problems: first, it is necessary to have substantial coverage in 3rd party independent references published in reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs, nor derived from their web page or public relations sources. the best type of such sources is published product reviews, and without them, an article on computer software will generally be deleted. second, the article itself must not be primarily promotional--the article there described the program in such a way that it came pretty close to it, . An article explaining the functions is not promotional; an article saying why one should use it or saying how food it is, is promotional, unless there are published external sources to cite for the statements. Because of this, it would be necessary to rewrite much of the article substantially, and in similar situations people generally find it easier to rewrite entirely than to bother with permissions. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hard-to-detect copyvios

THe page Alpha Omega Communication & Marketing is indeed a copyvio, just as you suspected, only, it was from the kind of page Google just can't detect. Go to http://www.alphaomega-tremblant.com/fr/index.html#Scene_1, then click "Compagnie," then "Historique." -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Enemy of My Enemy

There has been some disagreement at Talk:The_Enemy of My Enemy about whether/which "book reviews" count under criterion #1 of the notability guidelines. I'm not sure what consensus is on this point. You seem quite knowledgeable about such things. Perhaps you could clarify, or give your specific opinion? Thanks, Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 06:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

of course book reviews count. Not only do they count, they're the usual way of establishing the notability of books. Almost by definition, they're the main form of writing about books. True, for many sort of books this makes it very easy to show them notable. But if reviews did not count, it would be very hard in most cases to show any as notable, except only the famous ones. And one of the few things generally agreed on about notability is that it is much less than famous. Like all sources, it is necessary for the reviews to be substantial reviews from reliable sources, sources that employ editorial control and discrimination. (For example, it is normally agreed that home town reviews of a book by a little known author are not discriminate, because a local newspaper will feel obliged to cover every such book regardless. It's also agreed that the mere inclusion in a list of books received, or books for christmas, or the like , is not substantial.) The publication I review reference books for, CHOICE, makes a considerable effort to be highly selective & is one of the sources where even a single review proves notability. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar time!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your comment made at WP:AN here. I am not able to say what you said there any clearer than what you said right there. –MuZemike 07:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Good barnstar :) Unomi (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

fyi

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Speedy_deletion_Uighur_house

now tken care of. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I believe that issues such as the one I raise here are among your areas of expertise.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see quite how I have anything relevant to say. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

At one point (it's now been deleted) there was an effort at humor there ... see this.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, DGG. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Playmates

Hi, I saw a couple of your comments. You were involved in the lengthy discussion at the notability noticeboard in which a lot of editors commented and passed opinion, the result of which discussion was the removal of the all playmates are notable clause. In regard to that your comments that there is a long standing agreement that they are all notable anf that some limited votes in an AFD is a sign that community consensus opposes the discussion at the notability noticeboard. Considering the discussion went on for over a months there and was a RFC and yet you assert that discussion has no value, why is that? Off2riorob (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

Hi David, please would you paste a copy of the deleted Thinkers 50 onto my User:Fayenatic london/Sandbox ? I'll add more independent citations next time. TIA, Fayenatic (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Adirondack lean-to

Hi, DGG. You removed the Copyvio template from Adirondack lean-to with the edit summary "other version copied from WP". I suggested that this is possible, I even think it's likely, but I'm not sure it's the case. If you are sure, or if you think my surmise is sufficient to dismiss copyright concerns, then that's fine with me. Cnilep (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

there are two attitudes : guilty unless proven otherwise, or the opposite. i go with the opposite. Anyone wants to challenge it, they can challenge it. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

M. Christian

I'm not sure that your removal of the prod was consistent with the new BLP rules per WP:BLPDEL. Did you ensure that it have "at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article" and if so, what was the WP:RS and the statement? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

certainly. He did indeed write the books he is credited with writing, as proven by the extremely reliable source , WorldCat. Further, these books have been commented on by several secondary sources. He works in a very specialized genre, and sources can be expected to be rather tricky. what does not not follow the BLP rules, was your having placed the tag in the first place. At the time you did so, there were sufficient sources already on the article to provide some documentation for the claims, though the were erroneously listed as external links. BLP prod is limited to articles without sufficient documentation for WP:V. The documentation does not have to be be good enough to prove WP:N. Since I consider it essential that anyone who works with these articles should improve them if they can, I did not limit myself to removing your tag, but found and added additional sources. I enforce the rules--when there are BLP prods that I cannot find sources for at the end of 10 days, I delete them. Having now worked with over 100 such articles, I have observed that , except for articles on people from geographical areas where sources are very hard to find, there are sources for about 80% of them, and of the remainder, almost all could have been dealt with by speedy.

I continue to consider the rule unnecessary, but since it is adopted, I shall work according to it until we see WP:BEFORE required, whereupon the number of valid prods will drop to so low a level that the community will realize its error. The rule harms Wikipedia , for it hampers those of us who care about sourcing enough to actually source articles instead of complaining that others did not do so, by requiring us to work on matters of very low priority, without time to work on the gross errors and bad sourcing already in Wikipedia 18:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Worldcat link is to another book of a similar title: The bachelor machine : desiring production "and" its reader by Samuel Trammell; Brown University. Dept. of Modern Culture and Media, a thesis published in 1991. So what your "extremely reliable" link proves is that M. Christian did not write this book. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed now. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I make no claim to myself be extremely reliable. I am certainly capable of getting references wrong 1% of the time or so. But there were multiple references, and any individual one of them is enough to defeat BLP Prod. The article is, I see, at AfD, and the community will decide, which is the way things should be handled. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of M. Christian

An article that you have been involved in editing, M. Christian, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Christian. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure why it was nominated. The nominator needs to read WP:BEFORE. --Morenooso (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is another of the nominator's errors. This warning belongs on the creator's talkpage. Additionally, he voted. Everyone knows the nomination is the nominator's secret vote. --Morenooso (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

the notice belongs here too. Everyone who is involved in a substantial way with the article should get a notice. I certainly do expect to get a notice when a prod I've declined is nominated for AfD. Kenilworth Terrace did quite right to tell me, and I thank him for it. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dell Schanze

There was an afd on this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dell Schanze over two years ago, and I note you were equivocal back then. I'm wondering what you think now. The article looks to me like a hatchet job on the village idiot spun from low-grade local news stories. I'm wondering whether our tolerance for such stuff is lower now than it was. I don't want to rerun an afd if this is obviously going to get kept, so I hope you don't mind me using you as a weather vein. Would you vote to keep this? And regardless of where you'd come down, do you think it is a debate worth me beginning?--Scott Mac 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(butting in) a quick look at the refs sees two independent newspapers as sources, which suggests it will be kept or no consensus - the general notability guidelines seems to me to be where the 'tide' lies on these things. It doesn't qualify as WLP1E either, so I would think the probability of an AfD reaching a 'delete' conclusion are minimal at best, and if it does, then there will be heated discussion on process etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. The sourcing is particularly poor[49] . Most of the newspaper stories look like "point and laugh" local stories. Are village idiots intrinsically notable?--Scott Mac 23:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we have considerably less tolerance for such articles now, and I think an afd on it might well succeed. My own reasoning in such cases is the same as before: in order to be notable one must do something notable. The accumulation of minor curious details does not add up to notability. I would certainly say to delete. My own view in the previous afd was not actually equivocal: I thought it should be deleted, but did not want to press the point as a newcomer , seeing the views of other respected editors; it was a failure of self-confidence on my part, I hope pardonable as a beginner.

This is the stuff of tabloids, not of responsible newspapers., let alone encyclopedias. The way I look on it is congruent with BLP 1E and Do No Harm, but based on my own interpretation of both. I consider the usual current interpretation of BLP 1E extremely unfortunate and destructive to NPOV, in preventing the coverage of people significant in particular happenings: I would personally limit it to single discreditable events in the life of non-public individuals. But I would enforce it rather strictly within that sphere. Similarly, I don't apply do no harm to cases where significant publicity has already occurred, only to cases where we ourselves would really make a difference. My fundamental motivation is, that I feel it ethically obligatory to protect children and fools from the consequences of their unwitting actions. I word it as "feel", because it is not a rational argument, but an instinctive moral reaction, a desire not to be needlessly cruel.

I know that Scott considers things a little differently in his more extensive view of BLP; he comes here because he thinks this a case where our different views on might nonetheless yield the same result, and he is right. There is a core of human decency to be respected in what humans do, and I am sure that almost always he and I feel it alike--our disagreements are over some cases only, and should not be overemphasized . There are a few in Wikipedia who do not seem to feel it, and I think they misunderstand and overextend a good principle: the requirement to tell the truth is very great, and it applies without exception in all public affairs, but only in these. In patrolling, I come across those in need of protection, and I ask for oversight as readily as he would do.

The key consideration is not the quality of sourcing, which is sufficient if the material were worth including in the first place. Cas's view above that it depends on the sourcing is putting the cart before the horse. Not everything sourceable is suitable for Wikipedia .

But regardless of whether the article was justified, the most recent action, a speedy deletion by User:the Wordsmith, was not. The rationale was " ‎Significant violations of the biographies of living persons policy in nearly all versions" which I consider as unacceptable vague. If he thinks the community made a mistake, he should do it as Scott and I would do , and go back to the community and convince them of it. Shortcuts of this sort are an abuse of administrative power, and dealing with that is more important to Wikipedia than the fate of any one article. It is unfortunate when good people trying to do good, do it in such a way as to make their own actions censurable. Within the framework of Wikipedia this is a public action, and I think it must be dealt with. Were it not for the foolish decision of arb com protecting even the worst admin action when claimed to be justified by blp, I would summarily revert. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)