User talk:DGG

Current time: 11:45,   November   12   (UTC)

add new sections at the bottom, not the top                                        ARCHIVES

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

General Archives:

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

Do not add comments here; add new sections at the bottom, not the top

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

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

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

where is the "like" button? RobLab (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen you reference this essay

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

I have sometimes used pseudo-links like these as a statement for their own sake, without writing an actual essay. I remember saying something like this, but I can't find it. I think this one was TALKINGSOMUCH... -- but I can't find it either. As for the problem, I've commented pretty extensively at AN/I: [1], and will comment at the RfC also, But please don't confuse the reasonable message, with which I am in agreement -- that Deletion Policy is overbalanced towards deletion, and one step towards rebalancing it would be to require some version of WP:BEFORE -- with the unreasonable way it is being over-expressed. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I was a debater in school before "talking so fast" became the current style. I feel anything which games the system deserves appropriate response in order to keep the system sound. I appreciate your valid concern about deletion procedures being over-weighted toward one outcome. Thanks for your valuable comments in those forums. Be well. BusterD (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had forgotten that context. And so was I, in college--a very valuable experience, especially in facilitating the sort of intercampus experiences only the athletic teams otherwise gave occasion for. But the stimulus is interesting: if I take a turn at NPP, the amount of junk turns me for a while into a deletionist before I catch myself and stop being so unfriendly to all the newcomers. If I take a look at AfD, the number of unwarranted nominations makes me want to give a similarly snappy and unjust response to all of them, with the less than rational thought that if I argue against all of them, maybe there's a chance the good ones will make it. Several good inclusionists have run into trouble here falling into such temptation. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

basic rules about professors

All full professors at major research universities have sufficiently demonstrated that they are recognized experts in their subject to meet WP:PROF,and that WP:PROF is an alternative to WP:GNG. This is not a formal rule, but almost all AfD have had this result, except in fields where people here have doubts about the rigor, such as Education. (Major: in the US, Research Extensive in the Carnegie Classification + schools of similar rank; elsewhere, similar level). The rationale for this is that this is the basis on which people are promoted to such rank at such universities, and their judgment is more reliable than ours.)

For those at lower level institutions, this is not automatic, and the judgment goes by individual cases; the rationale is that in such institutions people are often promoted to this rank based on lesser accomplishments or for other qualities than being a recognized expert in their subject.

For Associate professors, automatic notability is not generally accepted, but is determined case by case. AfD results vary, but imho are usually reasonable. Personally, I think it could be extended to them on similar grounds, but this has not had consensus. ("Associate" = the US rank, and corresponding ranks elsewhere)

For Assistant professors, and corresponding ranks outside the US, it similarly goes case by case, and almost all AfD results have been "not notable". I agree with this.

Additionally, in the humanities most full professors in the highest level universities-- ,-- have written two or more books that have reviews in RSs for notability, and thus meet WP:AUTHOR. In the very highest level universities, this applies to Associate professors also. In other fields, where tenure usually depends on articles, not books, this doesn't work as frequently, but it sometimes does. Similarly, in the fine arts, many people at various academic levels will qualify by WP:CREATIVE.

For that matter, if one argued on the basis of the GNG, we could find for almost anyone who has published one or more important papers that the 2 or more of the papers referencing them contain substantial discussions of their work. This would require examining the actual papers, as the mere fact of being cited does not necessarily or even usually mean there is substantial discussion of the work. If I really tried, I could probably find this for many people even at the post-doctoral level. As this result is contradictory to most people's intuitive feelings on the appropriate contents of an encyclopedia (as distinct from a faculty directory), it shows imo the uselessness of the GNG in this subject. Before the WP:PROF standard became accepted, I did use it when it matched my intuitive view. If we return to GNG-worship, I will go back to using it.

Where the GNG is used here appropriately , is for people at any level whose work happens to strike the fancy of newspaper writers. I don't consider most such people notable as academics, but since the public will read the news accounts and want some objective information, it's reasonable to have the articles here. (I have sometimes objected to isolated news accounts as being based on PR if it seems really counter-intuitive). DGG ( talk ) 17:39, Apr 24. 2012

Admin review

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

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

You are quite correct--I was oversimplifying. Sensible new admins do only the ones that are totally obvious while they are starting--it must be very discouraging to have people revert your first admin actions, and I've seen that happen. And it is true that I will make a point of checking speedy nominations others have thought it wise to pass by, and AfDs that people don't seem to want to close; I know some others do just the same, which is how we keep long lags from developing. But I had in mind also a few long term admins who actually do decide almost all equivocal cases as delete. To expand on what you have said , in a direction of my own,

I have occasionally checked a new admins deletions if I think from the RfA there is likely to be some problems, and I suppose others do similarly. But I do not know if any people systematically reviews the admin logs the way people do new pages--if anyone does, I've noticed no sign of it. The only thing I've seen checked systematically is the very long-standing page protections. It might be a good thing to do. The AfD closes are very visible, the prods have been checked by several people before they get to the top of the list, but speedies and blocks and unblocka and protections and unprotections don't get looked at, unless someone suspects a problem. I have sometimes thought of doing it, but I have always stopped, because, to be frank about it, I don't want to see the errors. I can't pass over a clear error I do see, and I am fully aware that some admins use the tools beyond the proper limits. Some of these are my friends, & I can mention it to them from time to time quietly. But for obvious reasons most of the ones I would disagree with are by people I often disagree with, with whom relations are often not all that friendly. I don't want to spend all my time quarreling and navigating sticky situations; though I may get the errors corrected, it is not likely to improve mutual relations. (I am also aware that I too make both errors and borderline interpretations, & I suppose I even sometimes interpret things the way I would like them to be, & if I have any enemies here, I do not really want to encourage them to audit me with the utmost possible rigidity. I expect I could be able to very well support my interpretations, but as Samuel Johnson put it, nobody however conscious of their innocence wants to every day have to defend themselves on a capital charge before a jury.

When I started here, I wondered how a system with a thousand equally powerful admins who could all revert each other could possibly exist. I soon learnt the subtleties of wheel warring--there were some major arb com cases on it during my first year here which pretty much defined the limits. But more important, I also learned that even the more quarrelsome spirits here understood the virtues of mutual forbearance--and that even the most self-sufficient people do not really want to look publicly foolish. Our balance is I think over-inclined to protecting the guilty if they are popular enough, but it is not as bad as it could be, or as it often is in human societies. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I smiled at your closing comment. I had the same, thought, although for the project as a whole, rather than just the admin function. I'm more recent to the project because, when I first heard about it, a few years before actually joining, I thought about the model and decided it couldn't possibly work. Oddly, I still feel that way, intellectually. If there were no such thing as Wikipedia, and I heard a proposal to create, my instinct is that it will fail miserably. I actually can't quite put my finger on why it hasn't failed.SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I discovered in my first year here that there were some parts of Wikipedia where despite my interest in the subject, for one or another reason I was unlikely to be very effective. Prominent among these were the MOS and categorization. I am a little concerned with article titles, and in that field, fundamentally I disagree with you -- I think the best article title should be the clearest and fairest, and counting ghits or the equivalent is usually irrelevant. And to the extent I understand categorization debates the problem there is often finding a sufficiently clear wording to encompass the desired set of article. I think the MOS is a little more rational than it was 4 years ago; if I were doing it, I'd limit to to pure matters of style, which does not include choice between article titles, just such matters as whether to use singular or plurals. But in questions like this , your opinion is as valid as mine, and there is no point in arguing the issue here--neither of us is "right". DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My main question was aimed at getting your opinion on "Tutoring newbies on how to do online research". You don't seem to have answered this, but maybe this is something that Kudpung is more interested in than you are. My comment on article titles was related to this: there seem to be many people creating new articles without adequately researching if there is an existing article on the subject already. Part of the problem is that Wikipedia Search, by default, only shows if there is an article title that is an exact match to the search term; it does not show if there is a category that matches the search term. If it did, it would be far easier to find related material. It is difficult to work out how to search categories. Terminology (e.g. article titles and category titles) is often inconsistent for this reason. Just one example: There are Web browser engine and List of web browser engines articles, but there are nine Comparison of layout engines (XXX) articles, and the category is Category:Layout engines. I don't understand your reference to counting ghits, and don't understand how my viewpoint disagrees with yours. LittleBen (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I got another response on the Deletion review thread that pointed me to a discussion here that may interest you. LittleBen (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not covering everything. The WP search function is not the problem; if it does not find an article, it suggests searching for the term. Perhaps the page could be revised to suggest that first, rather than as an alternative to making an article. I think there has been some previous debate on whether it should initially search for the term rather than the article. I also have seen it said that by the standards of other search engines, it could use some sophistication. About 1/3 of people come here from Google etc., and though those search engines rank article titles at the top, they also include articles with the term anywhere. But the Google search engine is, deliberately, getting dumber and dumber; it is no longer possible to use the "+" character as an intersection, and Google Scholar has removed the limit to subject field possibility in advanced search.

Many apparently duplicate articles are created deliberately as a POV fork, others in the mistaken belief that WP includes essays on very specific term-paper type topics. Many are simply naive, as when someone submits a two sentence article on something where we have extensive coverage.

I think teaching people to search properly is a part of research, but the main result of its failure is not the duplicate articles, but the unreferenced articles. Way back when Google was new and exciting, we librarians used to impress the students by showing we could use it more effectively than they could. (The secret is partially cleverness and experience in selecting search terms, but mainly just persistence--something like 90% of users stop at the first page of results--I will if necessary scan through even a few thousand. I have found that people learn by experience better than didactic instruction, provided they are alert enough to pay attention to what experience shows them. Certainly we should do a better job teaching beginners, but the way I think works best is to show them one at a time how to do better. A person learns best when one individual person shows them how to fix their errors and misconceptions, and this is not done by templates. Besides Kudpung & myself, very few NPPatrollers or even admins take the trouble and patience. It's too much for a few people--we need everyone who is able to do it. We progress not by discussing how to work, but by working. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we progress not by discussing how to work, but by working. You seem to be better at that (more productive) than I am ;-) But sometimes it's more scalable if we offer others the opportunity of learning how to do the work (not specifically thinking of Tom Sawyer ;-). Thanks and best regards. LittleBen (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI - user warnings

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

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

Library portal

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

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

Thanks for checking it out, and for the improvements. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Essay about Wikipedia

Hi DGG. I checked out your user page mini-essays - very interesting. Would you be available to talk about Wikipedia some time? I am writing about the philosophy and sociology of Wikipedia. 109.145.120.77 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

certainly. Please make an account, activate your email from preferences, and email me from the email user link in the toolbox on the right. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I created the account and set up email. I will mail shortly. Hestiaea (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Iwill get back to you, probably next week. things are a little busy. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography of Encyclopedias

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

Rising above the mediocre

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

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

I wouldn't call it by such monumental terms as "faith and belief"; my hope and expectation for Wikipedia is that it will be a good and useful general encyclopedia. Some aspects of it are already very good, and can be excellent: comprehensive scope, up-to-date coverage. Some will be very good, and are quite good already: accuracy, referencing and cross-linking. Some will I hope become good, though they have problems at present: freedom from advertising and bias. Some will never rise above mediocre: the quality of the writing, including their detailed style. Some of all this is characteristic of a large scale community project: comprehensiveness, timeliness, lack or bias, linking. Some are special features of the people gathered here and they way they work: objectivity , accuracy, referencing.

The intention was for WP to be at the level of the average college student. Many 17 year olds are at that level, some considerably younger in fields with no special academic pre-requisites. Certainly the high school and junior high school Wpedians I have known in Wp circles have been working at a mature level. I learned this freedom from agist bias from my parents, who treated their children as rational beings who would learn more if given the opportunity. Here, we give them that chance. Children should be treated as adults as soon as they're ready, when it does not risk their safety. This is a very safe place, compared to others on the web. And it does not affect our own safety, because when there are errors, there are thousands of people to fix them.

As I said elsewhere, there still remains the need for an encyclopedia of higher academic quality. Most high school students would not be able to participate significantly, but neither would most adults. And a great many of those with advanced subject degrees I have known in my career would not have the necessary skill at comprehensive comprehensible writing. Scholars too need to be edited, and complicated works do best with skilled organization. It can be more efficient to have questions settled by editorial ukase. But not always: as you know, I joined WP and Citizendium at the same time, resolved to go with the one that made more progress. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! BTW I wasn't aware of your involvement with Citizendium.

I don't altogether agree with your comment about academic quality. I don't think articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would be suitable for WP. What is needed is well-summarised and well-explained articles on difficult or general subjects that would be accessible to anyone of high school age (15-18) and above. The Wikipedia article on Being and the corresponding SEP article [3] are both unreadable but for different reasons. The WP article, as you will appreciate, is a rambling dog's breakfast of uncited original research (plus some glaring factual errors). The SEP article looks pretty accurate to me but just goes off into the clouds ("Anti-Meinongian First-Order View") once it gets going. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is better for a general audience but is incomplete. Hestiaea (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Milking the bull

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

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

Quick question: Outlines

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

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

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

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

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

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

Library resources box

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

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

category intersects

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

Anyway, regardless of what you decide on the CFD votes, I'd really appreciate your input and help on the cat intersect proposal. cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

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

category intersection

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

Quick question

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

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

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

Oh ok, thanks. I agree with you. I was just curious. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I appreciate that there are times when you must act immediately, such as WP:ATTACK and WP:OUTING and possibly other situations. Do the admins have a tool that makes it easy for admins to "delete (or WP:REVDELETE) now, and list the page for review by another administrator ASAP" and if they do, to most admins who make "unilateral deletions" use this tool? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is no rule that admins can't delete anything on sight, but tagging and leaving for a second admin to delete is a good, unwritten practice that most seem to observe. Most of us will of course delete blatant COPYVIO, attack, and vandal pages immediately and some other cases of obvious nonsense. However, admins don't actually make many mistakes with their deletions, so 'delete and review later' by another admin would be redundant. I've deleted around 3,000 pages and only restored 20, and those were userfications. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I define 1% as "many" if one thinks of the cumulative effect over the years. If everyone who had a reasonable case stayed and complained, yes it would work, but most don't. There's also the definition of "error"-- does it mean an article that would pass AfD, or an article that with enough work might possibly pass AfD, an article to which the speedy criteria did not apply, but would end up deleted anyway The 1% is for the first two classes; for the third, it's more like 5%. In any case the error rate will depend on the type of speedys. I tend to look at the ones that have been passed over for a few hours. I only really know about my own errors, and of course my rate may be unusually high because I may be unusually incompetent. Some years ago I did intend to audit speedies--the reactions I received from admins involved in the ones I challenged persuaded me it was not the route to effectiveness here, and tolerating injustice in this was the way to be more useful overall. (There was 1, & only 1, admin who did change their practice in response to my comments.) I think I will decide the same about the G13 AfCs. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Current projects 7-3

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

I really should revise these. The problems at WP change over time, and so do my interests. I am a little less concerned about articles directly, and more about how we deal with editors, I no longer object to using A7 for organizations, and I'm less concerned about the misuse of speedy in general. Since I wrote that 5 years ago, there has been a greater degree of consistency in speedy deletions generally, and in fact with deletion process generally. But more important, as WP becomes important, we are under increasing attack from people and companies who wish to use us for promotion, to the extent that very strong measure are indicated. Many of the A7 company & organization deletions also qualify as G11, and often as G12, copyvio. Their authors have no interest in contributing to an encyclopedia, but want publicity for their enterprises, and a greater percentage of them are paid editors. I have come to think at AfD that for borderline notability, we should also consider the promotional nature of the article--the combination of borderline notability and considerable promotion is reason to delete--but since that's a matter of judgement, it's a question for AfD, not speedy.

I am still willing to restore articles if anyone intends to work on them, and I'm always surprised at the few admins who aren't, I'd now say, not "established editor" but "editor in good faith", & when there's actually a chance of improving the article. In practice it's usually clear enough--and a good faith editorcan even include the rare paid editor who wants to learn and conform to our standards. The problem is a more practical one, of people finding out about the deleted articles. But this is related to what I see as the main current problem:

in the advice we give new editors. too many people rely on the templates, either in New Page patrol or AfC. In any case where there's a reasonable effort , it is really necessary to explain specifically either what is needed, or why it's likely to be hopeless--and by specifically I mean showing that one has actually read and taken into account the particular article. I don't always do this myself--there are simply too many articles to deal with them all carefully--but I try to do it if there's a likely prospect of improvement, in either the article or the editor. But most patrollers and reviewers patrol or review using insufficient care or the wrong criteria.

I'm currently not that much specifically trying to save individual articles, or even to teach individual new editors--I'm trying to use my experience to help the people who work with new editors do it properly. At this point it's not a question of changing our rules, but the way we apply them, and changing the practices and expectations of the people who apply them. I tend to do this as Idid 5 years ago with speedies--I can't check every article submission, but when I see inadequate advice, I can follow up with that particular person. ` DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

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

SIgns of promotionalism

For anyone watching, there are some internal signs of promotional-style biographies for businessmen that are almost always copyvio as well (besides the obvious giveaway of a statement of how important the company is, and especially a statement of how important their duties were in previous positions in the firm.)

Headings that use <big> instead of our formatting

Placing the education at the end, with a final sentence of about spouse and children.

Not giving the positions in chronological order, and often not including earlier positions except the one just before coming to the firm.

The corresponding signs for academics are slightly different, depending on whether they're done by a central office or by the individual. For senior administrators they characteristically include multiple junior executive positions and in-university awards. For any faculty, if the individual wrote it, it will often includes full details of all publications however minor; if the central office, it will omit most exact titles, especially for journal articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Local interest topics again

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

As before, the problem is maintaining them free from promotionalism. The more local the organization, the more likely it is that any available sources will be essentially press releases. for example, I've got this problem in my own neighborhood, Boerum Hill: there are a number of interesting creative projects of various genres, as well as some fascinating stores, all with good coverage in the fairly respectable local paper, but that paper will essentially write an article on anything in the general area, and will say more or less what the proprietors tell it. (The paper's political coverage I do trust, and i could use it to justify articles on every city councilman and community board member in the Brooklyn, not to mention the losing candidates, but I don't want to push it against the consensus they aren't notable ) So Iwait until the NYTimes or at least New York covers something in a substantial way--New York may be a bit of a tabloid sometimes, but it isn't a PR outlet. I love local journalism. I even read it when I don't know the area--it shows the way people live, in all their variety. If we could maintain the articles, I might want to do it.

The best hope for this is a local wiki. The attempts at a local wiki in NYC haven't really taken off--there are insufficient people in any one neighborhood who understand, and the ones that exist tend to be dominated by the real estate agents and local attorneys. Or possibly something built around Open Street Maps--that sort of a geographical interface makes sense. Or a combined wiki, Wikipedia Two, still maintaining NPOV and sourcing, but not requiring notability and not all that strict on promotionalism.

actually, I'd like a three way split, WP, the general encyclopedia; WP 2 for local content, and WP+, for academically reviewed material. Citizendium offered promise for that third part, but it 's manner or working drove off too many of the good people. I in fact joined it as one of the original group of expert editors, but I didn't get along with Larry, and if you didn't support him, there was no place for you there. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Reading what you say, and thinking about my own experiences, the problem here is that local newspapers are reliable on some subjects, but aren't necessarily reliable on all subjects. Because of that, we have no objective measure on how useful inclusion in a local newspaper is as a measure for inclusion in Wikipedia, and some organisations and individuals will take advantage off that to inject their self-promotion in to Wikipedia, so you prefer to rely on other sources that make it easier to draw a clear line. Is that roughly it, or am I just filling in my own perspective? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to rely on other methods than using the GNG to make it possible to draw a clear line. Decisions under the GNG come down to the details of what counts as reliable especially with respect to the key words "substantial" and "independent." Depending on what one wants to include or exclude, questions of what is a RS for notability purposes can often be rationally argued either way. But I've learned to work with the GNG, since it is unfortunately still the rule and likely to remain so.

And our key problem now is dealing with promotionalism. It's hard enough to deal with it in articles on major organizations--our standards for what we've accepted before were incredibly lax, and probably 90% of the articles on commercial and non-commercial organizations need to be rewritten. I'm reluctant to start including any thing that would add to the problem. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit description

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

Deletion of EDP Energias do Brasil

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

I agree that that is a consideration, but it should also be weighed against rewarding socks. If they know that the articles they create will remain, no matter how they create them, we keep the incentive for others to pay socks to continue to do this and it is getting way out of hand Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277--I am One of Many (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Anthologies

G'day DGG,

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

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

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

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

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

Quality of new articles

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

well, I hope you post some details about who said what, so we can hold them accountable this time next year after they will have done nothing useful,

But actually, it's not their fault, but intrinsic to the current stage of WP: there are three simultaneous factors: 1/ the more people rely on WP, the higher is the demand for quality 2/ the more important WP gets, the harder is to to maintain quality, because everyone will want to use WP for promotion 3/ The longer it is since we started , the earliest people with the most enthusiasm will have moved on to other things and it will no longer be as exciting for those who join now. None of these three factors can be alleviated by anything the foundation does, or that we can do here at WP.

The hope, is that we will get a new generation of editors, who rather than trying to play with something new, are people who want to produce something as useful as they can make it, without the casual attitude the pioneers did about actual quality and freedom from promotionalism. if we can do that, deficiencies of infrastructure will not matter. Good people with the right approach to the right goal can master any system. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said, though it is not the quality of new articles that should mainly concern us, but that of old articles. Hope you are all having/had a good time. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

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

we have always accepted an entry in Gale's Contemporary Literary Criticism & their similar series as notability , even if they call a figure minor. The article is in need of some cutting, which I will do tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

THanks for the reply. I guess I'm missing something, because he's not coming up on Gale, and mentions in NYT, etc. are not substantial. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I will double check that, probably tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sir, thank ye in advance.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know

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

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

notability check

Hi David This artist’s entry needs to be rewritten, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Jodoin, but as it has the notability flag, does someone other than myself need to review it? The artist is very well-known in critical art circles and in art school set, but not in the commercial sense. Her work illustrated the 2009-10 season brochure and eighteen posters for the Théâtre français at the National Arts Centre (NAC) in Ottawa where it was also exhibited. It won the award for documents at the APPLIED ARTS Design & Advertising Awards Annual 2009 (Toronto). She has had solo exhibits at these public galleries: Richmond Public Art Gallery, British Columbia, Musée d’art de Joliette, Québec, Ottawa School of Art, Ontario, National Center, for the Arts, Ottawa, Ontario, Maison des Arts de Laval, Laval, Québec, Connexion Gallery, organized by University of New Brunswick Art Centre, Fredericton, New-Brunswick,McClure Gallery, Visual Arts Centre, Montréal, travelled to Nanaimo Art Gallery, Nanaimo, B.C, and solo exhibits in Montreal and Calgary and group shows in Praque and New York with commercial galleries. She also has been a guest lecturer at art schools in Montreal as well as:Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, Fontbonne University, St-??Louis, Missouri, Minneapolis College of Art & Design, Minnesota, North Park University, Chicago, University of Calgary, Alberta, Plattsburgh State University, Plattsburgh. There are also biographies of her on university sites and she mentioned in the entertainment section of several newspapers http://www.richmondreview.com/entertainment/159955635.html . There are also about ten favourable critical reviews from Canada's top art journalists. There is no hurry for a reply if you are on vacation. Thanks HeatherBlack (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• You're trying to be rational. But the only practical definition of notability is what the consensus at a particular time considers important enough for an article in WP: it's an entirely empirical standard: whatever succeeds. Most of the rules are ambiguous & ill-defined, & we are in any case under no obligation to follow them. People at WP are not good at making fine distinctions or balancing multiple factors. Considering the various degrees or rationality and knowledgeability of people who engage in discussions, simple rules of thumb are better. It doesn't help to pass a formal standard if the net effect is not convincing. The goal is for a subject to be what I call "undoubtedly notable ", notable to the degree that no reasonable person who understands the field will challenge, or even better, obviously notable, that any one challenging it will not be taken seriously by anyone.

Having multiple works in major museums is in practice sufficient. Having these works get independent critical commentary is even better. For the sort of work that doesn't typically get into museums (such as street art or architecture), awards and commentary and official recognition are the equivalent.

The practical difficulties for the sort of articles you've been writing are 1/whether the museum is in fact a major collection, rather than the sort of civic collection which is not particularly discriminating with local artists 2/ whether the critical discussion is in fact substantial and independent. A museum's description of its own collection is not independent, unless the level of scholarship is universally recognized. Almost no commercial gallery's description of anything is reliable. Too many articles here depend on such descriptions, & it would be very easy to challenge them. (The classic example is the degree to which the association with Duveen might cast doubt on Berenson's objectivity). 3/ (which I think you recognize)--no provincial or municipal level award is meaningful. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

hi david, I hope this is an appropriate space to ask about how to improve an AfD(if not please let me know !), and also to clarify your viewpoint on what is surely a subjective criteria. in regards to a comment that you made about inclusion in a museum collection being a reasonable criteria for notability. the guidelines here dont make a distinction as to the merit of a particular museum or gallery. suffice to say that i mostly agree with your assessment of the particular institution in question,you fail to back your claim with a reasonable argument. please advise so i can best respond thank you! Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability

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

I rather expected to hear from you, and I've delayed nominating further articles until I could see your response. There are two separate but linked problems in articles about organizations, their leaders, and their products: notability and promotionalism:

The basic problem of promotionalism is that WP is addressed to the potential readers, giving them the information they might want to know upon seeing mention of a subject (for example, at the most basic, where is that company and what does the company do?, or which organization is that & what do they advocate? ). A promotional article is addressed to a prospective user or purchaser or supporter: This is what we do, and here is why it is valuable that you buy our products or support our endeavors. Encyclopedia articles are characterised by plain description, promotional ones by praise, or the sort of detail one would need only if one is considering a purchase. Promotional articles are intended to give a favorable image of the company, such as describing its ostensible social purposes or community contributions.

the basic problem of notability is deciding whether something is worth describing in an encyclopedia at all. It doesn't correspond to importance in the world, but to whether it should be included in WP--we can;t after all judge the world, but we must decide what we want to put in our encyclopedia. . In a few cases we go by a general decision--for example, the decision that all named populated places are appropriate for articles. In some others, we go by outside evaluation: for example, that a holder of a distinguished professorship at a major university is notable, or someone chosen to compete in the Olympics. In many cases, there are no such firm standards, and we go by the WP:GNG, the general notability guideline, which requires substantial coverage by multiple independent third party reliable sources. (some people say this is the only real standard, and everything else is just an assumption of what will meet it). the key words there are "substantial" , "independent" , and "reliable." A substantial source is more than a product listing, or a mention of an event taking place, but a significant discussion, such as a full product review. How substantial it must be is of course a matter of judgment, which is decided by consensus at WP:AFD. An independent source is one not derived from the subject--not the subject's web page of product literature, or what its principals write, or the press releases the put out. A reliable source is one using editorial judgment, rather than simply publishing press releases or gossip. Again, these terms are matters of judgement to be decided at consensus.

In all but extreme cases. nobody can predict accurately how consensus will go--I will nominate an article for deletion if I think there is a substantial probability that it will not be considered suitable, --but even after 7 dears of experience at it , sometimes I am wrong, either because I made a misjudgment or because the community wishes to interpret things differently. The community decides, and another administrator judges what the community has decided. Guidelines are necessarily subject to interpretation, and what really matters is how the community decides to interpret them--after all, we make our own rules collectively, and we can decide how we want to use them , and if we want to make exceptions. The best way of learning this is to observe afd discussions on similar topics, to see what arguments succeed, and what the practical standards are.

Some things are deleted immediately, by the concurrence of two administrators, rather than an AfD. One relevant example is blatant promotionalism, which is an article so much devoted to advertising or promoting something that there appears no way to fix it without rewriting. (As an admin, I have the technical ability to do it without concurrence, but I rarely use it unless there is some immediate hazard, such as libel or copyvio) . We also immediately remove articles on people or companies where it seems obvious on the face of it there is no possible indication of any importance or significance, --a much less demanding standard than actual notability,. Again, normally two admins will concur in this. If such deletions are seriously disputed in good faith, most admins will reverse the decision and send the article to AfD for a community opinion.

I said there was a connection between the two: A key reason we have a notability standard is that for most things that are not notable, there is nothing much to say except directory information or promotion. It is critical to WP that it not become a mere directory or a place for advertisement--we want to provide information that people can trust, so we require sources and objectivity and some degree of significance. There are many other places on the web for advertising, and google does very nicely as a web directory.

There are additionally some factors that can affect how people here view an article. We tend to regard an attempt to write simultaneous articles about a borderline notable company, its products, and its executives likely to be an attempt at promotion--it is much better to have one strong article. Also , it is considered possible that someone writing articles about a wide range of barely notable subjects may be doing so as a paid editor. We do not absolutely prohibit this (though many people here would like to do so), but we strongly discourage it, because it is extremely difficult to be objective about what one writes with such a strong conflict of interest. If by any chance you are such an editor, I can explain to you how best to deal with it so as to get the articles accepted--I am one of the relatively few admins here who are willing to assist paid editors who come here openly in good faith and are willing to learn our standards. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your detailed response. If I am not completely sure whether a subject is notable, should I submit it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation?

I really thought I was careful about keeping promotionalism out of my articles. I would like to improve them, if given the chance. Is there a way that I can edit the deleted articles and then submit them for approval to be posted? I've read something about restoring articles to a userspace, but I'm not sure what the procedure is for that. I absolutely do want to contribute quality articles and nothing that other editors might view as promotional. Thanks for your help. HtownCat (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look next week. You should first check if there are good references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, because otherwise a rewrite is useless. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

update

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

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

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

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

Can one become notable for not being notable? Interesting concept... Peridon (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

we have had some AfD discussions on people & organizations whose notability arises in large part because of either criticism or attacks they have made upon WP; results vary--my own view has consistently been that as part of NPOV we should always in case of doubt be careful not to remove information about those who don't like us.

But in this particular instance, this is a person who has without malice towards us made the error of hiring a firm whose practice it is to evade the principles of WP; This would fall under BLP policy. This is minor negative information, not relating to whatever actual notability he might have. Even if he were to have an article, I would not include this material--it's a basic BLP policy that we do not include the misdemeanors of basically private individuals, let alone use them as the basis for notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Okay. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comment

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

Library holdings

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

I use WorldCat most of the time. But WorldCat requires interpretation for 5 factors: First, it covers mainly US and Canadian libraries, with a lesser coverage for the UK and Australia and New Zealand, a very scanty coverage of Western Europe, and little else, so it requires careful interpretation when used elsewhere. Second, it covers almost entirely English language books, for in the US only the largest academic libraries buy anything else. Third, it covers current holdings, so what libraries had 50 years ago is not represented, so for older books of shorter spans of interest such as popular fiction it requires correction also. Fourth, how many titles count for a book to be likely notable depends on the type of book-- mainstream novels and important nonfiction are much more represented than esoteric subjects. I go by the experience of having looked for many books of all sorts, and one can do the equivalent by comparison with books known to be notable. (I have sometimes used comparisons to say that a work is or is not a major work in a field) As a fifth factor: editions must be combined to get a true picture, and the way libraries report holdings this is not always easy. As a result I usually report holdings as approximate figures. For major current works in popular interest academic subjects like economics, a notable book would have at least several hundred. For experimental fiction that fits no standard genre, only a few dozen libraries might buy it, but it can be just as important. For fan-oriented books on games, libraries usually buy very little, because they get outdated very quickly. For some of the kinkier sexual topics, libraries don't buy at all. A scattering of small libraries often indicates author gift copies.

The official WP standard is book reviews. But library holding correlate nicely with book reviews, because libraries buy largely on the basis of such reviews, especially for public libraries.

Outside the US, holdings can be gotten from the catalogs listed at WP:Booksources But none have nearly the depth of coverage in their own countries that WorldCat does in the US. -- but there is the very powerful consolidated search facility of Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog at [6]. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP: Exhibitions

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

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

Thank you

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

Indeed. It was a sprawling debate that'd been going on in multiple forums for so long it's hard to get a complete sense of it without a lot of reading. Thanks for putting in the time and thinking it through.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear! A very generous donation of time to get your mind round a long-long-long meandering debate with loads of distractions, and very brave to tackle one where people feel so strongly. I think you did an excellent job. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, you're off my Xmas card li- As much as I hate the result, I appreciate with the time and effort put in to possibly one of the most detailed closing rationales I have read. Despite apparent appearances to the contrary, I do support the idea of a global Manual of Style and conformity and am content to abide by the decision. Agree with the idea of some sort of bot to enact this. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have preferred a different outcome, but your arguments were really well-done and respectful to all positions. Kudos for you. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, DGG. You've put a very contentious issue to rest, and probably for good. As ever, I'm flattered when people think I'm you. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Ditto, I just wanted to thank you as well although I followed the discussion from a distance (I think it had more than enough active participants). Admins can get a lot of flack but when one takes on settling such a sprawling debate, knowing that no matter what one decides, there will be some very unhappy editors, I can only say thanks. And providing such a thoughtful rationale (rather than a sentence-long decision), is admirable and helps the decision "stick"...ambiguity would have only resulted in further challenges to your decision. Instead, if individuals do want to overturn this decision, they know that the burden of providing evidence resides with those wishing to change the status quo, and there has to be a substantial case to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am hoping that you won't need to clarify that the consensus finding doesn't only apply to birds, but you might; there's a (smaller and quieter) camp who want to always capitalize moths/butterflies and dragonflies, and another in favor of doing the same with common names of British (and I think Australian) plants. The debate may have focused on birds, but that focus should be scene as license to capitalize non-bird species common names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

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

Just a note

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

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

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

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

Help with something?

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

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

Questionable notability page for WikiProject:Women Artists

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

Hey!

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

Possibly of interest

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

Ill get to it , but it may be a week or so. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It can definitely wait that long :-) She mentions her intention to be at the library during a week in July. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Want to collaborate on an essay for Wikipedia space?

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

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

Review

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

1 point: in addition to saying in a general note that the material is copied from the US govt site, it's best to indicate by quotation marks exactly what has been copied--is it just the quotation in the box? then add it in the footnote there. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Only the MOH citation is copied verbatim from the Public domain material. The general note added is a template {{ACMH}} . I am not sure there is a parameter to include exactly which portion is copied.  NQ  talk 02:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I will find a way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Detecting copyvio

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

Removing copyvio

The choice of which way to solve problems of copyvio is not purely a question of administrator idiosyncrasy, but involves many factors.

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

:I interpret this as follows:

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

II. As a general rule there is no reason to revision-delete, as long as the copyvio text is removed from the current version. It is not even permitted unless the violation was "blatant".

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

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

Basic cleanup steps for professors (and much of it applies to all bios):

1. Remove all "Professor", "Prof.", "Doctor" and "Dr.", Ph.D, or M.D except in the lede sentence or as actual titles of positions or degrees. For every use of first name alone, substitute the last name. For every use of full first and last name, substitute the last name, except in the lede sentence or if needed to avoid confusion.
2. Then, for every use of the name more than once a paragraph at the most, substitute "he" "she" or the equivalent.
3. remove all adjectives of praise: famous, renowned, prestigious, world-wide, transformative, seminal, ground-breaking, etc. referring to either people or institutions or discoveries; even "well-known". In all of these, nothing needs to be substituted.
4. Consider replacing "expert" with "specialist". Replace "across" with "in" or, if documented, "throughhout" Remove all similar jargon. "
5. "best-selling" etc. needs to be justified by a third party quotation. Just remove all these throughout the entire article, or add a {{Fact}} "First" similarly needs a third party source.
6. Move the most important factor of notability to the very first phrase of the first sentence where nobody can miss it: not "A.B., an expert in something, who has taught at Wherever for 23 years, is the Distinguished Professor of" , to "X, the Distinguished Professor of ... at Wherever, is a specialist in something....
7. Remove complicated sentences of birth place and date to the section of biography. The lede sentence should just have the dates, eg: "(born 1945)"
8. If they have written books and work in the humanities or history or Law, or any field where books are the main factor of notability, remove journal article section entirely. If there's a section on conferences, etc., remove it in all cases.
9. The list of degrees received and dates is critical information. It goes in a section labeled ==Biography==, right after the lede paragraph. If you find it at the end, the article was unmistakably written by a press agent, and will need careful checking for copyvio.
10. In fact, the likelihood of copyvio is so great that I usually prefer to rearrange or alter most of the text.
11. Books need to be sourced to Worldcat, not Amazon or the publisher. Bio facts are sourced to the person's official page at the university. These should all be formatted as references, so there will be a conventional reference list DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just noticed this useful list. One comment (in case you've got this chunk of text ready to paste in elsewhere in future): in point 7, about dates, I think the standard format for the lead sentence is "(born 1948)" not "(b. 1948)". Your point 6, about moving the main claim to notability to the very start of the article, is really important - so many poor articles start by telling you the subject's parentage or other irrelevancies so that you have to plod through a lot of verbiage to find any assertion of notability. PamD 14:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

fixed, though perhaps even just the date is clear enough for everybody. thanks. (as for 7, press agents writing an academic cv tend not to realise what we consider the key factors. Hidden in the last paragraph among society memberships, will sometimes be "National Academy of Sciences". DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

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

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

General advice, repeated here so it will be visible:

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

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

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

Kilroy was here —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed please

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

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

Several ongoing discussions could use your input

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

Congrats

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

Indeed, welcome aboard. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"a Checkuser, which I am not" - Well, you will be soon. Congrats! Altamel (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Mazel tov! HG | Talk 07:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to congratulate or console you, but I am glad that you were elected. Thank you for volunteering for this difficult, yet critical, work to keep the project running. -- Avi (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I came also for congratulations! So far arbitration was (for me at least) a synonym for waste of time, and ideally it shouldn't even be needed, - let's work on that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well done - highest number of positive votes shows your wide-spread respect. PamD 10:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's going to suck you absolutely dry for contributing anywhere else, but I can't think of any one more suited to the task of Arbitrator. Thank you for running for election and thank you in advance for all the good work you will be doing there. Warmest regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Coming off my wikibreak to say congrats. I'm confident you will do good things. I'm also confident that Kudpung is correct; it will be an all-consuming and thankless task for the next two years, but my impression is that you were ready for a new challenge, and I know you are fully capable of handling it. Farmer Brown 2¢ 12:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Congratulations and good luck. You're one of the people on Wikipedia I have always respected greatly, and hope the other great work I've seen you do translates well to ArbCom. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Take it easy, please. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Congratulations DGG :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Congratulations DGG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Wishing you all the best during your time on ArbCom. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Another voice to applaud your success in the recent popularity contest. I hope you find your new role satisfying and may it bring you contentment. Dolescum (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• And another - it seems to be less of a nightmare job than in the past, but take it easy. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• So cool. Congratulations. JSFarman (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Congrats my friend and mentor. I totally missed the elections or you could totally have counted on me for a Support. Happy HOlidays StarM 01:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Induction to the 2015 Arbitration Committee

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

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

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

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

Now just waiting on you, DGG, if you wouldn't mind emailing as soon as possible! Best, AGK [•] 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

email mail sent. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is permitted, and I know some initiation ceremonies by definition require an oath of secrecy, it might be nice if you can tell us what all is involved in the formal initiation ceremony. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Where should I aim the magnetic pulse field at to help jump start the Inductor? /silly Hasteur (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Congratulations and best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Congrats on winning the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ditto! --EEMIV (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Two professors

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

Long's [7] shows authorship of major textbooks, Bigun is named chair and IEEE Fellow. It can be enough to remove the inappropriate lists of publications from Bigun and ck both for copyvio in Google and on the university web site. I'll do it. It's better to rewrite in standard format, but not necessary--I have sometimes been letting that go, for if something is notable and non-copyvio and non-promotional and readable, it's good enough. However, I understand about backlog; yesterday I deleted as copyvio an obviously notable person that I would previously have rewritten.

Looking at your list, I see I too have had doubts about how to handle many of them. I will however go through it also. OK if I mark what I do? My (several times longer) list is currently off wiki--I may put it on if I can think of a simple way to do it.

But we need to recruit someone else also--I expect to have substantially less time for this over the next 2 years. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead an add anything you want, or delete if you find a copyvio or something. I have been trying to keep the list short by moving anything finished to User:Anne Delong/AfC content rescued from db-g13, and you'll see that I have been noting ones that were handed off to you or others. I have also deleted a large number from my list and let them go for one reason or another. I think 550 saved articles plus a whack of content merges is a good start. I know Rankersbo has been working on some of these too, and a few others have stepped in occasionally, but you are right - I thought it would taper off after a while, but there are so many old ones that keep reappearing because no one has had time to work on them. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that nobody has had time to work with them, but that very few people are devoting any time at all to them. 100 people each doing 1 a day would remove the backlog. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

RM Hogg

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

h index is useless in the humanities--it is only applicable to fields where notability comes from the writing of articles. Google Scholar is not of that much help, but the thing to look for in GS is materials that are very highly cited, which usually do show notability. It seems he is the the editor or author of some major works. The best database for a quick check in the humanities is WorldCat,[8] and this confirms it: he is the editor of one volume of the major encyclopedic history of the English Language, the co-ed of the standard one volume work on the subject, & the co-author of the major work on the Grammar of Old English, and a good deal else. Next step is to find his academic position, which from the LC authority file [9] was University of Manchester , and gives his north and death dates. There will almost certainly be major obituaries and the like. First place to look is TLS. One of the VIAF subpages[10] give a ref to the Guardian obit, with a quote, Sept. 20, 2007. This information alone is enough for an article stub. (I've gone into the details as an example of the way I check these things) DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for an amusing article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

You're not going to believe this but ...

Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. just got added to wiki. Even after your two warnings last month: [11] and [12]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I redirected. I can not take admin action here, so if there continue to be problems, unless some other admin chooses to act, it will be necessary to take it to ANI. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I reverted the promotional mentions the editor added to the rest of wiki after (re)creating that article. The article (re)creator, Daniellagreen, has created 13 articles/templates on the Gernatt family, 7 of which have been AfDed. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Of possible interest

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

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

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

Clarification Requested on Copy and Paste Articles

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

As I understand it, it is permitted, but it has to be specified exactly what part is taken from the source, and future edits must keep this distinct. Some of our templates, say "some or all" has been taken from particular source. In my opinion, this is inadequate attribution. Exact quotation marks or some other equally clear indication is needed. There are I believe several thousand articles in this unsatisfactory sate, and as editing continues over the years, the result is very confusing both in terms of attribution and in terms of keeping material up to date and not based upon totally outdated views. This has bothered me since I've come here, but it hasn't bothered enough others to make any progress.

The real problem is not just attribution; the more insidious problem is accuracy. The article you cite on Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine (1524 – 1574) shows this. The source, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is accurate as a summary for the facts as known at the time, but was never known for balance in the coverage, or for clear NPOV interpretation, and lacks adequate explanation of what to them was fundamental (That does not mean I do not think highly of it for many purposes--I even own a printed set.) The knowledge of sources, the interpretations of scholars, the interest in particular aspects, will be very different on every topic, no matter how old, from the state of things 100 years ago; even when religious orientation is irrelevant, cultural bias is usually present. (I do not know enough about this particular topic to give a detailed critique, because my own knowledge of the period in France is based primarily upon historical fiction, whose biases can be very similar to that of outdated histories.) DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that summary. It confirms most of my concerns and adds a couple. I am unsure how much I can correct, but I will work on it a bit and add some tags as needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

AfC

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

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

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

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

Of course it is feasible--we did most of it for years; it's just redefining the group. Do you see any continuing need for Draft space? Perhaps it can be a place not for new submissions, but to which articles. including some new submissions, can be moved for improvement. I'd suggest not a broad afc to gather opinions, but a focussed one on doing the change. I think AfC as it exists has very few supporters. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the only supporters of AfC are the 'programmers' who use it as their playground. Just to underline my comment above, hardly had I spoken, than we get this. I do think there is a very pertinent need for the 'draft' namespace. Although the vast majority of AfC submissions are junk, as you have seen more than anyone, there are some rare rescuable items among them; it's also the destination for articles created using the Wizard - where I believe most of the drafts come from now. The draft namespace alows IPs and and editors who are not sure of themselves to create an article that will be kind of 'peer reviewed' before going live. You've got mail. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

so would you then continue to feed the Article Wizard articles into AfC? If we do, and use it for peer review before going live, we will have precisely the current problems. I don't think the "vast majority" are unsuitable--tho perhaps one could say "unnecessary" I estimate that at least half would survive Speedy, and half of these AfD , even on first submission. That's a 25% yield. When we were using NP as the only route, we rejected about 1/2, either at speedy or prod or afd. The difference is that because of the desire to use WP for promotionalism, we're getting more useless promotional articles, because more people know about us. Their number will only increase in the future. (& they're encouraged because a certain number do manage to survive afd , often erratically ) If we raise our standards a little we can keep them out, but somewhere we will still have to do the work of keeping them out. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Abandoned AfC drafts

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

It depends wether you mean clearly notable, or just notable enough to be likely to be found notable at AfD. And notability is not always the problem: there are those which are notable, but are so promotional that it would be more trouble to rewrite than the importance would justify. Then there are copyvios. Then there are the substantial number that have already been moved into mainspace. Looked at from the goal of rescuing everything possible, then there are probably well over half that could be turned into some sort of passable article; but there are probably only 1/4 that are passable as they stand or with minor fixes.

In the past, I accepted about 20% and postponed another 20%, in order to make reasonably certain nothing I passed would be rejected. (and so far, I think essentially nothing has been, except when I've missed an occasional duplicate under another name, & a few copyvios I didn't catch.) Now I'm trying to accept a somewhat larger amount. The main group that I don't want to accept but I don't want to se rejected are ones which look like they need careful checking for copypaste from sources I do not have available, or unreferenced articles on geography or the like which probably could be verified, but not easily. Some of these are detailed articles on narrow subjects, some are suspicious because of the manner of referring or indentation or line-width.

However, I rarely go thru a daily list unselectively. Each time I do this, I tend to be looking for something--often a topic I recognize. I also work on the lists of those declined for some particular reason. Sometimes I look primarily for things to speedy as G11 (I'm not sure anyone else is doing that in particular). I almost always skip athletes and popular entertainers unless I notice something obvious one way or another, as other people have a more reliable sense of importance here. I try to select ones that I more easily can handle among the people likely to be working on this: for example, book authors whose importance isn't obvious, or subjects that should be checked in other language wikipedias I can decipher. This sort of patrol of new submissions, either AfC or NPP, tends to become dull, and I try to vary it.

I'll try to take a look at what you worked on today--you could take a look at mine if you like. The move log is the place to look. But incidentally, I see I have been deleting many more articles and drafts than you--but then I sometimes want to conscious clear away the rubbish even if it will be deleted by G13 a little later on. Concentrating on NPP/AfC has been making me cynical, perhaps unduly cynical. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My sample size was small, so I may have just had an unusually good sample, hence the question. I was mostly disturbed by CCDC47 which was essentially declined because the references weren't quite right and then untouched for the 6 months. CBS Watch was indeed unacceptable as it was written - an addition to being promotional-ish, the bad paragraph was actually a copyvio too. It was easy enough to fix though. The other two I delayed deletion on are (obviously) unacceptable as is, despite being notable. (And one of the deletes was notable, but a duplicate article.) ... I normally work the back of the AfC pending submissions. I'd say over half of those are acceptable-enough as is, but I'm easier on submissions than most. I always figured the oldest one were the toughest calls on average and the real acceptance rate was much lower because of obviously bad stuff being rejected quickly. (Although maybe not, I am always mystified at how many copyvios sit around for a month+, and usually they are not hard to spot - over half of promotional sounding stuff is copyvio too.) Thus, I was surprised I didn't see a lower average quality carried through to G13 candidates. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the oldest are those that are tough either because reviews don't feel comfortable either accepting or declining, or because they take some specialized knowledge. The problem with delayed deletion is it comes back again after 6 months--I used to do this a lot, but now I try do it only when I'm feeling really rushed, like tonight. So details tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Redlink

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

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

Notable Alumni

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobo Ice Cream

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

Done, & I closed it myself. I know only 4 effective ways of getting a really promotional article rewritten: 1/do it myself 2/ask someone who specializes in the topic 3/ask someone like me who likes to fix articles generally 4/list for afd. Among the ways that do not usually work is putting on tags or asking the original contributor. So, expect me to ask you once in a while-- any particular specialty? DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Sounds like you are in the school of thought it should be called "Articles for discussion" rather than "Articles for deletion". AfD does have that kind of effect on an article - up or out (usually out). I do like to rescue articles when they deserve it. Special interests? I'd say academics, scientists, that kind of biography. Schools. California-related stuff. And an occasional nonprofit organization, if you think there's a real chance they might be notable (but we sure do get an awful lot of well-meaning nonprofit spam). Things I never touch: sports, musicians, entertainers - basically, popular culture is my blind spot. Ritchie is a very good rescuer - better than me - and I think he does know that area. Also, I am available when you have a newbie on your talk page, asking "why was my article deleted?" and seeming to want to make a sincere attempt to improve it. You can just ping me into the discussion. If possible I help them improve it; otherwise I gently explain to them why it doesn't qualify for an article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I helped propose calling it Articles for Discussion some years ago--the RfC actually passed, but nobody took the trouble of implementing all the guideline changes, and when it was next suggested, it did not pass. It remains a good idea. I generally think it desirable to consolidate as many processes possible, so they do not escape attention. Our interests (and disinterests) seem fairly similar, but they are so broad there's more than enough to go around. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikia licensing

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

I think the {{Wikia content}} should work and the docs include some suggestion on how to use the template. Ravensfire (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if the source is PD there is an attribution problem. In principle everything can be attributed properly by keeping the edit history, but in practice it will soon be unclear to the reader what part comes from where. This confuses the page history of all the EB and Catholic Encyclopedia and similar entries, and confuses it in a worse way, because the original source is out of date almost completely, and it is not easy to tell what may have been added by uptodate sources. (In my opinion adding that material was a serious mistake made in the early days of WP, when the expected level of accuracy for articles was much lower) There needs to be serious work done in rewriting every one of those articles, for there is no topic whatsoever where additional material is not known since then and anything implying a judgement has to be rewritten, Back in the first years of the twentieth century, it was seen as ... or it could be summarized as .....We also have scientific material from 10 or 15 year old US Dept of Agriculture publications, which now has a similar problem.

I personally do not add such material without using quotes. (They should normally have a beginning and quote on each paragraph, with an ending quote on the final one.) But I am not about to take on personally the correction of widespread sloppy practice. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Kirkus is no longer an RS?

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

yes. as a result of that decision, I no longer trust it for anything at all. I think that's the general view of most librarians I know. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. Obviously any "Kirkus Indie" review is non-RS. Do you think they are secretly paying for reviews on the "non-Indie" side? If so, how should the community handle this? Does it need to get any substantiation/proof that something untoward is going on? Have librarians written about the issue? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

no it's more that any publication that takes paid reviews is ipso facto non-reliable on any part of the site. this is similar to the way a newspaper that publishes advertorials tends to forfeit some of its reputation. There are indeed a few well-documetned exceptions: the NYT, WSJ, & Forbes all publish directory information on companies as well as genuine news. (I wonder how many of our articles use their directory information as evidence towards notability , btw.) So I agree this may be too harsh a judgement, but it is none the less the usual impression, which I share. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if a good way to deal with it is to consider Kirkus post-2009 a "less reliable" source. It can still be used, but if a particular book has a lot of different reviews and editors are trying to figure which ones make the cut, then perhaps Kirkus would not be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

yes, that's one reasonable way to look at it. Another is that it adds to notability if there are some there borderline sources also. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Great! That works well :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, I certainly remember it well. I was Biology Librarian at Princeton at the time & I participated in the general effort to cancel all possible subscriptions to their journals, & commented on the web also to that effect. (I used the name dgoodman@princeton.edu for my postings.) For the final result, see [13]. The best way to handle this is to change the redirect to an article about the company, where this is only one of the things to discuss. It wouldn't be right to add this to the present page where the redirect goes to, T&F, since they had nothing to do with the matter--they only bought the surviving company. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I suspected you might know more about it. I agree the redirect should be made into an article, but might not get to that very soon. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll help, but I was involved in RL and don't want to be the primary editor. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

combined <ref> for multiple citations

• WP:Citation overkill#Citation merging
• WP:CITEBUNDLE

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

I had never noticed it, but it's a fairly frequent technique in academic writing. I do not see how it is easily compatible with using wikidata for references. There would appear to be two directions: either to make a hack that would be able to parse such references, or deprecate this referencing technique and convert the existing ones manually, which will be easy enough, if someone can figure out how to find them. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Any <ref> that has bullets (unordered list), multiple CS1 templates, or multiple bare external links should be suspect. (but if a single CS1 generates multiple external links that's ok. e.g. url && archive-url) Anyway, if there's a discussion started I'd like a pointer to it. Thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Weigh in on an AfD?

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

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

TP stalker here - I had looked at the page a year ago, changing the category after 'categorygate' and notice a string of edits from a username that seemed one a COI/publicist might choose (and put the page on my watch list). I left two messages at that user talk page, but got no reaction. I do have HighBeam, and will check the Boston Globe article (by midnight March 10, if I can be trusted). - Neonorange (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've given my opinion on the article; I am not going to comment on the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I was kind of hoping that you would, since I do take a lot of exception to his allegations that I was being uncivil and driving people away. I'm not an uncivil person on here and I was also fairly upset that a lot of his arguments centered upon what looked like him assuming bad faith on my part (and other editors) and potentially taking his frustrations with other AfDs out on me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I';ve tried to correct it. I can only say that first, I was more tired at the time than I should have been, due to involvement in something else here in a way that I find exceptionally unpleasant, and second, that I saw a specific content-based issue and left it at that DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I know that we usually disagree on almost everything, but I respect you as an editor. I thought your comments at the AfD were well-spoken and wise. However, I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of criticism that Tokyogirl79 is taking at that AfD. It seems like everything she says or does is being critiqued and dissected in bad faith. People have asked the instigators to lay off the nominator, but it's still continuing. It's very frustrating, and I don't think I can contribute to the discussion when it has that kind of toxic atmosphere. I don't know what I expect you to do about it, but I think this is the kind of situation that causes us to lose valued contributors. It's also the kind of discussion that causes people to avoid contributing to AfD, in my opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope my comment of15:37 today will have dealt with that; if not, let me know.But I'm not at all sure what previous disagreements you have in mind, for I deliberately try not to remember just who it was I disagree with on anything in particular. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Center for Internet Research

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

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

Speedy Delete

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

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

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

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

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

I redirected. The alternate namesake possible redirects. I also merged some relevant content. Ido not see what the point of all this when we already have an article. It would be better to merge content, and if there is a name dispute on the proper name, that can be discussed. (Thai language names are beyond my abilities), DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Here's another one that's just been created Royal College (Sri Lanka) - Panadura, which I've tagged for a speedy delete. I agree it all seems pointless to keep create versions of an existing article. Is it possible to ban User:TrUEroYalway, which is the latest Sock Puppet. Dan arndt (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

{U|Dan arndt}}, why is it necessary to delete instead of redirecting.? Most of these are acceptable alternate names. I redirected again, and protected the redirect, and I hard-blocked, which may do doe good; but we need an SPI to see if there is a blockable range. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

There is more than one question here.

As for Fringe, I never liked the way we deal with it, where we insist from the first that it is non-standard and hammer at that repeatedly, We instead ought to present it as fully as necessary for understanding in its own terms, and then say what people think of it. We need to avoid giving any false indication that fringe topics are accepted, but we still need to avoid giving primarily hostile coverage. If presented fairly, people will understand the relevance--that's the basic premise of an encyclopedia. We do not have to slant or censor, even by implication. WhatI particularly dislike is our tendency to try to minimize the coverage of people associated with a movement we disapprove of (or alternatively of maximizing the number of otherwise reputable people involved to a trivial extent for the sake of denigrating the the individuals)

I consider topics such as this unusual, but not fringe. ("Unusual" is the most neutral word I can find.) Outside sex, some political and religious topics are strongly disfavored. Others, equally unusual or far from the mainstream, but that do have a constituency here, resist all tendencies to discuss them with moderation, rather than in a frankly propagandistic manner.

But sex is always the most difficult area. WP has for long as I can remember been rather hostile to some forms of otherwise unexceptional sexual expression. People have a remarkable ability to disdain those forms of sexual expression they do not engage in; there seems to be some human need to assign some sexual practices as acceptable, and others not, presumably in order to reassure oneself that one is oneself doing it "right" rather than being a victim of limitations, and this supposedly tolerant community insists on resisting serious treatment of things that are now but did not used to be considered subjects for open discourse. For example, there's been a surprising amount of difficulty with articles on even widely-used sex toys.

The best way of dealing with such topics is first find as many additional references as possible. All difficult topics of any sort are best done by accumulating such an overwhelming body of references that he even the opponents realize. Tokyogirl79 has done a good job of it, but there's almost certainly still more to be done, especially considering the multiple uses. I think there are quite a range of different consensual and nonconsensual practices here, which have ended up in this one article because of the resistance to covering them individually. I unfortunately do not really have the time to work on it. I recall there was a 1973 book with the title "SM: the last taboo" ISBN 9780818401787, whose title I thought a good quick explanation of the problem in a few words. (the book itself is apparently a short anthology of stories, not likely to a usable reference) This is 40 years later, and everything in popular culture considered, I don't think the taboo really holds. Except, of course, in WP, which, while it should be the location for work on unusual things , is also the home of obsolete prejudices. People get very easily embarrassed about sex. In particular, some parts of the demographic working on WP particularly easily gets embarrassed.

However, I do not think we have an editor drain. We merely have the expected transition from a exciting new project to something which may be still exciting, but is not particularly new. People will naturally stay here for only four or five years. Relatively few make it a career, or a life-long hobby. People try out new things, and then turn to others; our contributor base is always going to be dynamic. What I do hope is that we will come to attract a wider group than the typical post-adolescent white male geeks. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the encyclopedia has not increased--and in fact in someways regressed-- in terms of scope. I think removing subjectivity from the closing of AfDs is the optimal method. After the article is restored I assume Tarc is going to AfD it immediately, some input when that happens would be appreciated! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC is up, comments would be appreciated. :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Well said. In particular that the community tends to use FRINGE to rationalize attack pages, rather than merely documenting that their viewpoint is not accepted by mainstream science/medicine, using reliable sources. I'll take a look at your RfC as well Valoem. I also recently noticed that more effort has been spent on Victoria Secret than all of the articles under Category:Feminine hygiene brands combined (with exception to the one I wrote on Playtex). I found this strange, even given the gender gap, because so many women are interested in women's health, so I wonder if it is because people are too embarrassed to contribute. I looked up the Durex page after they did a presentation at a marketing conference. One of the biggest global condom brands and just a stub on it. Marginally notable supermodels and pornstars have more robust pages. CorporateM (Talk) 16:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

DGG, I did some research and commented there, however I wonder if you would still oppose the proposed article-title, now that I've shown an abundance of source material that uses the same phrase. CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not oppose exactly, but I wonder whether it covers all aspects. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Consensus" and policy

...

The application of all WP policies is decided by consensus, and thus a certain degree of variability is to be expected. In this particular instance, the question is apparently whether African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) should be moved to Civil Rights Movement. I'm not going to pas judgement on this; no one person decides these things. But I suggest you reconsider whether this move would display too much of an US perspective: WP is international. A reasonable case could probably be made for the move, or against it. My advice here has always been to concentrate on improving page content and not worry too much about page titles. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the claim, "The application of all WP policies is decided by consensus" a contradiction to the statement, "The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus" from the lede paragraph of Wikipedia:Core content policies that describes the "three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research.". Thank you for responding. Mitchumch (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The fundamental principles are not affected, but the application of them is always subject to consensus. Each of the individual policies has extensive talk pages discussing the proper application of them, as every single key word in them is ambiguous to some extent and the exact meaning of every one of them has been disputed . Tens hundreds of thousands of individual applications have been discussed on various WP and article talk pages. If there is disagreement on how to apply a policy, only consensus can resolve it. (And it isn't clear at all that your argument falls under any of the three policies, listed) We have no dictators; even arb com cannot decide on content. If consensus holds against you, you will need to accept it, because that's the way we work here. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Detecting coi editors

...maybe DGG will) tell you about how i (or he, in his case) spot possible conflicted editors and how i (or he) deal with them. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The first step is to realize that most people come to wikipedia with some degree of conflict of interest, to write topics about which the really care. The problem is not to keep the out, the problem is to see that what they do contributes positively to the encyclopedia. People who are firm believers in a cause , for example. can be great problems, because they care so much about something (hat may well be in fact really important) that they recent the writing of NPOV articles. Fans of an artist or sports team can be problems also, inserting all sorts of unjustified material in their praise, worse than a publicist would dare even try. Even for products or companies, there are great fans who want everyone to share the POV--those fixated on particular brand of camera or computer or automobile, or on a restaurant or type of clothing, of great believers in the wonderful work of a doctor or financial advisor or charity.

But the problem here is the people with a commercial interest. The come in all sorts: the owner of a business or professional practice; the press agent in a company, and the persona with a small or moderate knowledge of Wikipedia who advertises their services, or now especially those freelancers who answer advertisements on elance and similar websites, Most of these people do not know how to make a decent article even if they wanted to; but few of them want to--they or their clients will not be satisfied by a NPOV articles in proportion to the size of their business with adequate references--they want a web page here, not seeing us a s different fro mother places for posting advertisements. they do not care about our notability requirements--they all at least hope to be notable some day,and want the public to know about them. I and several others have estimated that at least half our article on commercial and noncommercial organizations and their leaders are the products of this kind of editing. t this point WP is so well known ,that it is hard to imagine an organization anywhere that would not want to have a WP page, and it takes a true understanding of the way in which WP is different, to realize that this is not he way to achieve that.

There is thus no reason to get angry at particular instances. The critical thing to do is to remove the pov articles; assuming we have half million, and if a hundred of us set out to do it for an hot a day, , and supported each other , we could mange to keep up with the inflow and clear up the background in a year or two. We did it for unreferenced bios of living people; we can do it here. If this seems unrealistic, for what is possibly the highest-priority category in terms of unjustified advertising, internet businesses, 4 or 5 people could do it.

In the meantime, we do have to pursue the chains of paid editor, who are responsible for perhaps 10 to 30% of the problem. It's not worth the trouble to work on an individual example. What is worth the double is to look for a group of accounts writing articles in identical format in a particular subject, or an individual account using a similar format for miscellaneous totally unrelated minor articles. In the first place, if the writing similarities are close enough , a SPI can be justify.d In the second, a firm explanation can usually stope them. More of the similarities to be looked for will follow in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

{thank you guys for helping and guiding me, I really appreciate that and I am taking your WP OUTING very seriously. I worked on some col cases and I believe I handled those cases very well without violating any Wikipedia guidelines even though I was not aware of WP:OUTING. I usually kept my distance when dealing with such cases and never asked them to reveal any personal information other than their affiliation with the entity without asking any further explanation about their nature of work or name. I major in marketing and I can easily spot when someone is trying to promote something and I strongly stand against advertisement in Wikipedia.

we have to take advertisement in Wikipedia more seriously, some marketing courses are now teaching how to edit Wikipedia to promote companies coz they see it as important channel for public relations and product promotion, the only reason why we don't see well-written articles about these companies from new editors is becoz of their inability to navigate through Wikipedia and old web Wikipedia editor is still confusing for most of the people,as Wikipedia becomes more and more user friendly with addition such as visual editor, we will see more advertisement and vandalism .There are off course positive sides to these improvements but we should also focus on negative side too. Nicky mathew (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Professional press release writers can and do learn html and the very similar wikicode, and even our peculiar referencing conventions.Their see of expected skills encompasses that. What they have much more difficult in learning is now to write in a different style for different purpose. Their training and experience is in how to write effective press releases and advertisements,and they are lost in an environment which does not accept their well-learned glossy promises, convincing rhetoric, appealing personal claims, vague statement of benefits ,and carefully selected statistics.claims is not wanted, Tbey do not have experience writing where plain neutral presentation is w\excpected, where only a set of narrowly defined reliable sources are accepted, where testimonials and name-dropping are harmful, and where extravert claims are signs of puffery. The best preparation for working in WP is journalism, tho teaching and librarianship and technical writing also do well. can also be successful

So of course , is any intelligent member of the general public-- but unlike professionals, unless the are students who know html, they have great difficulty with our current format. it is these people whom we will be able to better reach when we have a rule workignand non confusing wvisual editor that does not require manual post processing to verify that it; has avoided bloopers. Perhaps we'll get there they year (I seem to remember saying that for several years now.)At theta point, our outreach programs can extent more practically to a much wider range of non traditional editors, many of whom maybe interested in the everyday topics we have such trouble with. and those they may be able to drive out the professionals DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability

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

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

The basic WP:GNG guideline is the same for most types of reticules, the way it is applied is what varies widely, and it is those differences in appliation which reflects the biases of the community. That's all that I am suggesting: that in dealing with commercial organizations especially we interpret the term reliable sources to not include sources which are dependent on PR. (sources that are straight PR are of course excluded from all areas). I'm not even proposing this as a formal guideline at this point, but I intend to argue at individual cases that some sources, such as local business journals, or reports on funding, be disregarded for showing notability.

Most of the special guidelines are attempts to correct bias, not increase it further: the Athletes guideline, for example, is a way to limit what would otherwise be the overcoverage of college and high school athletes. WP:PROF is away to limit what would otherwise be the great undercoverage of researchers.

What I am suggesting is merely an empirical adjustment in interpretation, not a fundamental revision. My view on how I would truly like to go is entirely opposite to yours: I would eliminate the GNG entirely as too dependent upon interpretation have have guidelines for subjects which truly reflect what is of encyclopedic importance. I am not suggesting this, for the general feeling is opposed to it. (and in practice, it would immediately create a immense number of arguments in particular areas--the virtue is that once it were settled, it would decrease them.)

Establishing the burden of notability is already on the contributors to the article in practice: we almost always do decline articles where nobody can find sources showing notability, except for the correction of parts of the world or topics where this is accepted as particularly difficult. Establishing the rule you suggest would increase our already strongly existing cultural bias. It would also be opposed to the basic principle of WP by which non experts work together to gradually develop articles, by requiring an article be sufficiently well established immediately. It would prevent the formation of articles on many topic areas, including most historical topics except by those with access to research libraries. It would also immensely bias WP in exactly the wrong direction: towards news events, internet phenomena, popular artists, and minor sports figures. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm.... - I do not have experience in areas like sports figures, so I am not privy to the circumstances unique to the subject area. I've heard that the German Wikipedia does have revenue requirements for companies to qualify. I think there would be more support for it than you would think. However, I would do something more along the lines of making the assumption that an org is not notable if they are below a certain funding/revenue threshold, allowing for exceptions when there are reliable sources to justify it - as oppose to a hard and fast rule. CorporateM (Talk) 23:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought about revenue requirements. These depends a great deal upon the part of the world and the industry. The deWP deals with a more homogeneous range of topics than we do. They have been mentioned sometimes in afd discussions for financial companies , for example to explain that under $1billion of assets managed is not a big deal. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Blackall and Yaraka Branch Railways

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

there's a printed source given. I can't see it, but we should assume good faith that it does cover the material. Checking for copypaste would however require actually locating it. If an article has about at least 60% chance of passing afd, I think it should go in mainspace. Or did I miss something obviously fishy? DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The article needs clean-up, categories, more wikilinks etc, just messy. JMHamo (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly it does. As you know, there are several schools of thought: one is to get everything right before moving to mainspace; a second is to at least get them cleaned up to a reasonable extent extent before putting them in mainspace, the third is to put them in as soon as they have a decent chance of passing afd. I started out at the first, but then moved to an second, and am now close to the third. The part that takes experience is deciding if there is the basis of a sustainable article, & I try to look at that for as many AfCs as possible. I admit, tho, that this rougher than even my usual standard: I usually at least add article sections; tho adding links is a good exercise for beginners, I usually add enough basic ones to at least give the impression of a WP article. (But there are a great many people who like to add categories. I learned early on that the best thing for me to do about categories, was to let them do it.) I was going too fast here, and you were right to call me on it. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC) .

I subscribe to the get to as near perfection as possible before moving it from Draft school of thought. All too often the article is not found again (especially is there are no categories) and remains indefinitely in a bad state. A bad first impression for any reader coming across it. JMHamo (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason for my style is the experience that slow as it may be to get material improved in mainspace, it is even slower and less likely in Draft. As I understand it, the likelihood of survival in mainspace is the only actual guideline. It's good to do more, and each of us will balance whether we want to work in concentrated way with a small number of articles, or as a preliminary rescue of many. I've always done mostly rescue, with a few each week taken beyond that. I didn't expect it, but I find I like to work at the bottom. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

floating a balloon for COI disclosure at account creation or AfC

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

A new reference tool

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

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

• Tomwaddington (talk · contribs)
  • User:Tomwaddington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey DGG,

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

Thanks!

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

According to WorldCat, the book is in only 5 libraries. [14]. Of course, it has just been published this year. If the book becomes sgnificant enough for reviews, especially reviews in magazines of newspapers of general interest, it would mean a lot more. We go here primarily by references in showing notability: See WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Another article like the one form the Dailey Mail would also help very much. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

References

Can we remove this article from drafts?

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

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DuValle Aliceba (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• Jmdby (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MR PORTER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Response to the delete nomination of Universal Identifier Network

Hi,

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

New entry for Lois de Menil

Hello,

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

Thank you for taking the time to review this piece.

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

Hello DGG,

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

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

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

AfD Andrew West

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

I remain undecided. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your comments at the Noticeboard. As always, I really do appreciate your comments irregardless if I agree with them or not. Bgwhite (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter

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

I suppose this might be the way to deal with it on a pragmatic basis. But I explain on your talk page why it would be better to ask someone else. (A few months ago I might have done it nonetheless, but I do not feel I can now take individual action here in a matter involving a dispute between admins). DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I replied here at Draft talk:Kirby Delauter#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter. Do you know where an uninvolved admin can be found? This was listed at WP:AN for two months and no admin was willing to step forward to do the move and history merge. Cunard (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Time Nani

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

Deletion review for Julie Ziglar Norman

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

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

Nebraska Coast Connection

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

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

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

The place to make the argument is at the AFD

Some ideas

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

Oo7565

A barnstar for you!

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

lynost

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

Concessions and forts of Italy in China

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

The source he linked on the talk p seems to confirm the basic data, but it also confirms that calling it "concessions and forts... " rather then "Italians in China ..." or the like is excessive interpretation. I think it's rewritable, but since I'm not about to do it, the deletion is OK with me. (I did think about the possible identity but didn't check)

Personally, I think the policy behind G5 is often counterproductive, but it does seem to have firm general acceptance. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Review journal

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

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

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

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

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

I will add some of the (abundant) refs in a day or two, but I'm considering a merge with review article. I'm pinging Randykitty, who has also worked on it. This was one of the first things I did here, in 2006, and I should have gone back to it years ago--I seem to have left it in outline format. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My apologies for not just pinging you directly about this before the {{prod}} -- I didn't notice you were still active on Wikipedia or I would have done so. A merge with review article also makes a lot of sense. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Book articles

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

The question is whether these reviews are non-trivial. They're not mass-nominations, but test nominations. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Trivial and non-trivial are very clearly defined at WP:BKCRIT as 'Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable.' Reviews published in the media are not trivial. AusLondonder (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Paid Editing Random Thoughts

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

A rough draft of the deletion criteria could read:

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

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

the problem with "undisclosed paid editor" is we have no means of proving someone is unless they confess to it subsequently. And if they do so confess, doesn't this to some extent turn them into a disclosed paid editor? Even confession isn't absolutely reliable because there have been a few verified examples of joe jobss where an upe pretended to be a well known wikipedian. As you know, the prevailing view here is that outing is more important than coi. Personally, I would be prepared to see that be reversed, but I unfortunately don't think it would get consensus, considering the defeat of the recent AfC on a very mild exception to the outing policy. Officially (i.e., in my role as an admin and arb), I will as I have always done apply existing policy, not policy as I would like it to be.

To the best of my knowledge, and as confirmed by opinions of some people with experience in this, there has never been an upe making worthwhile contributions, so they can all be gotten rid of otherwise. Of course, this means if there has been one consistently doing so, we obviously do not know about it. I doubt it, because the amount of junk being submitted now and in the past is so great that it is reasonable to assume any new entry on an organization is very likely to be coi at least, and in most cases also violation of the our Terms of Use; I would also say this about to individuals in some fields. This then raises the question of if they are making consistently good contribution why should we want to get rid of the articles--the same as undetected sockpuppets.

I would go a little further: imo, even for the best declared paid editors, the quality of their paid work is not as high as the volunteer work most of them also do.

The best course of action within existing policy is to have stricter requirements on articles in susceptible subjects, and for more people to participate in the afds. I would certainly propose a formal deletion reason , that borderline notability AND a mainly promotional article is a reason for deletion. (It is now, if we choose to do so, but a formal statement would make it easier to explain). I am saying this with great reluctance--for my first 5 or 6 years here, I devoted as much of my effort as possible into rescuing just those sort of article. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts DGG. I don't like the situation either, but the quantity of COI violations that are done on a daily basis is so large (if the quantity of G11s and adv declines at AfC are of any indication) that something needs to be done. I'm just grasping at straws for a solution. Can't we just get Congress to grant the WMF subpoena power or at least file FTC complaints against some of these people. /rant Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

In a very few extreme cases, where people or firms have been identified, the WMF has taken some legal or regulatory action. I have some knowledge of whom to speak to and approximately what their parameters are. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Carlo Monticelli

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

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

Thank you. You've got email too. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions re: notability and publisher

Thanks again for your help on Randy Gage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Gage. I have two questions:

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

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

As for the articles, Put them in as a section of publications.

Prime Concepts Group is not a publisher at all. It's a Marketing Service. The publications are not books, but pamphlets under 100 pages in length. I changed the headings accordingly. The only two books in the usual sense are the ones by Wiley.

Who has published the translations? DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of putting the articles in as a section of publications? What would the title of that section be? And, I can't access the text that was there before. Is there any way to access that?

I have the publisher information. Would it be good to add them? TriJenn (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

please add it to the talk page and I will take a look. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I added many of the international publishers. Please see if this is okay. Also, I can't access the text that was there before labeled viewpoints. This referenced the third party publications that published his ideas about the world. 1. do you have that text (old viewpoints secion) you could share with me? 2. Can you share an example of how I could use that as a "section of publications?" Thanks!TriJenn (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Referencing systems

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

working on it. See,for example the standard system for the Talmud and system for Chapters and verses of the Bible. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. It's actually quite a large subject. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Not forgetting Surah Peter Damian (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see that anyone has ever written a general WP article on this. I'm not immediately aware of any general discussions in the librarianship literature, but there are many further places to check--I think I recall there are discussions of its use in particular subjects in books on how to do research in history, etc. , DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Kitcatt Nohr speedy deletion

Hi. You've deleted the page for Kitcatt Nohr under A7 (not significant), although I'd contested this on grounds the company is a subsidiary of organisations which are deemed significant (Publicis and Digitaslbi), and that both Kitcatt Nohr and its parent organisations have been widely reported on in notable media. I see that the Common A7 Mistakes page lists "Is subsidiary or other child/family company to a notable company" as an "indication of importance or significance". Further, other subsidiaries of this company are considered significant enough to retrain their Wikipedia pages.

Could you please reconsider this decision, or alternatively offer some constructive feedback? Thanks. JansVanGild (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @JansVanGild: I found the page at User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes (please, always give a link when you refer to a page - makes it much easier for anyone interested in what you have to say. Thanks) It is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, so it only reflects the views of one editor. Your best bet is to find several reliable third-party sources, other than those based on press releases, which have substantial coverage of your topic, and create an article citing them. PamD 10:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Actully, I agree with almost all of that essay, but this is one of the few points that do not seem right to me: a great many notable organizations have totally trivial subsidiaries. It would make much more sense to say that being a parent of a notable organization might well be an indivcation of importance (though it might well lead to a merge--sometimes with the parent name being the title-- , not a separate article.) I also disagree with "Has received coverage of any kind in possibly reliable sources"--it depends on the independence and substantiality of the coverage, and whatthe coverage says. Ditto for the ghits criterion. Sowhy, any comments? DGG ( talk ) 13:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Marion Rice Denishawn

Hi! I'm curious about your contesting of this PROD. As your edit summary suggested I do, I already checked for more sources prior to PRODing the article and came up lacking anything beyond trivial that could be construed as being in-depth coverage. My personal policy is never to PROD anything without going through the exact same steps I would take before listing it at AFD. I was wondering, since you contested the PROD, if you perhaps found something I didn't? Thanks for your time, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. glad you are doing it right, because so many people don't.

The article as it stands is subsidiary to the extensive article on its founder, Marion Rice, and in turn dependent on the articles on the Denishawn school of dance and its very famous founders Ruth Saint Denis and Ted Shawn. Since Marion Rice Denishawn is not a name of a person, but a dance company made up of the three personal names, it is likely to be rather confusing to search for it. This of course does not necessarily mean this revival company is anywhere near as notable, but there seem to be 3 substantial reviews in major publications, & I am prepared to defend notability on that account. But at the least, the article needs some more historical information on the company itself, and a check for other performances. (and in any case I think we'd at least merge it with the article on Marion Rice.) I hope to look for some more at NYPL Performing Arts next week. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ota Fine Arts

Hi DGG, I am writing in regards to the page of Ota Fine Arts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Fine_Arts) which was deleted by you. Could you advise on details and how we can improve the text for approval. Also can you send us the latest copy of the text before it was deleted, so we can work on it. Email: jodi@otafinearts.com Thank you very much, your help will be greatly appreciated. Jodi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.158.205 (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Advert banner on Assurant

Hey DGG, could you help me review the advert banner on Assurant? It's been there for 4 years now, and the article seems like it's been improved on that front since then. Given my COI, I'd love an opinion on whether or not it meets NPOV standards, and if not, what can be done to fix it. --FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) I'm doing some further work on it. DGG ( talk ) 12:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for the edits DGG. If you have a minute, could you explain your thought process behind removing the content that you did? I'm trying to gain a better grasp of what does and doesn't make for a good article. Also, I'm interested in updating the Operations section with the recent news that Assurant Employee Benefits and Assurant Health are up for sale. Could you review what I have here? Thanks again!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

the basic concept is that WP is written for the readers. It does not contain not the material an organization wishes people to know about it, or the information a prospective customer or client or investor might want, or the internal affairs an employee or regulator might want. The place for all these is on the organization's website, annual report, and other self0written publicity. Rather, it contains the information that a general reader might want to know about the organization. The name of the ceo is important general information; the names of other executives & the board of directors is not, except for the largest and most famous companies. (as your comment on the talk page notes, it changes frequently, which is yet another reason for not including it) The list of contributions to local charities is just good-will and PR, not encyclopedic information, though information about the sponsorship of major professional sports teams and the like might be of general interest. I removed both of those sections, as I always do. A list of lines of business is general information; details about specific products are not, except for the most famous products (the list here is in somewhat excessive detail--it might be summarized well enough by saying the various division offer all the usual insurance products, but I did not reduce it. . On the other hand, we do include the corporate history, because without this it's not possible to make sense of what the organization actually is. We do include major public controversies and court cases of public interest, but not in excessive detail, nor do we include routine consumer complaints. I kept that section, but removed some details, such as the names of the plaintiffs. I also removed information from which one might conclude the judgment was compromised at $20 million instead of $37 million--what's given is primary information, and we don't make such deductions, but need specific statements.

Information that needs to be added is some information about the history of the company after the 2010 lawsuit. The proposed sale of one division of the company is not information. If it is sold, that would be. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply and explanation. Regarding the list of products offered, I can see your point. In the spirit of collaboration, how about we solicit the input of WP:Finance? Perhaps there are folks who have worked on other insurance Wikipedia articles and/or company pages. They might also be subject matter experts on other ways to distinguish and present the information. Thanks again for your time and feedback. Regarding the company's history post-2010, I'll look into relevant references.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey DGG, I wanted to circle back with you about your involvement on Assurant. I know you're quite busy, but I didn't want to leave you out of the loop moving forward in case you still had some outstanding thoughts on improving the article. Your time and opinion is always valued.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Village Capital

Hi DGG, could you help me remove the advert flagged banner on the Village Capital page? It's been flagged for a while now, and the page seems like it's been improved. I'd love an opinion on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's standards, and if not, what I can do to fix this to remove the banner as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahlerbattle (talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

as a start, remove the adjectives of praise. the substitute ordinary english for jargon like "across", and decrease the amount of dupllciation. Then I will take another look. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Still needed

Aditya Birla Finance Limited

Hi, Curious to know the reason for deleting Aditya Birla Finance Ltd Page. You have redirected it to its Group Page i.e. Aditya Birla Financial Services Group. Here check this both the URLs: http://adityabirlafinance.com/Pages/Individual/Our-Solutions/Overview.aspx & http://abfsg.com/Pages/Home.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunalshahv (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As the article said, "Aditya Birla Finance is a part of Aditya Birla Financial Services Group". I considered the articles on ABF do be a mere advertisement, and recommended that it be deleted altogether. Another editor made the merge to prevent the deletion. I still think there is no need at all for even the redirect for this small division, but I'm willing to let that stand, and not start the necessary community discussion on whether it should instead be deleted. At the very most, I do not see any reason at all why we need articles on both. It might be useful to list in the main article the various divisions that make up the company.

I see you have also written articles on other divisions of the company. I will meed to take a look at them to see if they should be merged and redirected also. Since these firms are almost the only topic on which you have worked here, I assume that it is quite possible that you are in some way connected with the company. If so, I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organization as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use, [15] Section 4, "Paid contributions without disclosure.
. I've placed the relevant warning on your user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Inprocess

Response to afd

I left a response to your nomination with a few links of additional coverage. I think that right now people are obsessing over the Coke can incident which by itself doesn't pass notability. When you take all the sums and add it up she is notable though. She has had coverage in multiple outlets for at least the last 4 years. She has been featured on New Hampshire public tv and on PBS with issues of faith. I had to do a fair bit of searching with filters prior to 05/2015 to find it..the coke can incident had a lot more coverage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

we'll see what others think. I've been getting increasingly skeptical about"First ___ to do something" as a criterion of notability except for truly historical contexts, and I;ve always been dubious about notability based on "Frequently appeared in ____." DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok so we've had a couple other comments but I am really interested in your opinion about the coverage and articles I linked to on the talkpage. I want to understand what you think is inadequate in my interp so I can adjust my approach going forward. I try to write about things I "know" will be kept so I'm trying to see just how much I "know". Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Impact factors

This is your promised reminder that it would be helpful to have information about how to use impact factors in a smart way for evaluating sources across multiple disciplines. Wikipedia:Impact factors is a new redirect to Wikipedia:Scholarly journal, which is mostly a notability essay. I think you can safely usurp the redirect, if you don't want to come up with another name. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This would be really useful for me, if I'm understanding it correctly. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"Really useful" is exactly my goal.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A good reason for deletion

"so promotional that it would need to be rewritten from scratch" is a good reason for deletion.

You rightly owe someone a private thanks, or some form of acknowledgement for their work. Or are you only the whip? :) -- GreenC 13:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You are apparently referring to my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canine Companions for Independence (2nd nomination)

if you mean others have used this wording before me, that's very possible, but I've been using it for many years, and I'm not consciously copying anyone.

If you mean it's not a valid reason:

WP:CSD is limited to the reasons specified; any reason the community accepts is good at AfD. See [[WP:Deletion policy]#Reasons for Deletion]], point 14." Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"

It is obviously a good reason for AfD, since it can even justify speedy G11; it's a restatement of "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." from WP:CSD#G11. Similarly the essay WP:TNT has been used repeatedly by others as an argument for many deletions. Whether any particular article in question is actually that bad, is of course subject to a community decision: at AfD if at AfD, at Deletion Review if it was done at speedy. In this case, it is indeed possible that the decision may be against my proposal.

a related deletion rationale I often give is that "an article that is only borderline notable and is also promotional should be deleted ." That only works at AfD, and only if the consensus agrees with it.

WP:CSD is limited to the reasons specified; any reason the community accepts is good at AfD. See [[WP:Deletion policy]#Reasons for Deletion]], point 14." Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for your help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic departments

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

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

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

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

G13 deletions

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ibn_Sina_Medical_College_(2nd_nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

• Draft:Michael Newton Marsh
• Draft:Park Senior High School
• Draft:Peter Ammon
• Draft:Sava Damjanov
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Conference of the Americas on International Education
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gary Yannone
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Davis
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gereon Krahforst
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haim Bibas
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hamed El Said
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Health Care Reform in South Africa
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jama Masjid, Salem
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Rasenberger
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lake Solai
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lincoln Property Company
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lord's paradox
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Wilkinson
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Musallam Haddad
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neubauer Chamber
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pat O'Donnell (physicist)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/S. D. Hari Prasad Achari
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/S.V.Sahasranamam
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Bennett Freeze
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The International Beethoven Project
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vidisha Devi

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

BrowseAloud

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

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

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

• Draft:Ahmad Alhindawi
• Draft:Baanou (boutique)
• Draft:Geoff Fincher
• Draft:MATS Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship
• Draft:Wilmot Gibbes DeSaussure
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ashorne Hill
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Baptist Boys’ High School
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catholic University of America School of Library and Information Science
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher John Graves
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/depletion precipitation (chemistry concept)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dissimilar Metal Design
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr John Pope OBE
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Inqilab Nadirli
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jadranka Damjanov
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James Creek
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jan Kryjevski
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jensen's Swamp
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeremy C Bradley
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Koon Yew Yin
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Manchester Journal of International Economic Law
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mickey sheen
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Owas Ray Mwape
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Parliament House Solar Power Project
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Raymond W. Kulhavy
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Lawrence Kradin
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RIT Cary Graphic Arts Press
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solar Home System
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven M. Stern
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United States Marine Corps parachute team
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Whip Bow

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

Seeking advice regarding recent articles about food studies

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

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

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

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

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

Your comment on promotional editing

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

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

Rebecca Masterton

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

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

Louisiana State University Press

I was wondering how you felt about this dedicated article about a specific department/division of a university from a notability and WP:ORGVANITY perspective. I ask because I would have AFD'd it in a second if an identical article were written about a corporation, but merely because it's about an academic subject, I feel an AfD would not go my way, so there's no need to bother. CorporateM (Talk) 02:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A University Press is normally in effect and structure a separate organization, not a department of a university. at least that's certainly true of the one I know best, Princeton. (see paragraph 3 of [16]). Even when it isn't , consider that for major universities we make separate articles for each athletic team... See for example the LSU navigation box.

I've merged lots of branch campuses at universities where we have little information. I've opposed most articles for academic departments.

I don't oppose doing this for corporations also when there is sufficient information, something to say other than this is the branch that operates in X country, and its President is Y. For example, see the navigation box for IBM, where we go into similar detail. Or slightly less so, at Honeywell. or Ford. or JPMorgan Chase. (I see some appropriate articles there for major entities have not yet been written, but they should be.) These are all firms where there are extensive NPOV sources. But consider Mahindra Automotive and Farm Equipment Sectors. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case the article was made up entirely of primary/weak sourcing. We would never let that fly on a company page. CorporateM (Talk) 17:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Afc etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valamigo, I commented. Sorry for the delay. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Writing articles about academics

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

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

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

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

Most large city libraries have it available to library card holders remotely. You only have to visit once, to get a card. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Any word on when that advice is coming? It's been about 3 weeks now. Everymorning (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Hey Dave, I noticed you suggested merging at Nash Engineering Company, is this what you think is best? I'm not sure if you've also noticed Perion Network has been noticeably improved since you nominated it so I'm neutral but may change to keep although the article could've been better. Also, would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Baldwin (writer)? Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ping, hopefully you haven't forgotten about this section. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I meant what I said. I wa suggesting a merge at Nash. Perion was closed as keep,and that's ok with me. I don't think Baldwin notable, but not worth an AfD2. When you notify me, it would help if you did it a little earlier in the AfD case than these last two. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I know and I was going to but I wasn't expecting it to be closed as soon as that. Simply out of curiosity, do you think a consensus/discussion will be needed for that merge? (to quote Dr. Seuss "I meant what I said and I said what I meant, an elephant is reliable 100%!") Also, in that case, these AfDs here may interest you. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Interlude (interactive video)

Hello, DGG: This is a learning opportunity, precautionary, procedural transparency note and a self-audit request for your opinion. I don't think this is a particular issue really, and nothing is specifically needed unless you deem appropriate. From our previous interactions (thank you) as well as your input in various discussions on the corpus I have identified you as being a good source for me to pose a self-audit opinion question, please. The background is Interlude (interactive video), which has had a very long history on the AfC pathway but which had not advanced from draft to mainspace. I had edited the article a while ago and then left it be for a long time. It showed up on my Draft article list as the article with my most edits that had not been advanced. I then saw it had just been resubmitted and rejected again. I then went back to it and implemented the various AfC recommendations, step by step. I trimmed from 16683 bytes to 12760 bytes, a good proportion of which is hidden text, that I propose to soon remove. I also rearranged and reorganized the text elements. Having extensively followed all of the AfC suggestions, rather than submitting through another AfC review, which I thought might not be useful, I advanced the article to mainspace as, although imperfect, it now seems to me to be reasonable for dissemination. This will also avail it of a greater use pool for any upgrading needed. Because I sidestepped further AfC input, I hatted the text as a new article, for procedural transparency and also to trigger a NPP review. I propose to remove the hidden text once there has been an opportunity for mainspace comments. This note is not about any proposed changes to the article itself so much as a placeholder for auditing any input regarding the procedures I followed. I do not see people doing this much, but my searching didn't find a prohibition on stepping off the AfC path and tagging it as a new article either. No reply is needed unless you deem appropriate, but please let me know if I was way off on this individualized process. (I am not proposing to make this a routine thing.) FeatherPluma (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What you did is perfectly legitimate--if the article is in the end acceptable. I've done it sometimes--the only real reason I go thru the RfC acceptance process is to get the articles in the right category & added to the statistics. The real problem is that PR people do this rather frequently, without improving the article. I have learned for some types of articles before deleting a G13, to see if by any chance the article is in mainspace, and if so, whether it's acceptable. Sometimes it is, and it is the reviewer who was in error, and rather than argue it, the person just bypassed them. Considering the quality of some reviews, I can well understand them.

The fundamental principle to understanding WP procedures is that there is no underlying principle or system. There are multiple ways to do anything, some of them devised by programmers wanting to display their cleverness or take care of every unlikely contingency they could think of. Not all of them had actual editing experience.

As for the article, it's not my field, but it looks fine to me. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

DGG: Thank you. Very clear and helpful. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For all the abuse you are getting at AfD.

Bearian (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

For the last year or two I have been deliberately trying to stretch deletion process a little in both directions, to see if consensus is changing. To keep things responsive, somebody's got to, and better me than someone with a coi. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Einstein

See WP:EINSTEIN. Expand, mock or delete as you see fit... Guy (Help!) 14:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:59:01, 6 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Eloisekirn

• Eloisekirn (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:David V. Schaffer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. Thank you for your feedback on my pages. I have updated my username to reflect my conflict of interest and follow the COI compliance guidelines. I'm not sure if this is how the process works (I'm completely new to Wiki), but do I send you edited versions of my pages? I don't want to keep resubmitting until I am banned or something...! Below is my revised page for David V. Schaffer. Please let me know if it is in accordance with Wiki protocol. Thank you again! ....

the basic rule is very simple--it is very highly preferred that you not write about your relative's company at all. If you wish to do it nonetheless, you are not actually prohibited, but our experience is that people closely related to the subject will find it very difficult to judge the importance and the appropriate material to include. It will put the burden on the relatively small number of experienced editors interested in such companies and people to either guide you step by step or --what is often faster-- to rewrite it for you.

The way of working on the articles is by resubmitting the AfC--not every time you make a change, but when you think you have gotten it right. Don't paste it here--it's just confusing.

I gave you advice already on your user talk page: " Reduce the awards to the most important ones--and removing grants, which we do not include, say what are his most cited paper sand give the statistics from Google Scholar or elsewhere, link the article properly to the articles for the schools, and remove the links within the article to things for which we do not have articles.And find some external references to his work. Then resubmit."

You have not indicated which of the papers are important, or given ay citation statistics. You have not specified which particular substances he has actually worked or been primarily responsible for--tho that can be shown indirectly by specifying the key papers). You have not added material or references from outside his own web site. You did trim down the awards (I note that the original included fellowship offers he declined,as well as those he accepted. I've never seen anyone include these on a CV or article before!).

When ready, resubmit at afc. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD for you

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anavex Life Sciences. thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

commented. This has implications for many existing articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding Material to articles only serves to draw the attention of editors who nominate articles for deletion

Hi DGG,

(This is a continuation of similar threads on your talk page in 2012 and 2014). I have been away for a few months, and when I started editing again, I was hoping to be left alone to help build areas that, in my opinion, are sorely lacking.

On 8 August 2015 5 I found a little visited article about a very important organization: Condo Owners Association (Ontario) (which has an article here under the incorrect name) and at 17:10 I started renovating the whole area surrounding Category:Condominium on Wikipedia. According to recent news reports 50% of new home buyers in Toronto are now purchasing condos, and the number of condo owners is staggering, considering how little information exists on Wikipedia on this topic.

As usual, however, it appears that my efforts to build up have attracted the attention of the deletionist faction. By August 9 the article that was getting no attention at all for months, was up for wp:AfD, and instead of continuing my efforts to built this neglected Codominium area, I find myself spending more and more time getting into conflicts with other editors intent on deleting whatever else is associated with this article. I seem to have been unsuccessful in trying to convince another admin that the article that is now getting very little attention at AfD should be moved to its correct official name.

This is very discouraging, and I know that posting this on your talk page will undoubtably bring out more of the same, sigh… Ottawahitech (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It might help me if you could specify the articles involved. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying.; response forthcoming. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I consider it a little too much like a press release, and this will inevitably affect people's attitude towards it. Possibly there might be a little advocacy in some of the other articles also. The last thread is now at [17] DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I belong to a (dying?) minority of editors who like to work on articles that are not yet developed. Unfortunately it appears that my edits only serve to bring those articles to the attention of editors whose mission is to nominate articles for deletion. I have been asked before to provide examples of this phenomenon and thought : Condo Owners Association (Ontario) can be mentioned as one because no one paid attention to it until I started to work on it.

I am worried that my sad conclusion is also shared by others, which means few editors will be working on improving wp:stubs around here. Thanks btw for finding the 2014 thread - I am unable to locate the 2012 one tiles Useless stubs because the Edits by user tool is broken (another sigh...) Ottawahitech (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It also looks like posting a link to an article at Helpdesk is a good way to send existing long-time articles to wp:AfD. See for example Wikipedia:Help_desk#Lynn_Walsh, I think. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

For those interested, I moved the discussion of this particular point to Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk#Deletion_of_articles_referred_to_in_questions_here. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a dual mission here: One is to try to keep everything suitable for an encycopedia. The other to to remove promotionalism. Lately, due to the flood of promotional articles, the second has become more important--even critical. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia.

There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. It will take years, but work on them as I see them.

Normally I send a long standing article to AfD rather than to speedy unless it's utterly outrageous--t will not be deleted unless the consensus agrees with me. I accept the consensus there as the guide in establishing standards. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

I wanted to gain your opinion on this article. I started it and it's been expanded by User:LovinTheSunshine. This is either a very very good expansion or a somewhat WP:UNDUE situation. None of their edits have been problematic but this is also the only article they've edited since joining. I've asked on their page to gauge if there is a COI but the first question is the WP:UNDUE aspect regarding the court martial and it is well presented so I don't want to mangle it either. Would appreciate a look see when you have a moment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it as an attack page. Clear BLP violation. Despite graver accusations, the actual conviction was over rather minor crimes, with the verdict being only a fine and a reprimand. Nothing else about him is potentially notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please at least restore it to my last version. Mine was not and the subject is notable. He was a flag offier and I had considerably less details about the court martial to avoid that sort of thing. It was the later additions that I wanted to check on. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me think. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the most I had [[18]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I undeleted everything and left it as you have it. I am going to take it to BLPPN and ask if there should be revision deletion. or deletion of the entire article. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok I think it will pass the deletion but maybe recreation with only the material it has now would be the better option. He defintely passes the notability factors as a Flag Officer. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

see BLPN here I'm not going to involve myself further. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

though I did comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Allen Sinclair DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems its bad luck asking for Ur help on articles I write lol ;), no worries it will all work itself out in the end. I believe it will be kept but if not consensus rules for good and bad. Thanks again DGG, your opinion is appreciated. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting a Speedy at Make It Cheaper, which obviously deserved to be fully considered. I wish more Administrators were as rational. Yours sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A belated note...

It was superb finally getting to meet you! I only got to hear the last bit of your talk but was quite intrigued. I look forward to seeing you and the rest of the NYC crew next time around. All the best — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

deletion of Anuradha Bhattacharyya

Dear DGG, it seems that you have deleted the page I created Anuradha Bhattacharyya, because there is no mention of a newspaper article. Maybe, being too eager, I created her page too early. Maybe, i can create some other pages of many poets in India.

For the time being, I will be on the lookout for newspaper articles on Anuradha Bhattacharyya. Or there are other poets like Gopichand or Lopa Banerjee who are quite well known to me. Thank you for the discussion. AtulAtul Bhattacharyya (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Atul

Atul Bhattacharyya You are welcome to try using WP:AFC. The comment you made at the AfD discussion "Writers Workshop books sell worldwide. Fifty Five Poems was mentioned by the Journal of Commonwealth Literature among its 'books received'. Knots was being sold by flipcart until stock lasted. Knots and The Road Taken have been reviewed by notable authors (what if the authors themselves are not listed in Wiki; I think they are also worth listing!). Her other publications have been cited by many scholars. Her PhD thesis is also listed in the Villanova list of publications." does not indicate notability. That her books and thesis exist is not sufficient. There need to be more than mentions, there need to be substantial published reviews in reliable sources. In looking for newspaper articles, try to find some that are not essentially Press releases. I am very much aware of the difficulty for sourcing for authors in this region, but there needs to be something substantial. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear DGG ( talk ), thank you for your reply. I will keep these things in mind. When I get some links, I will copy-paste them over here. Then you can decide finally. AtulAtul Bhattacharyya (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear DGG ( talk ), I found a recent mention of Anuradha Bhattacharyya as a prominent poet in the newspaper. It seems that she was attending a Poets' Meet. There is a photo also showing her sitting among many notable poets. She is sitting second from left. I am pasting the URL here: http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/2015-09-21/Their-life-is-a-long-poem-of-sacrifice-176868

I think the above link affirms that Anuradha Bhattacharyya is notable. Please restore the page I created for her.

There are two book reviews of her book Knots, one is in Conifers Call, a poetry journal from Shimla. The other is in Kafla-intercontinental, a link I have already provided. Some other links I could find:

http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3ABhattacharyya%2C+Anuradha%2C&qt=hot_author

http://www.worldcat.org/title/road-taken/oclc/910656932&referer=brief_results

http://chandigarhsahityaakademi.blogspot.in/2013/12/abhivyakti-and-expressions_8.html

http://chandigarhsahityaakademi.blogspot.in/2010/05/directory-of-chandigarh-writers.html

http://nationallibrary.gov.in/showdetails.php?id=11991

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23341739?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.lacan.com/disguise.htm

https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-265574607/ethical-treason-radical-cosmopolitanism-in-salman

http://anbocas.com/the-significant-anthology/?ckattempt=1

www.bagchee.com/books/BB94070/the-road-taken/

http://b-l.in/?q=Mani%20Rao

http://langlit.org/files/volume2/issue1/bookreviews/5%20Book%20Review%20Shalini%20Wadhwa.pdf

http://indiaree.com/magazines/reader/hEnglish062015/OEBPS/English062015-1.html

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zfpkCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT16&lpg=PT16&dq=jacob+isaac+anuradha+bhattacharyya&source=bl&ots=V4cMPv9Ruo&sig=1URT1lr-ILg81kcS2XeXaqpGxoI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMI7s34qfW0yAIVjyOOCh1xMwRR#v=onepage&q=jacob%20isaac%20anuradha%20bhattacharyya&f=false

I think, in India, these are sufficient signs of recognition for a poet. I have read the poetry of many of the other poets mentioned in the newspaper article. They are all worthy poets. However, unless I know what suits Wiki, I will not create anymore pages. Atul Bhattacharyya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Bhattacharyya (talk • contribs) 11:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear DGG ( talk ), Today I have added a few more links to show Anuradha Bhattacharyya as a notable author. Please see above. Last time i did not know how to 'sign'. I am repeating the link to the newspaper article. She is a well read author who did not 'launch' her books with fanfare and add any publicity gimmicks.

http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/2015-09-21/Their-life-is-a-long-poem-of-sacrifice-176868

Atul Bhattacharyya (talk • contribs)

Restaurant & Bar Design Awards

Hi, thank you very much for explaining what I need to do to make my article look more like an encyclopedia. Sorry that my article came across as a press release, as a new user to Wikipedia I was encouraged to cite as much vital information as possible to make the article look credible, all the judges which were listed I would of presumed were very important factors of the Restaurant & Bar Design Awards being that they are some of the most influential persons within Architecture and Design throughout the world and they are an integral part of the history of the awards. I have looked at other awards articles and there are similar lists of actors names and such, could you outline for me what the difference was with the information I submitted? Also looking at the article now, could you also help with any other ways I could clean things up? Kind regards,

MarcoRBDA (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)MarcoRBDA

Balancing this can be a little trick. Perhaps the best course is to list the ones who are notable in the sense of having articles in wikipedia in a single list. As for other articles, 1) some of them are much better known and more important awards than these 2) there are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

???

Just turned down a speedy and noticed it was you that placed it.

Really surprised - I'm guessing there's more to it than meets the eye. --Dweller (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

if you mean Alan Purwin, I should have used just G11, which I still consider valid. If you mean Keifer Phill, I agree U17 as notability is an issue that needs discussion, as does whether U17 is a credible assertion of significance. I am as susceptible as anyone to the tendency to over-delete after lookign at too many NPs in a row, which is why I never do it single handed. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, did I turn down two of yours in a row? Erk. I did mean Purwin. I'll take another look when I'm feeling better - not doing anything serious with a headache. I may have been mistaken. --Dweller (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed Purwin. I'm not sure an AfD would go 'delete' on him, though it might. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Tony Robbins?

Is there more context for the speedy deletion tag at Tony Robbins? I'm sure the article needs work, but it could at least be stubbed, and Robbins must meet the general notability criteria a thousand times over. Zagalejo^^^ 15:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree he's notable. I used a tag not for that, but for promotional: consider sections 4 & 8.1 , the see-also section, and considerable parts of 2, 5, the lead paragraph, and the infobox. The sources in the book section are unreliable or deceptively listed: he was no.1 on the NYT self-help list, which is much less prestigious than the main list. The list in that section of notable people he wrote about is name dropping. And look at the edit history, where almost all the material added ( as distinct from technical edits and attempts to remove the promotionalism) is by obvious spas. When there is this much promotionalism it is better to delete and start over. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. Someone else has removed the tag. I actually wouldn't mind stubbing the article, leaving a brief description of what Robbins does and maybe a list of books. Zagalejo^^^ 16:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

SNIA Long-term Retention Technical Workgroup

Hi DGG,

You have A7-deleted my page about the SNIA Long-term Retention Technical Workgroup (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNIA_Long_Term_Retention_TWG&action=edit&redlink=1). I would like to review the previously existing version of my article and edit with the relevant information. Can you please send me the text from the version I originally submitted?

Thank you.

Phillipviana (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Phillipviana, I can not send you the deleted contents until you authorize email, using the Preferences link on your user page. But in any case, the material is entirely copied or closely adapted from various parts of their site. I suggest you try to integrate the appropriate material dealing with this topic on a single WP page. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

DGG, thank you. I will come up with new content but would still like to have the previous version. I have confirmed my e-mail a few minutes ago. Please send me the previous version when you have a chance. Thanks. Phillipviana (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

DGG, can you please put the version back online? Thanks Phillipviana (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

International Project Management Association

Hi DGG, could you review the make-over of the International Project Management Association today, and take some appropriate action if needed. CIO, OR, Advert, and/or primary sources tags seem to fit, but personally I am puzzled, who to deal with this kind of updates. Could you help me out here, maybe just with some advice? -- Mdd (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

fascinating. Obvious COI source taking an inconspicuous factual article that (even tho it had no 3rd party sources for notability) would never have been noticed, and turning it into a absurdly over-detailed promotional press release.See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Project Management Association DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

National Book Award

... our WP article on National Book Award explains it: hundreds of books get nominated--any publisher can nominates as many as they please. In the 2013 procedure, each of the 4 categories is winnowed own by a panel to a long list of 10, a short list of 5, and then a winner. The books on the short list are called Finalists, and get a prize; the winner gets a much bigger prize. By analogy with other similar awards, winning is notable, being a finalist contributes to notability, being nominated is not even worth mentioning. If the NBA site lists them as finalists, they're finalists--we usually regard the award site as authoritative. DLB's text is considered reliable--its headlines are, as usual with headlines, summaries & simplifications. Headlines never take precedence over the text, here or anywhere. USA Today, LA Times etc. are dependent on the actual source of data, and less reliable. Neither of them is really a RS for published books. (The LATimes is a RS for film). This is one of the cases where the PS is more reliable than any report of it. What must be avoided is using any statements on Amazon or the publisher's sites as evidence for anything at all; they both often list awards & best seller status in the most positive terms they can concoct. Pre 2013, there was no list of 10, just the short list of finalists and the winner. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Article Cleanup - Removing Notices from Page

Is it possible to remove the notices at the top of Randy Gage's article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Gage If not, what needs to be done and who can do that? Thanks for your help! TriJenn (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked for a whileThe COI notice will stay on as long as you have been the main contributor. I hadn't looked for a while, and I've also added a POV tag based on the inclusion of the self published books and the viewpoints section, which in the edit history you justify by comparing it to another article, one on someone more notable, but with similar problems. If you want those sections removed, ask me. As for notability, other people have challenged it; I defended it, but it might not pass AfD nowadays, that people are using the argument that borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 12:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. When you remove the Viewpoints section, you remove much of the notable press - Inc., Success, Chicago Tribune, Forbes, and more. Why wouldn't a thought leader have a Viewpoints section? His thoughts/viewpoints are what he is known for. As for the books published by Prime Concepts Group, these are not self published. Prime Concepts Group published them. He is not an owner of that company. And, they are real books, not brochures (as you had referred to them previously). TriJenn (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Primce Concepts Group is not a publisher, but a marketing concern. I'll check the other material. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What is this edit [19]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears you are editing an old version of the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not make that edit deliberately; it is apparently a side effect of another edit I made, and I will fix it if someone hasn;t gotten there before me. Thanks for letting me know. DGG ( talk ) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC) . DGG ( talk ) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted, but this content has been lost. You may want to reintroduce it under a new topic at WP:COIN or something. — Brianhe (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

SNIA Long-term Retention Technical Workgroup

Hi DGG For my own reference, can you please send me the page you rejected about the SNIA Long-term Retention Technical Workgroup? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNIA_Long_Term_Retention_TWG&action=edit&redlink=1).

		 −	

My e-mail address has already been confirmed so you should be good to send it now :) Thanks

Phillipviana (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please could you close a merge discussion that's been open nearly a year?

Talk:Hollie_Steel#Merger_proposal Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Essay

I want WP:ALTEXPAND deleted since it's undermaintained and horribly out of date. {{Expand}} was deprecated ages ago, so I doubt anyone's looking for "alternatives" to it anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), Perhaps then it should be expanded/updated and retitled; it was good material--we shouldn't lose it. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Peter H. Lin

You may want to have a look at this article and to its history. --Randykitty (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

citations are 500, 270, 170, 150 ... , so he's notable, even allowing for the very high citation rate in this area. Even tho its an autobiography, what it needs is rewriting. Once upon a time, I would unhesitatingly rewrite all articles like this, but in the last year or so the number that need doing has escalated to the point where I only do it if it is in my area of interest, it is easy to do, and the article is not hopelessly corrupt otherwise. This articles is a summary of his outrageously self-praising website even by the abyssmal standards for such websites, http://www.drpeterlin.com/dr.-lin2.html , but not close enough to be a copyvio. It's not even a competent summary, because it leaves out some of the actual encyclopedic information, such as the dates of his positions, and makes no attempt to select the most important among the publications.

As we have now learned we need to do, I checked some of the refs. That he was clinical advisor to the bill is referenced to the Senator's web site, but isn't stated there. Some of the rest are also ambiguous. It's implied he developed EKOS--he did not, a/c the references--he merely uses it. And a Reuters article referred to in this connection is not an article, but a press release on their site.

For an analogous case, by a known paid editor, see John Wesson Ashford, where I just removed the minor and stuff and unproven claims to be first in something. He , too, has very high citations.

I am holding off going further until I can decide what I want to do in such cases. I don't want to punish notable people for being naive enough to write their own article or use a paid editor, but I equally don't see why they should get priority for rewriting before all the even more notable people whom we are missing. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking paid editing more than autobio, given the contributors' names (and didn't look into notability myself, as I have no time right now). You're right that it's not egregiously promotional. I removed some of the minor awards. If only those paid editors could get it through their heads that it is far more effective to write a really encyclopedic, neutral article... --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It might be a group of editors. Look at the main editors and the other articles they have edited. All related.

• JeremyKai4077 (talk · contribs) created 9/10/2015
• Garfield4407 (talk · contribs) created 9/9/2015

• John.freeman.2010 (talk · contribs) created 9/8/2015 (also see their talk page about an article that was speedied)
• Also note that JeremyKai4077 and John.freeman.2010 have also the exact same user page.

Possibly some paid editing? At the least this group has a very narrow focus. Ravensfire (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have previously encountered obvious but undeclared paid editing devoted to a particular medical specialty, and to other groups of individuals, or companies in the same field, where I assume it was a PR company specializing in the field or working for a trade association. I have frequently encountered it for people in the same or related company, where it has sometimes not been an outside PR firm, but the employer: sometimes in-house PR staff, but sometimes a department manager or the like acting on his own initiative.

Experience has unfortunately shown that most (but not all) people with experience in PR cannot be taught to write a proper article, because they are so completely oriented to writing advertisements or quasi-adevertisements that they honestly cannot see the difference between that an a proper encycopedia article. Declared paid editors here whom I trust have told me they need to turn down most clients, because the clients even if notable will not accept a NPOV article. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your useful comments DRV Poetry

Hi DGG; Thanks for your useful comments at the Drv recently on the Poetry article. User:Bearian seemed to agree with you, but the review was closed. This leaves the question of somehow udpating/changing the policy pages at WP:CWW and WP:Content forking to indicate that qualified citations to other Wikipedia articles are now mandatory if G-12 disqualifications are not to be risked. I would not want to see other editors led down the same primrose garden path as I was only to have their articles questioned or deleted. It is true that Wikipedia excludes citing use of other Wikipedia articles in the Bibliography section, but it seems like a "shadow-bibliography" is what is now being required. The wording in both WP:CWW and WP:Content forking should be strengthened now to indicate that G-12 disqualifications will be applied if the now mandatory "shadow-bibliography" for WP:CWW and WP:Content forking is not included in articles which are affected (hundreds and hundreds of articles as I count them). MusicAngels (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:MusicAngels: please understand that the problem with the poetry articles was not only copyright violations but also that they were biased, prejudicial, subjective, redundant, and based on long-disputed scholarship. Even if you fixed the copyright you would have a swarm of scholars descending on you. Stick to your own knitting, whatever that knitting is. 01:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)128.90.91.69 (talk)

MusicAnimal, alll yoiu had to do to prevent the deletion as copyvio was to add attribution, which would have been easy enough.Dennis Brown gave you good detailed advice on how to fix it Personally, I would not have deleted by G12, but I think that everything considered, Nyttend acted reasonably. I would personally have thought it poor judgement right (though not prohibited) for him to have removed it immediately, but you were given time to fix it. WP is full of rules, but most are not actually observed to the full rigor in which they are stated (Even copyright , one of our most rigorous, has-- as you have seen -- some disputed aspects. But they are there, and if a dispute should arise, or someone feel neglected, people sometimes invoke them. The only safe way to work is to write so that someone trying to pick apart an article has nothing to grab hold of. Anything organized like WP will never be altogether consistent, or even always fair.

As general advice, it would be immensely more useful to work on criticism sections for each of the authors. Then summary articles by period could be written using and linking to that material. You need to work on small discrete articles for quite a while, before attempting something like this. Even if you know how to do a systematic survey in the ordinary academic Real World, WP is -- some say different, but I say peculiar.

With respect to the comments from 128.: At this stage in the development of WP, articles on serious humanities subjects that are really properly written and sourced are a minority. The great majority of our articles on these topics are also using out of date subjective material. To do it right, we'd need a few dozen more editors with at least an advanced undergraduate understanding of the topics & of humanities research & writing techniques, and access to the print and online resources of a decent research library. The material added did use current literary criticism also. I have not read it in detail, but I saw no gross signs of being biased or prejudicial. The complaint in the discussion that it covered only WEurope & NAmerica is in my opinion absurd--trying to cover all cultures in a single article on a topic like this is a really major task which was, reasonably enough, not being attempted. All that was needed was to adjust the title or add a line of explanation. There's no way to handle these topics without some redundancy, but if there is too much it can be fixed by editing. If there were errors they could have been corrected, and if better sources were needed, they could have been added. I should add that there is no one correct interpretation of literature, no one way to evaluate the work of an author, nor will anything ever be definitive, nor in most cases is there even at one time a true scholarly consensus. It's not quite like, say, molecular biology. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:DGG: The "biased and prejudicial" aspect of the essay was that it arrived fully formed out of the head of an uneducated person, leaving uneducated editors to chip away at it. The act of "chipping away" was deemed disruptive by me and several other because we are IPs. In short, the bias and prejudice of MusicAngels was creating an article selfishly without input or organic growth. I and many others got frustrated because any editing was met with bullying by User:MusicAngels. When you look at his talk page you see some residue there. He had to be slapped down about not bullying IPs over and over again. Every edit I made he reverted and said I had to justify it. How was he justified in creating an entire article out of his field and then have it be the default? Insane. 128.90.39.243 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

DGG; This is the same IP-hopping editor who I reported above as blocked on multiple accounts in his range account at his institution. If you need the other range accounts he is using for IP-hopping I can provide them along with the blocks already made. MusicAngels (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

DGG: and what we see here is MusicAngels attacking me because I am "IP hopping" (out of my control) rather than actually seeing the substance of my critique. If Wikipedia policy is that IP editors are not second-class citizens (and if I am so easily identifiable) then perhaps MusicAngels should listen rather than seeking to ban me. There was no consensus on the poetry pages because they arrived fully formed without consensus. 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)128.90.95.145 (talk)

Hi DGG: Thanks for getting back. Only two very technical issues to bring up if you can glance at them. First, the IP-editor here has been identified for IP-hopping and trolling by multiple editors/administrators now and has been blocked multiple times as in this one [20]. You are apparently the ninth editor that he has been trolling/hopping and he appears to be taking advantage of a large institutional range of IP-addresses available at his institution. The second technical issue at hand is that I was quite serious about needing to edit the individual pages for WP:CWW and WP:Content forking to mention the G12 issue and requirements for the "shadow-bibliography" issue (that is, current requirements to exclude Wikipedia article references in the Bibliography section of articles system-wide throughout Wikipedia, but include the Wikipedia article references on the Talk page or dummy edits). Since I am meticulous about checking and verifying references in Bibliographies and have spent a great deal of time cleaning up dead links and restoring bad ones, then this is an important issue. If the deleted articles were mislabeled as G12 (as you suggest in your comments above), then the deleted pages should be at least re-labeled on the admin-only data base as to your stated preference and reason. If they are G12, then WP:CWW and WP:Content forking need some editing and additions to cover the G12 issue which is currently not mentioned on those two pages. If you need some of the other IP-hopping addresses for the IP-account above, then let me know here and I will try to get them listed for you. MusicAngels (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The G12 deletion in such cases can be applied, but usually the problem is corrected after a warning. As I said, I personally would not have applied G12 in this case, but the action was within the range of administrative discretion, and therefore I cannot say it was mislabeled. As I said above "Anything organized like WP will never be altogether consistent, or even always fair." The actually best way of dealing with the WP references is very simple: to remove the duplicated text and link the name. If you did think it necessary to include the text, in addition to the techniques listed in WP:CWW, there is also available a rather complicated technique, used often in history and geography articles, but relevant here also: WP:Summary style. I don't think anyone mentioned that possibility in the discussion--I am going to add a link to it on WP:CWW

There is no need to edit anything to say not to use WP articles as references--it's part of the Verifiability policy page--see WP:CIRCULAR DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was my understand as well. This is the template that I had already prepared on my Talk page for insertion in the article, but I took one day off last week and the article was deleted without prior notice of closing. I think User:Fogettaboutit was also in agreement with you on this. This is the template as prepared on my Talk page and I was just going to fill in the names already listed in the Lead section of the poetry article. If you are saying that this will work then I am in full agreement with you and User:Fogettaboutit:

{{Copied multi|list=
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet2 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet3 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet4 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet5 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet6 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
}} Is that what you are reading as being what User:Fogettaboutit had in mind. MusicAngels (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

At a different level, I have to say that using these copies was not necessarily a good idea in a general article. Too much of them dealt with the biography, and the reader of a general article would want to see about the literature. They would know enough to go to the article about the author for the bios. It would have been, as I just said, the actually best way of dealing with the WP references to remove the duplicated text and link the name. That people didnt like the article affected the action. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

In stating that, you do realize that your suggestion is very close to the WP:TNT option if all of those biographical subsections are deleted. Since this is effectively equal to the solution previously put on the table by Drv participants, then I would like to offer to do the WP:TNT from the inside-out myself for the article. If you could restore the article as a Draft article under a new name "Draft:Poetry in the 21st century", then I will remove all of the biography subsections used in their entirety. This will effectively leave only the lead section and the outline structure for the rest to be then rewritten. This was only a "C"-class article anyway, and I would like to move forward with the option you are offering of straightforwardly removing all the WP:CWW biography material used and then rewriting/redrafting it along with WikiProjects as a Draft article. Also, I would mark the Talk page to inform other editors not to apply any WP:Content forking in the new article. MusicAngels (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing?

I would like you to run your mouse down this list of contributions - the popups will quickly show you that they are either all important (but not necessarily notable) hotels, or large numbers numbers of Wikilinks to them from other articles. The URLs of the sources all have that squeaky clean look. I haven't done anything yet. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It will take a while to check them all, but spot-checking,most of the edits seems to be minor adjustments, of the sort which are appropriate even for COI editors. Looking at articles they contributed themselves, Hilton Frankfurt Airport and Waldorf Astoria Berlin are not particularly promotional. More tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

paid editing deletions

I'm sure you've seen the outcome of this and this. Personally, I relist at least once before closing as no consensus, but this is an admin's prerogative and is not a reflection on the closer. What I'm more concerned with is that while Cunard's efforts to rescue such articles are laudable, such closures possibly deny us of much needed evidence for finding solutions to Orangemoody and other issues concerning blatant paid-for (or indeed any) promotion. Perhaps one could consider employing G13, G11, and G5 more broadly or more vigorously. Thoughts? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Cunard is taking the same approach I would have taken 6 years ago. I then argued that the most important thing is to have acceptable content, and how it got there is secondary. I still think that the ideal way of looking at it, if it were not for the current epidemic of paid editing (and the realization that it was there before, also, but we paid insufficient attention to it.) You & I have been assuming a deterrent effect. Cunard has challenged that assumption, and I can't prove him wrong. As you said, its "possibly deny us", but just possibly. Based on some discussions, perhaps what it's most likely to do is discourage pd eds. from giving money-back guarantees, but they will still be able to show portfolios of whatever of their work has not been deleted, including that done before they were detected.

Frankly, I am no longer willing to challenge on the grounds of having been started as paid editing any article that he will rewrite and take responsibility for; I started thinking in the course of the discussion that I am not sure my renoms of those two articles was justified.

G5 has never covered articles started before someone is blocked, or articles with substantial contributions by others. I can see permitting it retrospectively, but the sort of thing we're discussing would require removing the " substantial edits by others" part. I'm not sure I would support that.

G11 of course should be more consistently applied, but I am not sure what wording would make it stronger, as every article on an organization or its product will have some promotional effect., We could add something about "promotional intent", but this is hard to really prove.

I don't see what you propose to do with G13 to make it stronger. I still have my list of 500 or sos articles that shouldn't have been deleted but were because the contributor gave up after improper reviewing.

What we need to concentrate on I think is the notability standard for organizations. Even here, it's hard to think of how to reword it so it doesnt remove the clearly notable--our emphasis on the GNG prevents any rational work on this area. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There is already an extra-strict WP:NSOFT-essay, where three coverage-bursts are needed (not just three publishers). If the details of WP:NCORP-guideline are tweaked, so that three coverage-bursts (not just three published sources) are needed, that might ease some of the not-startup-type burden, since most startups only have one product, they get a coverage burst for their first funding round, a coverage-burst when their beta-product actually ships... and then have to wait around for that third coverage-burst (usually a second successful round of series B funding) prior to getting a dedicated wikipedia-article. In the case of Circle, they got their first burst in Oct&Nov'13, their second burst in Mar&May'14, and their third burst in Sep'14, plus their biggest burst yet in Apr&May of 2015. But if the WP:NCORP-guideline standards were shifted to require three bursts of coverage, spaced several months apart, then Circle (company) would have been a redlink (or more likely a WP:NOTEWORTHY mention under Bitcoin#companies methinks) for all of 2013 and most of 2014. Because they had a famous serial-entrepreneur founder, and got plenty of money early on, it would only have taken them a year of operation to get a wikipedia page... but that is still 12 months of WP:FAILN under the three-coverage-burst-test, used by WP:NSOFT-essay already. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

IP page creation

Were you aware of this? I wasn't. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability for bib databases

@Randykitty: Hallo David and Randy, I wonder whether either of you has any pointers towards notability criteria for bibliographic databases. Polymer Library, formerly Rapra Abstracts has been PRODded as failing WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY (?). It feels to me like something which ought to have a WP article, but ... any thoughts? You two seem the natural people to ask, and by pinging RK on this page I hope to avoid duplication of any effort! PamD 14:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Honestly? Nope, no idea. For the most important databases (like PubMed or the Arts and Humanities Citation Index) sources can be found without too much trouble. For the smaller ones, it's difficult. We have more database articles like this, none of them sufficiently sourced (just dependent sources for non-controversial info). In the present case, things are even more difficult, because "polymer library" is not an unambigous search term and gives many hits, but nothing really about this database. The links in the article don't help in establishing notability (the last one - STN - even seems to be a false positive as this library is not listed in the list of sources). Perhaps somebody from the Chemistry project would know of some sources? Curious what David will have to say about this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll add the refs I have at hand. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Worldreader

Hi DGG. I would like to delete any marketing or promotional content you think there might be on the Worldreader page Worldreader. I appreciate your decision to allow us to rewrite the page rather than deleting it, I will do the amendments required. Thanks! JuliaCelis (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 1. Try not duplicating the text and milestones list--it's best to remove the milestone list. Don't include minor milestones. Don't include the names of the authors and publishers and sponsors. (Do keep the list of languages) Replace most of the "Worldreader" with either "the organisation" or "it" . Don't include the founder's story of how he happened to think of it--such content is diagnostic of press releases. Don't use jargon like "solutions"or "centre-stage". Don't list details of platforms. Studieso n the rsults go in a separate section, near theend. 2. I'm also concerned about the article on the founder, David Risher. It contains much of the same content. 3. If you have any WP:Conflict of Interest, (as implied by the "us") remember that financial conflict of interest must be declared , according to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sierra Vista Mall

Do you think it's worth pursuing the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (3rd nomination) (by contacting the closer or possibly del rev)? The closer's argument is that there is no clear interpretation of what constitutes "local" vs. "regional" coverage (play to the semantics/letter of WP:AUD). I thought the arguments clearly stated how the mall's coverage was still of "local interest" (best evidenced by the fact of how its larger import could be unclear at all). – czar 14:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It rarely hurts to ask the closer, but I generally do not recommend taking a non-consensus close to Deletion Review, and , at Deletion Review, I rarely vote to overturn one unless it is truly perverse. .Just wait a few months and nominate again. But in any case the argument would be that publications serving the San Joaquin Valley are local not likely to have readers outside the valley; publications serving the State of California are regional, being of interest to neighboring states also; A major SF or LA paper read nationally is national. The Oakland Tribune is arguably more than local, and it is certainly outside the Valley, but Tribune Business News is not the Tribune. If one is going to get technical about wording, the rule is that at least one non-local source is needed, which implies that one source is not always enough. In practice, the result of mall decisions depends on how hard they are argued. W

More generally, the majority disputed afd decisions hinge on the exact interpretation of the sourcing rule, and in most such cases a decent argument can be made in either direction. That's why I support going by objective criteria. In the case of malls, size. We have failed several times to get consensus on a general rule. If we did, and it were > 1 million sq ft≈100,000 sq metres, this would be deleted with no argument; if it were 500,000 sq ft it would be kept with no argument. In either case the effort debating it could be used for more important purposes. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think sqft is the proper metric (assuming WP:42 is not enough of a metric already). Malls in the Boston area will be low-sqft, and that goes triple for malls in Hong Kong. By constrast, malls in Dallas or Minnesota (e.g. the Mall of America for a 'famous' example) will naturally have far more sqft, because real estate is cheaper and the dense-packed-mall-layouts are not necessary.

  Something like average-visitors-per-week ... or maybe peak-weekly-visitors-during-the-year to account for the seasonal nature of malls i.e. december 25th ... would be a better metric than sqft, and similarly, annual revenues is a good proxy for visitor-count slash mall-importance. Physically large does not equate well with wiki-notability, but number of people involved (or as a proxy number of dollars changing hands) does a better job methinks. If we do this, I recommend the visitor-count or dollar-count cutoff be low enough that at least one mall per tiny-city-of-population-10k is theoretically able to get a wikipedia article dedicated to the mall -- in the USA there are about 600 such tiny-cities, according to the KGB.[21] Or, actually that brings up another idea, see below. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

proposal: Businesses of Greater Clovis, California

  Or... now that I think of it... we could just use *that* as the threshold: every city with a population of 10k+ people, such as Charlotte Amalie would be permitted by the hypothetical WP:NSHOPPING wiki-notability guideline to have a safe-from-AfD article called Businesses in Charlotte Amalie. Such a 'listicle' would obviously include the 'major' malls (with WP:UNDUE being calculated based on sqft or visitor-count or most pragmatically revenues-per-annum since that latter figure is often available -- or simply in the usual wiki-fashion by the amount of ink spilled in wiki-reliable sources), as well as other major employers like hospitals/schools/banks, notable tourist traps, oft-reviewed restaurants, and such.

  Obviously, these business-in-XYZ-summary-articles will be a goldmine for linkspam, so if we go thataway, I would suggest beginning with a Businesses in CityName, CountryName guideline that sets a temporary initial threshold of 100k+ population minimum for the associated metro area; we even have an on-wiki list of such areas, and for the USA the total as of ~2008 was roughly 267 such medium-cities of 100k+ people (total of 295 as of July 2014 data). Borderline-notable mall articles and such, could be merged inot the business-of-XYZ articles, with exceptions for Mall of America and other not-borderline-exceptions. This temporary approach would cover about 90% of the states and territories in the USA... California where the Sierra Vista Mall is located tops the list with ~70 cities of 100k+ population in 2014:

• 6+: CA TX FL CO AZ NC IL VA WA MI NJ OH TN
• 4or5: CT GA KS MA MO NY PR AL IN LA NV OK OR PA UT
• 2or3: IA MN SC WI KY NE NM
• one: AK AR DC HI ID MD MS MT ND NH RI SD
• zero: AS DE GM ME NI VI VT WV WY

  Later, if that 100k+plan worked out, we could expand the threshold to include the additional ~~300 tiny-cities in the USA with 10k+ people through 99k people. Most of the states and territories exxcluded by the 100k+ rule, would be included by the 10k+ rule, including Charlotte Amalie, U.S. Virgin Islands which is the capitol and has 18k population nowadays.

  If the scheme *does* work, it could be a good recruiting tool for the type of editor naturally-interested in shopping and tourist attractions (plus editors WP:COI-interested in the retail industry and microeconomics), as I mentioned at the AfD for the mall. Furthermore, this scheme could also be a good way to help decide borderline-notability-questions about startups and such with WP:PRESERVE in mind... rather than a binary question of bangkeep or bangdelete, we would (almost always since I'm proposing a geography-based scheme) have the additional option of merging Circle_(company) into the Businesses in Greater Boston article that was a spinoff from Boston#Economy.

  And in fact, wikipedia already has Greater_Boston#Major_companies as a spinoff-list from Boston#Economy. So my proposal is that we expand that to be a spinoff-article that gives some details about the companies mentioned, then do the same Businesses of Greater CityName thing with 300 or 600 more cities, based on a population threshold of 100k+ or 10k+ respectively. Both thresholds would permit bangmerging Sierra Vista Mall into a broader Businesses of Greater Clovis, California article ... which at population 102k people just makes the upper threshold.

  Anyways, food for thought here mostly. Ping User:Czar, User:Brianhe, User:Widefox, User:Kudpung, and User:CorporateM, who may have comments about this crazy proposal.  ;-)     p.s. Not sure if DGG wants to host a big discussion, here on User:DGG talkspace, please let me know if you'd rather see this taken elsewhere DGG. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

All I can see is the COI hell that would inevitably result from these sorts of lists (many more anons adding their businesses than caring about an esoteric guideline). More concretely, I don't think a NSHOPPING guideline would ever pass consensus—especially since I think (or hope?) we're moving in the other direction (away from content-specific guidelines) post-OrangeMoody. I'd also say that these types of articles are closer to directories in function (what Wikipedia is not). If any such article was necessary, it would need to extend naturally (in summary style) from the city/town article's "Businesses" section. czar 15:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I submit to you that we are already in the COI hell of which you speak.  :-)     Orangemoody was a symptom: the only way even wiki-notable companies like Countly can get their articles approved, is by spending months and months learning all the wiki-policies, or by hiring some kind of wiki-consultant for cold hard cash. Because the COI-handling-facilities are so borked, we are quickly tilting the wiki-culture towards forcing honest disclosed-COI-editors into retirement, which will leave only the dishonest undisclosed bad apples. Agree about avoiding WP:NOTDIR, and agree about extending the Clovis, California#Economy section in summary-style, but disagree that WP:NOTEWORTHY is that hard even for a reasonably tiny business to surmount. The idea here is that the Businesses in Greater Clovis articles will become a place where

• #1) we can put 'quasi-local' organizations like the Sierra Vista Mall, that will be better-watched by the anti-COI-hawks than a dedicated Sierra Vista Mall article possibly could, and
• #2) we can also upmerge borderline-wiki-notable startups like Countly into Businesses of Greater Istanbul (or Greater Long since they have relocated to London nowadays), rather than let them molder in AfC as potential victims.
• There is even the possibility that #3) companies who clearly pass WP:GNG, such as Circle_(company) and the other bitcoin startups, could be down-merged into a paragraph of the appropriate city.

I'm not arguing this idea is a panacea of bliss, there will still be plenty of COI-encumbered clueless wiki-beginners (not all of them IP-anons dern it! ;-) but I think it is a better way to manage things than the hardline approach to handling COI, which I will unfairly mischaracterize as ban-'em-all-and-let-the-great-jimbo-sort-out-the-wiki-bodies. See my argument at the AfD, that the mall-article (and the businesses-of-xyz even more so) could be #4) a recruiting-tool... this is an expansion on that, which will also double as a way to mitigate the COI-encumbrance-problem, by putting all the COI-eggs into one basket, as it were. Whether it is a better idea, than what we are quickly moving towards, remains to be seen, but I do agree it is different from what we are quickly moving towards. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOT business listing COI magnet, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Suggest AfC or some other place is better location for discussing new articles (no idea why I'm pinged). Widefox; talk 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no way of preventing promotionalism in an encycopedia that permits anonymous editing. There is no way of preventing undisclosed COI editing either, for the same reason. We have been able to detect those we have, because they've not understood editing here well enough to avoid detection--and because all edits on borderline notable subjects of certain types clearly merit investigation. If we lower the standard of notability, it will be all the easier for them.

We are not in great need of people who will write on local subjects; we are not in need of people who will write on barely notable subjects. We are in need of people who can write on the clearly notable subjects that not enough people have been interested in, and the obvious area properly receiving current attention here is our continuing gender bias. But what we need even more are people who can rewrite the existing promotional editing on the clearly notable subjects. Almost all articles on major corporations and nonprofit organizations need complete rewriting. They've been contaminated by PR from various sources: the PR people who have written many of the articles, the volunteers who write like PR editors because they think that's what we want here, and the inevitably PR writing based on the RW sources being PR in the first place.

It's unfortunate that a few honest paid editors have gotten undue suspicion. But, quite frankly, I would very strongly support eliminating all paid editing whatsoever. Their fundamental mission is not really compatible with a NPOV encycopedia.

However, the proposition that we write as volunteers basic factual articles on all clearly notable organizations is a reasonable idea. If we do it, we shouldstart at the top, not see how far we can go to the bottom. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well expressed. The only substitute for the editorial supervision that Wikipedia of necessity lacks is to depend on high quality sources that do have editorial supervision that insists on fact checking, a skeptical attitude toward press releases, and disclosure of COIs. The most reliable of sources are characterized by strict insistence on declaring C.O.I.s, and even the appearance of C.O.I.s, and the use of press releases as no more than sources of questions to ask. The more time spent working on articles written from a source-rich environment (the truly notable), the better our instincts become for working in less information-rich environments. This should be the starting point for pulling out the effects of systemic bias by developing skepticism toward hand-outs and coi claims. (The NYT public editor has just written a piece on two Times published book reviews in which the reviewers assigned had undisclosed COIs).

Wikipedia needs properly sourced articles on corporations—for completeness; the same reason Wikipedia needs any article. But not so much that non-NPOV, poorly sourced articles need be allowed. Wikipedia has accessibility, reliability, and completeness to offer. Completeness is getting out ahead of reliability—this is a perversion of our goals. While it may be admirable to strive for completeness (an impossible goal), reliability back-stopped by adequate cites to WP:RS is existential. —Neonorange (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Edward Boyd Barrett may intrigue you

The contributing editor asserts that the gentleman is important, yet a reclusive character. To me that may be a disqualifier or may be a paradox we can solve. I have a suspicion you enjoy things outside the run of the mill and might enjoy chasing material on this chap down, assuming it is possible to find it. I'm about to ping you from the AFCH entry so you can get the full picture from the editor concerned.

Of course, you may throw up your hands in horror and decline the challenge! Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of MicroAssist Article

Hi, DGG. I got a notification that the article I created for MicroAssist has been deleted because of promotional content. This is my first time write content on WK and I'm not quite sure what kind of content should be considered promotional and advertising. I don't mean to violate WK polices but could you please let me know where I can find more specific and detailed guide on how to make a page for company? I tried to use neutral words and state facts. I've linked some content back to our website. Is it the major problem we have? I really hope that I can create an article that fulfill all requirements of Wk. Please let me know how I can improve my content

Thanks,

Jessica--Jessicahuma (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Inherited notability

....

I don't agree with the inherited notability argument above, or that notability can be measured by job title or award. Her notability can be established using the traditional method of evaluating sources, which in my view is the only basis from which notability should be measured. However, I don't question her notability, only whether her publication being nominated for this particular award is significant enough to warrant inclusion in her profile. I wasn't sure what you meant to say in this regard. Is the National Magazine Award known to the public? David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 02:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What I think is the correct way to look at inherited notability is that the fact that a person is notable, doesn't mean that everything they do is notable; even a notable person does many less important things. But the way a person becomes notable is by doing important things, so that someone who has done sufficiently important things is notable. The nearest formally recognized analogy here is WP:PROF, where being editor in chief of a major journal is fully sufficient proof of notability. I would extend that to all media. The National Magazine Award certainly wasn't known to me before I looked at this. Based on the information in our article, i would say winning one should certainly be included. For finalist, it needs the recognition of the Nobel or the Booker or the Academy Award. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

General concept of whether there should be an article

...

Basic principle from WP:N--passing the GNG does not guarantee an article if it is more appropriate as a section in another article. And there of many other factors for whether an articles should be made: for example, avoiding the appearance of promotionalism or over-emphasis or just plain COI. The way to avoid these for someone notable for a single accomplishment/book/organization is whether to make the article on the accomplishment/book/organization or the person. (I usually see it for books and authors). If an author has written several notable but not famous books, I usually suggest that author, with sections for the books, which can be expanded if they're highly notable. If an author has one, I usuAlly recommend doing it on the person also, because if one books is successful, they are likely to write others. But if the book is much better known, which a first book may well be, then the book. This is a case where the restaurant is the better known. If you wrote one on the author also, it would duplicate much of the material, because you'd have to explain something about the restaurant. Such duplication looks like promotionalism, & can attract negative attention. If one just linked that part, the article would seem too scanty even if technically justifiable, and thus attract unfavorable attention.

Since there are many people here who can make a negative case against anything, and some who have a prejudice against any particular class of article or subject field, the best thing is to not attract them. I deprecate the GNG altogether--for any disputed article I can argue either way whether any reference is substantially about the subject, whether it is truly independent, whether it is based on PR, whether it is in essence a true 3rd party source. I choose which way to argue based on the result I think will help the encyclopedia (by which I of course mean my vision of what will help the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiConference

Nice to meet you --Fjmustak (talk)

WikiCon USA Notability section

Nice meeting you and discussing this topic. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hollie Steel

I think in the confusion caused when a chunk of your talk page was hacked out accidentally by someone, you might have forgotten about closing the merge discussion! --Dweller (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia cross-language COI survey

Hi DGG, I haven't forgotten about my promise to share with you the questions for the research project previewed at WikiConUSA this month! However, I was traveling and haven't had a chance to do so until now, and I've placed the questions into an Etherpad here: COI Languages Survey. This is meant to be view-only (although I don't think Etherpad does that) so if you know anyone who is interested in taking the survey itself, send them to this Google Forms questionnaire. And if anyone doesn't use Google (we've heard from one or two) I can provide a separate link, which would be again Etherpad. Cheers, WWB (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

general response on Orangemoody socks

The difficult problem is is how to handle potential articles on the people & companies who have been exploited by the undeclared page editors. Most of the time, the problem does not arise: For orangemoody, 5% at most were likely to be notable ; in previous editing rings, the percentage has ranged from 10% all the way down to zero, depending on the general subject area. Aside from these large rings, there has also been use of undeclared paid editing by actually notable business concerns, sometimes with existing articles--most of the time, they knew very well what they were doing was deceitful, even before the clarification in our terms of service. In any case, I really do not see how anyone can ever have deluded themselves that paying to have an article written about themselves in an encycopedia was ethical, or that any respectable encycopedia would have staff who would accept such payment. True, a great many of those exploited did in perfect honesty not fact realize we were other than an advertising medium; some of the fault for this is in the promotion-ridden commercialized nature of society, but some is in our own lax prior practices.

In those cases where a subject is actually highly notable, I think the only reasonable solution is for someone here to write an article in the ordinary way. In most cases, I would advocate waiting at least 6 or 12 months, to avoid giving the impression that we do not remove paid articles. If someone is borderline notable, it as always will depend if anyone is interested, but my personal inclination is that I have other priorities: the truly notable subjects that are not covered. A practical question is whether the deleted material can be furnished to reliable editors prepared to rewrite. I think this would be subject to discretion, and anyone doing this needs to check that the material is not simply reinserted in altered form. (It would actually be a violation of copyright to do that without giving proper attribution to the paid editor!)

If someone else submits obvious coi material without a declaration of coi, the priority is to check for another member of the ring of sockpuppets, not to see if we can have the article. This is best done by one of the admins at spi; one of the main reasons I became an admin was to check deleted material. For articles written with a coi, deleting is more likely to be needed than rescuing.

...

Several of the checkusers have worked with these in detail, and they're the experts in this in general. But those of us who work with particular types of subjects gain special experience at recognizing problems with them. There have been , and will be, other rings, tho so far some of the Orangemoody techniques are thankfully unique. The attempt at promotional articles will always be a problem , if we retain open editing and anonymous users. The problem intensifies as the RW importance of getting a WP page increases. All we can do is try to reduce a combination of various means to try and reduce the impact. One key step has been taken: the current terms of use, and the general recognition here that they are enforceable policy. There are a variety of other possibilities, and I'd expect everything anyone can think of to be considered. One key change requires no change in written policy, and is a matter of outr individual attitudes: to interpret the notability requirements much more strictly in susceptible fields. There are some areas where we should stop accepting borderline articles if they show signs of promotionalism or promotional intent or possible sockpuppettry. So I argue at AfDs, and the position is often supported. I therefore do not agree with 75.'s efforts at trying to rescue such articles--they are better simply gotten rid of. The time spent in trying to fix them is counterproductive in two ways: it encourages the promotional editors, and it prevents us doing more useful work, such as writing the hundreds of thousands of needed articles on notable people, or maintaining the articles we have already. (I shared 75'a attitude for several years when I first came here, but with the rise in promotionalism my priority is now the opposite, and least in some subjects--including even some of my favorite fields.) The time spent on this article, and one lower down on the page in the last week or so, has made me resolve that I will no longer help promotional editors, unless the subject is so famous I'd write the article myself. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

re: companies in Russia, etc.

I understand where you are coming from, systemic bias, our difficulty to locate sources if they exist, etc. Perhaps we should focus on languages we can speak. The amount of spam is really disheartening, though. Anyway, I am fine with deprodding, as long as you leave the notability tag for future consideration (maybe in 5-10 years somebody will review those articles again). Cheers, PS. For the record, pl wiki is extremly inclusive. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andoria-Mot, why this was kept here is beyond me. Pl wiki discussion was a travesty, people kept saying the company is important, but nobody cares about sources. The best I found was a single blog post, but that, plus the company owns website and an existence of an old-vehicle fan-forum section about its products were enough to keep it. Ridiculous. Would you mind doing me a favor, looking into this and perhaps starting a 2nd AfD? This company made some engines, but so what? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

that afd was one of the 100s of examples of no-consensus because of insufficient participation. 6 or 7 years ago, I tried to follow every afd in fields I understood, but I can no longer do that. You'll have noticed a few other eds. tries to inform me here of some such potential situations before the expected close, and I try to look at most of them and say something, which of course is not always what might be expected. I can't do many more than I do now, but I can do some. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Here you are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andoria-Mot (2nd nomination) - almost two weeks and again, only one comment... will you take a look? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth

David, I just wanted to say that you are one of the biggest disappointments of this extremely disappointing ArbCom class. Resign. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Carrite (talk · contribs): Perhaps you mean that I should have done more. While I have discovered I can not do as much as I intended, I think I'm accomplishing more than if I had left the committee. But if you mean that my effect has been a net negative, I think I have come to understand the problems we are faced with better than you do. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erker's Optical

I was about to do a 2nd nom AfD, but I see you voted keep. Not impressed by your rationale there... and I don't see much in sources. Would you care to revisit this? People were confused about sources about a person vs. the company; for the latter I see nothing but strictly local coverage, and that fails NCOMP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I continue to think that all historic companies are notable. What counts as historic varies, and an 1879 firm in St Louis is not obviously historic, but their web page which is the source of the biz journal article says they were "This first optical lab west of the Mississippi". If this can be documented , they are notable. sources for such things are specialized, and I'm not capable of finding them adequately. I'm certainly not capable of doing it quickly. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think first business-of-its-type in Fooland (or Fooland's province) is automatically notable, not unless it would generate coverage of that fact by proper (non-local) sources. Otherwise we enter slippery slope - keep this company because it's the oldest barber shop in Smallville, this one because it is the largest, this one because it has the most employees... Those days I need to look no further then Category:United States company stubs to despair, there are so many categories like this, filled with 50-90% of what I consider pure spam. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hey Dave, I wanted to know if you've ever been at the edge of retiring or ever thought of it? Considering you've been here for almost ten years as have I, there must've been times you had the impulse of retiring. I ask because I certainly have come and go in that time and although I sincerely appreciate this website and its concept (and I get hooked in periods here and there as I have recently, I always get walled by some eventual drama), the unnecessary and tiring drama simply seems to be unavoidable sometimes. Frankly, I think the fact several people have serious health troubles affects this sometimes especially if it's mental and psychological. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I never thought I'd say it, but I find that I am considerably more reluctant each day to start editing WP. In general the inevitable frustration of the way this system necessarily works can be dealt with by moving from one area to another, but I may be beginning to feel that I've done as much here as I can. Perhaps the fault is arb com, where the public work is frustrating for we almost never actually solve any problem (at least, nothing we've done this year has helped much), and the private discussions which are the bulk of the actual work are not just frustrating but distinctly unpleasant for me, as I generally find myself in a very small minority--I had not realized the extent of the focus on narrow legalism rather than substance. I only remain on the committee in the hope that the new arbs will be more willing to think in terms of benefit to the encycopedia, not in terms of what people "deserve." Of all the places in WP where IAR has a role, it is most relevant to the work of the committee, which has much greater powers of discretion than any individual admin. I suppose having said this much, I should emphasize that personally, I very much like every one of them whom I know--they're much more human outside the committee. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it is wiki-kosher for arbs to name specific usernames, that they would like as new arbs, but if so, please write up a voterguide, DGG. Or if you prefer, just toss out the names you had in mind, or even, the generic criteria that you are looking for. I too would like to see more IAR on the committee, although I also like the arbcom folks I'm familiar with, present company very much included. But it is a hard and thankless job. ( I will contradict my own flat statement by saying, thanks for doing what you can, it is appreciated.) In particular, nobody wants to do the arbcom thing; it is a huge timesink to run, and like a super-RfA tends to attract mostly new critics and little praise. Even if you "win" you tend to be the focus-point of much angst and many complaints. Point being, DGG, if you are permitted by your wiki-honour to urge people to run, that you think would be good arbs, in whatever fashion, please do so. Same goes for your compadres, if you can ask that they speak out. There are some folks already announcing candidacies at WP:ACE2015/C, but Yunshui just retired, and none of the arbs up for re-election have yet put forth their names. Because it has been such a hard year, this is an important arb-election methinks. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Precious again, your not supporting to lose the valuable admin service of Yngvadottir!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wine

	A glass of wine for you
	Thanks for all you do! Heathart (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Article cleanup?

Hey DGG, I was wondering about that article cleanup you wanted me to help with. I know you were going to send me an e-mail giving me examples of what needed to be changed, but I don't think I ever got it. I was wondering if you still wanted me to do it or not. It'll likely have to wait until after school lets out, since I remember you saying it was going to be pretty time consuming. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ben-Ami Shulman

David- thanks so much for your invaluable help! I look forward to many sessions BEN-AMI SHULMAN (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Help again if you please

I would appreciate if you gave any necessary insight with these low-trafficked AfDs (this week's worth): .... I want to thank you again for your recent work, immense patience and efforts even going through the daily AfD log which somewhat surprised me. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Old Portage Road (New York)

You saved this from CSD13. After a slight clean up / rename, it's in mainspace at Old Portage Road (New York). FeatherPluma (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

FeatherPluma, thanks for picking up on it--all I did was repeatedly decline to delete by G13 in the hope someone would see it. I'd be very interested to know how you spotted it because on our our recurrent problems with AfC is how to get the drafts worked on by other than the original editors. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I would also be curious to know the answer to how FeatherPluma found this topic. There are three ways to get drafts worked on by people other than the original editors:

1. Attract other long-haul wikipedians to work the AfC queue, by making the work more attractive (tried and failed... long-haul people who wanna work AfC already know where to find it)
2. Change the AfC-submission template, so that as soon as the author clicks 'submit' ... or even before they click submit ... they can see a selection of other articles sitting in the AfC queue, and the usernames of the authors/originators associated with those other AfC articles. The template could explicitly suggest helping other good-faith wikipedians in the queue, by saying something like "Thank you for submitting your article to be reviewed! The queue is currently N days and NNN articles long. While you are waiting, you can help other people in the queue improve *their* articles, if you like -- this would be very WP:NICE of you, and might even speed up the queue." This method is a slight variation on how User:Anne_Delong got started as a wikipedian, so it might even work, although of course there will be some aspect of the blind-leading-the-blind.
3. Something a bit more risky: mainspace anything that ought to be an article, regardless of the current state of the prose and the refs, then undelete it per IAR, when the inevitable insta-deletion occurs (N.B. this method only works if you are a sitting arb with the heft to make your undeletions per WP:ILIKEIT actually stick :-)

User:Kudpung also has put forth the option, of merging NPP with AfC, so as to automagically have the NPP folks help with tagging/rating/patrolling/etc the draftspace articles; whether this counts as "getting the drafts worked on" will partly depend upon the definition of "work" one opts to utilize. Certainly it would bring more *eyeballs* to draftspace generally and the AfC subset thereof specifically. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• There are lots of things that haven't been tried yet. One more thing that could be done to attract people to drafts would be to alter the search engine software so that if someone typed "Son of Foo", and there was no article, but there was "Draft:Son of Foo", then instead of saying "You can start the Son of Foo article, it would say "You can improve Draft:Son of Foo and help it become an article" or some such. Or how about a "Today's abandoned draft for improvement"? And there are more ideas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. But if you are going to suggest that editors improve each other's drafts, I would not make it automatic, but have a template that reviewers and Teahouse hosts could selectively drop on the talk pages of editors who appear to have made a good start - maybe to this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions/List.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me on wikiD New York writing workshop yesterday. Elf-I-D (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You are the best in helping as well as in editing. Kudos! Josu4u (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate content for a university page

Hi, DGG. I was reading the page of Case Western Reserve University, and it seems to me that it's getting to be more like a promotional webpage than an encyclopedia article. Since you work with a lot of these types of subjects, maybe you can tell me if it's appropriate to include noted alumni in the lead, and a long list of academic rankings. I also don't understand the section called Undergraduate Profile. Am I just getting too fussy?—Anne Delong (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Almost all university pages in WP are similar to PR. There are two types: when the whole thing is an integrated PR effort, or -- like here -- where particularly PR-like sections are added to specific parts of an acceptable basic skeleton. And a third type, where either the central PR or the PR forthe individual unitshave tried to write separation pages for everything possible. There was one university which tried to write an article for the expanded quonset hut they used for a placement center. & another for the building where they stored the maintenance equipment. Enthusiastic students can do just as bad, but they do it differently:I;veseen articles for individual floors in a residence hall, and I think once for an individual suite.

It is normal to include the 2 or 3 most famous alumni in the lede--the appropriate standard I think is world famous. That they put the computer entrepreneurs there instead of the Nobel laureates says something about priorities. The academic rankings, alas, are standard. At least they're in the proper location, near the bottom. I did some tinkering, but I've seen worse. If I fixed them all, I could do nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG for taking the time to look at it.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Women scientists

Hi DGG. In your detailed assessment of the acceptability of the article on Rhonda Patrick, you tell us "There is an unfortunate undercoverage of notable women scientists, and there are thousands of notable ones to include. We should fill this by starting from the most notable." Can you share with us at least a few of the names (or direct us to pertinent sources) as we are currently engaged in a virtual editathon on women in science. It is not unreasonable to expect at least a thousand new start-class articles on women scientists over the next few weeks or months. If you wish, you can add red links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women science and technology. If not, simply list names here or on my talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree this should be done. I am not sure I have time to do it. I can provide some guidelines for anyone wanting to do it. Note that they apply to women academics in general, not just scientists. I do not make a differentiation here in what I work on & perhaps you might want to consider this also.

(1) anyone who is president of a major college or university is notable. There are some obvious colleges to check here. tho some had male presidents in the past, and a few of the most impt seem to be done already. Checking a few, Simmons hasn't been done.

(2) Anyone in the Institute of Medicine or National Academy of Sciences or NAEngineering is notable. There should be a number in the IOM and NAS at least, who may not yet have been covered.

(3) All people in all distinguished named chairs are always notable. The lists in some appropriate colleges should be checked,

(4) Though it isn't a formal rule, essentially all full professors at a major university have in the past been held notable-- except in some traditionally female-dominated fields such as home economics or education or librarianship. I consider this a major inequity, and an indication of true bias at WP. I'm prepared to defend any article on anyone in such a position. I've lost some of these debates in the past. I hope things have changed. Please let me know of any challenged articles here, because this part is a high priority for me. I'm going to revisit the afds I lost in the past.

(5). There a problem with the first women in X field in Y place. It's fine if X and Y are big enough. The first women chemist in a country, for example. If it's the first women faculty member in synthetic inorganic chemistry in a particular state college, then it's not so obvious.

(6). Academics are easy to screen , because there is a formal internal hierarchy. Grad students are almost never notable, post docs very rarely, asst. professors usually not, associate professors usually not tho I disagree with the consensus here and thing they should be, and full, almost always.

(7)In fields where books show academic notability, WP:AUTHOR can be a very useful & flexible criterion.

I also intend to try to verify the existing red links on that page, & I will leave comments. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these guidelines. I had the impression from your earlier comments that you had some specific names in mind. I see now that I was mistaken. Rather than spending your time on examining the notability of red links, I think it would be much more useful if you could add a few names to the red links on scientists -- or indeed any other of the categories listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Tasks. Maybe you would even like to create one or two new articles yourself? It would be great if you could join the current editathon with at least one article based on your notability criteria.--Ipigott (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

They are not my notability criteria -- they are my advice about what has been found to happen here in hundreds of afd discussions to be notable. The advice, as all my advice, is very conservative: it represents what should be safely notable and not challenged, not what might be possibly found notable in a particular discussion by strength of argument or chance of participation. My advice, not limited to this subject, is that people working on these projects should start out be choosing safe subjects, to avoid having a disappointing first experience. With sufficient experience, one can then try to stretch the boundaries a little -- but if one does that, one should be prepared to lose the argument without getting angry about it, or taking it as a lack of understanding on the part of the other participants. AfD can be unpredictable, and my predictive accuracy is not perfect, even when I know I'm right. When I know I'm testing to see if consensus has changed, I pick a point where I expect to succeed about 2/3 the time. To work here, one has to accept that not everything will go as it ought to.

If the question is what I think WP should include, that's another matter entirely.

Almost since my start here eight years ago, I do not generally write articles I want to, but rather on those which need rescue. As you can see from this page, so many people ask for help with their problems that this is my priority. (And it's where I can be most helpful--I'm not particularly creative, but I do know how to fix things.) At projects such as editathons, what I prefer to do is to check that what people are writing is OK; I do it in person in NYC, and I'll do it here for anyone who asks me. Everyone here works on what they want to, and that is what I've chosen. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

New users, drafts, and thanks

I am researching the effect of welcoming new users. Thus there are a lot of User talk: pages I created on my watchlist. It is a little depressing to see so many of them coming through with their drafts being deleted G13 six months after they join - but your messages that drafts have been accepted is a ray of sunshine. Thanks for that!

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC).

Policy change opinion

I believe there should be a sensible balance between deletion and creation of articles which balanced. What is your opinion about requiring an article historically kepted through AfD to undergo a DRV process before renomination as well? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

excess bureaucracy. It is already well established that there has to be a reasonable time between nominations, and that thistime increases after successive keeps. We haven't been able to mandate specific months or years, but we no longer seethe 6 or 7 times repeated attempts to delete an article we did when I joined. consensus can and does change, and afds are where the action is. What they need for fairer & more consistent decisions is more participation, and that's what we should focus on. If you are referring to Fastwalkers, I don'rt see it was kept by previous afds. The recent one is the first. If you have some other article in mind, what article is that? DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It was something I noticed in general not related with Fastwalkers. I believe certain situations which require deleted articles to go through DRV, should apply to kept articles as well. It was a question I pondered when I read Emijrp's sum of human knowledge which calculates that there are at least 104 million notable articles that should exist here, we are at a mere 5 million. The reason is the flaw of human nature inherent in us all. While we are all here to built an encyclopedia we are also here to ensure our views prevail, after all, ego is unavoidable. The degree which we suffer varies. Some people become defensive to the point they refuse to admit a mistake was made, protect their views knowing it is incorrect, find petty reasons to maintain it and then mobbing, as you eloquently put it, occurs. There are those who edit to expressive themselves by content creation and others through content deletion and much like defense and offense in combat, defense (being reactive) has its advantages. If the growth of Wikipedia is to be maintained policy needs to favor content creation and entice new editors.

Right now, policy favors deletion and impends the rate of content creation. It may take a hundred editors to create an article, but only one to delete it. To combat this, policy should be changed to favor inclusion. AfD by nature favors deletion, modifying policies to slightly favor inclusion brings natural balance. Requiring a DRV process for renomiation seems like a sensible start we could avoid situations like OpEdNews where a single editor refuses to admit error and attempts to have content removed perhaps in hopes previous participants are occupied elsewhere.

Another idea is to make AfD closure numerically based. For example, we could require a minimum amount of participation from established editors before discussion is valid. The AfD nominator's opinion should accounted and their vote discounted, after all he is looking for the agreement of others, this prevents articles with little to no discussion from being deleted. This of course should not apply to promotional or vanity articles, but NPOV articles with secondary sources. Fewer the participants means higher probability of missed sources and errors. Perhaps a new close called lack of discussion which defaults to keep could be included and applied to articles which have secondary sources. Of course discretion should be applied in exceptional cases. In the end, numbers don't lie, minimum AfD participation requirements could partially remove human bias and error. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 08:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the main/sub-article relationship project

Hi DGG,

Thanks for replying to our page in the Village pump. I've created a Meta:Research page which details the research questions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship Of course, you are welcome to take our survey and/or give us feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah90 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

h-index

I wanted to look up some h-indexs for professors on Google Scholar, what is the general recommend level for notability and how would I do this using google scholar? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Look for their name in the form "FM Last", not their full name. The results will be in approximate descending order by the number of citations. Sort out those references that are to web sites, non-academic journals, newspaper articles, and the like. Th h index is the highest number where are that many papers with that least that many citations: r.g., if the counts as typical for a probably not notable biomedical scientist, are:

40, 35, 33, 30, 29, 27, 26, 25, 24, 22, 21, 21, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13,12, 12, 12, 11, 10, 8, 5, ....... their h=16, because there are 16 papers that have been cited 16 times or more. I report these counts saying just that italicized phrase, rather than report it as an index ,because it is clearer in words..

But the h index can be deceptive. Consider another biomedical scientist, almost certainly notable:

190, 180, 170, 60, 30, 10 , 5, 5, 4, 3 .... . For them, the h=6.

But which is the more notable? The h index emphasises doing a great deal of not very important work, over people who do a smaller amont of extremely important work. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Latinas & WW2

Hi, I don't fully understand what's happening here: after the discussion to delete, the article name within the discussion went from blue to red (from memory) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Latinas_and_world_war_II however I noticed this morning an edit on my watchlist on Latinas and World War II. On closer inspection, the history of the article is consistent with one that's never been deleted rather than one that's been re-instated. Only thing I can think of is that there's a minor formatting difference - the capitalisation of the Ws. As I'm quite new to the back-end of wiki, I wasn't sure how to trace the audit trail of deletion and post-deletion activity. thanks Rayman60 (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Rayman60 Here is what seems to have happened: Latinas_and_world_war_II contained very little content, and what content there was present was a duplication of content in the more general article, Hispanics in World War II. As nobody seemed interested in improving it, it was accordingly deleted, as is the usual course of things here . Rather than someone stepping forward to work on it, another article was started, as is perfectly legitimate, and called Latinas and World War II. It appears to have significant content that is not just a duplication, and there is no reason to delete it. If there were significant content in the originally deleted article, the two could be combined via what we call a history merge, tomerge the edit histories, but there doesn't seem to be enough to be worth doing this.

The thing to do now is to work on expanding then new article. From the format, it may be the work of a class. If so, please ask for assistance in setting it up properly as a class project , at the WP:Education noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm not the creator or editor of the article, I was involved in the deletion discussion. I see now that there were two articles, one with small caps 'w' in World and War, and one with capitals. The one with capitals was created after the deletion debate began but I think some of the points raised were in reference to the still-live version rather than now-deleted one. The original editor who is writing as part of a school project has returned with new edits after a brief hiatus, but not sure whether the discussions on the deletion page are still valid. Rayman60 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30#Vu Digital

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu Digital (2nd nomination), you supported deletion and the AfD was closed as "delete". At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30#Vu Digital, I asked for the community's permission to restore the history under the redirect so I can merge material to C Spire Wireless, the parent company.

I will only merge material sourced to TechCrunch, Mississippi Business Journal, Broadcasting & Cable, and The Clarion-Ledger, which all pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I will not merge any material sourced only to press releases or sources that fail Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Would you support this? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Mississippi and other local business journals I consider never reliable for notability , as they just reprint what the company sends them and show no selectivity in the companies they cover. . I think the sameabout local newspapers from the area the company is located, just asI am for local authors. More controversially, I am no longer sure about TeleChruch--too many of the stories are basically PR, I recognize the impossibility of cleanly separating PR from unbiased news in this and many other fields, which is one more reason why I wish we could get rid of the WP:GNG guideline in favor of abstract standards. Then we could say: this company has so much in sales, of has a >X% market share, & is therefore notable.

more practically, how about a more general article on "video-to-data"? DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Button makers

Hey, because of L. Nichols Buttons AfD, I was wondering, "Does Wikipedia actually have any button makers of notability?" I didn't find anything, but I keep thinking that that can't be right! Thanks! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There should be sources. It was in the NYC garment trade a distinctly separate industry. There are probably sources on historic manufacturers also. But in checking, beware: most of the material I can find on WorldCat is about political pin-on buttons, not buttons fro garments, and most of the rest about buttons for military uniforms. But see: Newberger, Edward Louis. The Button Industry in the United States. Haworth, N.J.: St. Johann Press, 1998. and Jones, W. Unite. The Button Industry. London: Sir I. Pitman & Sons, 1924. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

So, then I'm getting that Wikipedia has zero articles on button makers. Correct?! (Except that one currently being deleted, that is!) --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

In the NYC trade, the firms were mostly very small; I think it quite possible that none were notable. I have no knowledge elsewhere. Nut has several dozen elevant books listed in addition to the oes I already identified, in particular Jones, Nora Owens, and Edith Mattison Fuoss. Black Glass Buttons. Ypsilanti, Mich: University lithoprinters, 1945. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a fascinating and worthwhile topic. While a modern invention such as zippers will tend to have notable manufacturers associated with the project -- see, e.g., the Wikipedia article on the YKK Group -- the button is one of those objects that's long been so familiar that its history is obscure. Important button makers do pop up in conjunction with subjects that are notable for other reasons or as an incidental mention in a larger discussion; for instance, the button makers of Birmingham are mentioned in the article on Matthew Boulton, while the button making industry of Muscatine, Iowa is discussed in the page on that town, and the storied royal button maker Firmin & Sons has its own page, even if buttons get only a brief mention. (For more background on Firmin & buttons, check out its website [22]. However, one could argue that separate pages could be made for companies or regional button-making industries such as these due to their significant historical impact; the Birmingham button makers were recently the subject of a book by economist George Selgin -- Good Money: Birmingham Button Makers, the Royal Mint, and the Beginnings of Modern Coinage, 1775-1821; the Arcadia Images of America series has a well-researched book on Muscatine's Pearl Button Industry; and Slate had a nice general overview of other key developments [23] Maybe the folks at The Button Room museum, the National Button Society, or the British Button Society would be interested in buttressing the button history here, assuming they have access to even more research. In the meantime, I'm going to see if I can dig a little deeper on L. Nichols. Fashionethics (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Need some advice on Christopher Yanov

Hi DGG. I need some advice on Christopher Yanov. I've been looking at some articles that appear to have been created by the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm but have as yet been undetected. See my recent comments in this section of Risker's talk page for background. This article fits in with the usual modus operandi of the socks - springs fully formed and formatted from "new" editor, extensive and often misleading reference padding [24], created first as a redirect [25], marked as reviewed by a confirmed Orangemoody sock [26]. Some of them are obviously non-notable, e.g. Paperstone and Neumarkets, both of which I have prodded. This one is more borderline. While he did found a locally notable charity, Reality Changers, the coverage of him as an individual is quite poor, almost all of it is for the charity (not him) or interviews with him, or self-written. It seems to be plugging his (as yet) unpublished book. Any ideas of what to do with it? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

My advice is to mark all articles where there is strong behavioral evidence should be deleted, by G5, Banned user, unless the person is so important that it is worth rescuing. Even then, I wait 6 months before re-creating. But let me check with Risker. DGG (talk ) 21:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should wait to hear from Risker. Not being an admin, I am particularly reluctant to mark these articles with G5 if the creator hasn't been "officially" blocked as as a sock. That's why I'm wondering if I should file SPIs on the probable socks I'm finding. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be a good idea to file a SPI,becaue the information will add to the net of puppets, and might help identify others. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I've opened the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody. The PROD was removed from Neumarkets and Paperstone and I've sent them to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neumarkets and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paperstone. In the interim, I've redirected Christopher Yanov to Reality Changers. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Gonstead technique

What is your opinion with chiropractics coverage? This technique is the third most common in this field. I do agree a chiropractics is a form of quackery, but should be have some coverage on major techniques. I think this passes our GNG guidelines, but some editors deny the use of sources from within the field, what is your opinions on this? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

bias and prejudice, is what I think it. I commented there, though without using those words. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks DGG, ideal solution and we keep an emerging editor. Well Done Victuallers (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on deleted page

Hello there, I recently submitted an article for the European Aeronautics Science Network (EASN). Another version was submitted by a different user during the summer and it was deleted after discussion because of notability criteria. Being personally involved in aeronautics, I recognize the network as one of the main contributors on its research with focus on academia. I have therefore submitted a new version and included a list of external-third party sources in order to support its notability. The article was deleted again by User: Dennis Brown who I contacted in order to request some information on how I could proceed with this, but he is currently not as active in Wikipedia. As you were originally involved in the first article [27] I would like your feedback on the above. I have gathered a list of external links and references showing the recognition of the network by the European Commission, but I am afraid that if I submit a similar article again, it will be deleted on the premise that it was deleted before. Could you please advise me on the matter? Thank you in advance Mr2t7bv (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Mr2t7bv

Mr2t7bv, the best course is to write at Draft:European Aeronautics Science Network a revised article with fully satisfactory references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. When done, ask me to review it. My apologies for the delay in responding. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Generation Alpha

Hi there,

First of all I apologize in advance as I am new in wikipedia editing and I am not even sure if I should post my reply here. I received a proposed deletion message of a recent article which I created (named "Generation Alpha").

You mentioned two reasons for the proposed deletion.

1. Neologism The term "Generation Alpha" refers to something new which did not existed before. So by definition we would need to use some kind of neologism since we are trying to describe something new. But at the same time this necessary neologism is in line, extending and following a long "tradition" of how generations are categorised and named, making it a neologism only partially and by necessity as per above. So based on the above this should not be an argument for deletion.

2. Inadequate sources You are right and I added some additional sources which I found. Hope this is more complete now and I would be happy to hear your view as well.

Thank you very much Yannis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannis Sot (talk • contribs) 10:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yannis SotWhat's the context in XYZ? All you said was "has appeared in"  ? All together, this does not seem to add up to notability unless there's a good deal more to be found. There is a long tradition of how generations are named, but we need some evidence that this is a widely used name, not just a suggestion or neologism that has not yet come into widespread use. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC) .

Draft Andreas Anton

Hi there. I am not sure how to react on the draft. For me its good to go, but there has not been any reaction since your last comment on Draft:Andreas Anton some weeks ago. Shall I just put it in the artcile space? Polentarion Talk 16:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Polentarion. thanks for reminding me. I've started adjusting the text to use a more idiomatic English style. I have some questions about phrasing that appears to me somewhat ambiguous, at least in English. For example, What is "a more reflected UFO-research." ? Does "more reflexive" mean more scientific, more academic, more accurate (and more accurate in what way?), more throughly researched, more heavily studied? In addition, although not required, it would really help if there were some English language references. At least, please, expand the abbreviations in the reference list, such as "hpd,"

And in general, the article remains somewhat ambiguous about his actual position. This really does beed to be clarified, as it is likely to be listed for a deletion discussion, as is frequently the case for those involved in parapsychology. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC) .

Parse founders / notability

Hello, you deleted one of the founders of Parse (company) but reversed the deletion of the other (Tikhon Bernstam). They are comparable. Can you undelete or bring them to parity?

Mschmidt47 (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Mschmidt47, I think Bernstein is notable as founder of Scribd, which is much more impt. than Perse. But Sukhar was deleted only by PROD, and can be restored on request. I gather you would like to do that, so I will. I will also send it to WP:AFD for a discussion to obtain consensus, which is how we decide. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilya Sukhar. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Paper Mart Deletion

Hi DGG, I previously created a page for a national company called Paper Mart which was subsequently nominated for speedy deletion, which you followed through with. I understand now the issue of duplication (I had been under the impression that citing the page with overlapping phrases as a source was sufficient, especially since it was the company's own website. In any case, I have rewritten the article without duplication and have also provided more references and information to show the company's notability. I am letting you know as I was about to recreate the page but noticed the message that I should contact the editor who deleted the page. I am not sure if I should ask to have the page restored or if I should enter the version anew. I am very new to Wikipedia so I appreciate your patience. Should I just post the new version?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paper_Mart&action=edit&redlink=1 21:51, 12 December 2015 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Paper Mart (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.papermart.com/History, {{{url2}}}, {{{url3}}})

JamesLeary (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

JamesLeary, a copyvio version cannot be restored. Place your new version in Draft space as Draft:Paper Mart, and I will look at it. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

DGG, I just did so. Please let me know what you think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paper_Mart JamesLeary (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I've done a little cleanup. The problem is that most of the sources are mere notices, or trivial, or press releases. I do not think that without something much more substantial this will make an acceptable article. DGG ( talk ) 09:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Generation Alpha

What is the status of your proposed deletion of the Generation Alpha article? I agree with you. The article probably should be merged into Generation Z as some sources are starting it (Alpha Gen) as early as the year 2000. At this point, it's a marketing term that is being used to segment parts of Generation Z. We merged the "Pluralistic Generation" ("Plurals") into Gen Z and it's actually worked out pretty good. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

[[User::2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8|

2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8]] Thanks for clarifying this. I added the merge tag. Please expand on the rationale, which you will find on the article to which the merge should be made, Generation Z. If nobody objects, then do it. If they do, discuss. If you need help doing it , ask me. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you weigh in on the discussion support or oppose please and why? 2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you tell me when we could merge the Alpha article into Generation Z please? Can you do it? 2606:6000:610A:9000:B8E5:EA11:1C26:8BB3 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

We normally wait one month for comments. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been about a month, could you merge the Gen Alpha article into the Gen Z article based on the talk page consensus please? Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:64D9:8D26:B2B7:7C54 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Just checking in about this request to merge the articles. Could you handle it? Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:D4A1:F521:9922:7B15 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Self citation

I got the impression you may be familiar with the McKinsey Quarterly and I know you are also interested in several related topics (self-citation COI, improving business pages, etc.), so I thought I would bring this RSN post to your attention in case you were interested and/or had an expert contribution to the topic. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 17:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I never knew it existed until this moment, but I'll look at the discussion. (I just read some of the articles, which seem excellent; their greatest virtue is clarity.) DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The "Articles" tend to focus on McKinsey's recommendations ("China should do XYZ"). This is good information for current or prospective clients to see what type of recommendations they make, but I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia and as an involved party in their own recommendations, that's a bit primary. However, if you click "Download the Full Report," those usually have mountains of data deeper into the report about market sizes, global economy, demographics, etc. that I think could be useful in improving core business pages. I don't think it's boastful when McKinsey claims in the report to have collected the best available data on the subject - this is what they are known for. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 01:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Tzvetan Simeonov

Not fellow ofor honorary member of any academic society.

It is clearly visible and from the article that he is Founding member or a Honorary member. Together with the all other honorary members, the list with the names is the link to the society honorary members "past presidents, founding members and founding council".

No published papers in GScholar or REPEC. Not editor in chief of a journal

Most likely the reason is the avoidance of conflicts of interests between academics in respect to every publication since they are all publishing their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwriter1231 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Founding member has to be of a notable society. And are you seriously asserting that he has not published any ascertainable articles because other people do publish articles? DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

i'm not sure if he had no published articles, however he have elected honorary membership in scholarly society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwriter1231 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Saturday January 16: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference

Saturday January 16: Wikipedia Day NYC 2016

You are invited to join us at New York University for Wikipedia Day NYC 2016, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference as part of Wikipedia 15, the project's global 15th birthday festivities. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. Saturday January 16 Wikipedia Day NYC 2016 (RSVP on-wiki or at bit.ly/wikiday15). 10:00am - 7:00 pm at NYU ITP Tisch School of the Arts, 721 Broadway (between Waverly and Washington Place) We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Iterable (company) page

Hi - I saw you deleted the page I had created on Iterable (company). I understand there may be differing opinions on allowing companies to have pages on Wikipedia. I can understand arguments on both sides. My problem if any would be that the policy seems to be highly inconsistent. The Iterable (company) page was deleted, while there are pages like these that are allowed to remain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leanplum and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahuna_(company) . So my question is - how come we were marked and deleted, while others are not? Thanks for the response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviditer (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The article had only Telecrunce and Venturebeat. the others have additional sources beyond that. Even so, I'm not sure about them. There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Mahboub Baccouch

This is an unsourced autobiography (apparently) of an associate professor. I CSD A-7'd it, then reverted as it has what could be classed as assertions of importance ("conducting top quality research"), although nothing which would qualify as a notable academic. I've BLP PRODded it, but what do you think (as the/an expert on academic biogs)? CSD? AfD? PamD 23:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

it would be easy enough to provide basic sourcing to meet BLPPROD (google Scholar + the university website), but the publication record is not yet at the level that will conceivably pass WP:PROF, so I added an ordinary prod. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

... which has been removed along with my BLP PROD (which was legitimately removed as the author/subject has added a few links to his departmental page, list of refs, etc). Not sure what the protocol is for replacing your PROD! PamD 17:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Since anyone may remove a PROD, the only thing to do is afd: It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahboub Baccouch DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The article has now been rewritten and sourced by an independent editor who reckons Baccouch is notable - could you have a look and comment at the AfD? Thanks. PamD 21:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

William Hare (author)

Hi DGG, I'm dropping you a note because of your prior involvement in cleaning up the article; I think the recent likely autobiographical edits can be deleted en masse, but prefer to bring it to wider attention rather than do the Christmas Eve carving myself. Wishing you Happy Holidays. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC2E:9C35:B399:A9E0 (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Collingridge Wheeler

Wow that was quick! Had you noticed the draft already before I pinged you? --Hegvald (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

no, but i saw immediately there was an obituary in the London Times, and this is enough for notability. The article can be improved subsequently. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Too many drafts get arbitrarily dismissed by reviewers. Sometimes authors continue to work on them, sometimes they just give up. Reviewers, like new page patrolers, often seem to lack significant track records of actual content creation of their own. --Hegvald (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It's actually a different skill that article creation; I've discussed so many thousands of AfDs that I know what the key factors are, and I've looked at so many thousands of drafts and new articles that I have developed an eye for things that quickly show notability -- or that make it unlikely. The comment you made about look for reviews would be helpful in any case and is really more fundamental. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

• Draft:"Turan" lyceum-school
• Draft:James Omura
• Draft:Veronica Grey
• Draft:Yitshak Zohar
• Draft:Ze'ev Yavetz
• Draft:¡Así Kotama! The Flutes of Otavalo, Ecuador

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Alain Ducellier

Thank you for expanding the article with appropriate information. Happy holidays!DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Articles

I have some other articles that seem questionable, quite so that they may need actually need deleting, and need evaluating so I thought you could look at them: Derek McCormack, M. Elizabeth Graue, Bennie Osburn, Dia Cha, Hédi Bouraoui, Lois Banner, Julia R. Burdge, James Neuberger, Ernst Strüngmann Institute, Mohd Noh Dalimin and Song Ho-young. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

clearly notable

McCormack is vice-chancellor of Auckland University of Technology, that is, the head of a significant university. (In the UK etc., chancellor is just the ceremonial head). Nothing else is needed for notability under WP;PROF.

Graue holds a named chair at a major research university. Meets WP:PROF even if nothing else is stated.

Osbourne is head of a veterinary school. Likehead of a med school, that's notable by itself.

Bouraoui has an honorary doctorate from a recognized university. That's a major award.

Banner is an eritus full professor at a major univerity with multiple books. They're non-academic books, but from good publishers. almost certainly OK, but needs checking.

uncertain

Ernst Strüngmann Institute is uncertain. The two heads of the institute are famous. For Wolf Singe, we need a translation of the deWP article on him, much more than we need this article, but I'm not sure what to do about this article

Burge might seem to meet one of the less well-know WP:PROF special criteria, being co-author of a very widely used textbook, I'd even say a famous textbook,but she is not the principal author or the author who established it as famous. I can only verify her being one of the coauthors for the 8, 9th and 12th of the 13 editions. I need to check the other textbooks. I will probably list this for afd, but there may be a debate.

Mohd Noh Dalimin is head of a university, but it may not be an internationally important university. I need to check its standing. (his previous university was much less not important ).

probably not

Dia Cha is another matter. the awards are relatively trivial, the article is puffery, and "" is not a RS for notability , I will need to check publications just in case.

Song Ho-young. The problem is what do about the national level awards. I would argue that they do not show notability under WP:PROf, for the standardof notability there is international. But some might think it meets the GNG. Thearticles is horribly promotional , but its easy enough to remove the excess. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks again for your continuous work! But what about James Neuberger? Also, I found others: Jonathan Bach, Michael O'Connell (botanist), Patricia Fara, William Doyle (historian), Glenn Laffel (this particular one seems to mainly only be a physician), Moshe Gottesman (listed as "Dean Emeritus"?), Robert Bates (political scientist), Michael I. Krauss, Michael McElroy (scientist) (this particular one also needs work) and lastly Ram Phal Hooda.

I'm also not sure of Gary Gottlieb as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam so far found several links (using "Gary Gottlieb Partners in Health") but the article would certainly need work if improvable so I'm not sure if AfD is needed. I'm also not sure of Robert Wood (psychologist) and I happen to see you made a few changes in November 2012. I have found several more but they're about authors instead but I'll list one here: Gerald H. Jennings as I'm not able to gather if he's solidly notable. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

general guidelines

All academic bios need a check for for copypaste against their university web p. whether or not listed in their bio and whether or not indexed by Google.

Anyone with article publications needs a check to see if they might be enough for notability--it often can not be told from the article.

certainly notable

Fara , as author at least

Doyle -- anyone with multiple books published by OUP is certainly notable.

Bates -- everyone who holds a named chair at Harvard is notable--but seems like copypaste .

McElroy -- everyone who holds a named chair at Harvard is notable. Stub, but does not particularly need work--it's a viable stub that unambiguously shows notability & we can wait for someone to expand it.

Gottlieb -- unquestionably notable but needs ck for promotionalism, Institue of Medicine is equivalent to National Academy of Sciences & is sufficient without need for anything else shown.

Jennings --everyone who has described multiple species is is notable--this can be assumed from the CV, but does need to be stated.

probably Notable

Bach --needs ck on publications

O'Connor

Lafell, but needs rewriting for promotionalism

Wood,, as author.

Probably not

Neuberger --needs ck on publication record just in case

Kraus -- and very highly promotional. again, needs ck on publication record just in case

Hoods, vice-c, but the universities need checking. if minor, could be challenged

Details and workup in a few days. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

subjective criteria and afd

hi david,

I hope this is an appropriate space to ask about how to improve an AfD(if not please let me know !), and also to clarify your viewpoint on what is surely a subjective criteria. in regards to a comment that you made about inclusion in a museum collection being a reasonable criteria for notability. the guidelines here dont make a distinction as to the merit of a particular museum or gallery. suffice to say that i mostly agree with your assessment of the particular institution in question,you fail to back your claim with a reasonable argument. please advise so i can best respond thank you!

I hope this is an appropriate space to ask about how to improve an AfD(if not please let me know !), and also to clarify your viewpoint on what is surely a subjective criteria. in regards to a comment that you made about inclusion in a museum collection being a reasonable criteria for notability. the guidelines here dont make a distinction as to the merit of a particular museum or gallery. suffice to say that i mostly agree with your assessment of the particular institution in question,you fail to back your claim with a reasonable argument. please advise so i can best respond thank you!

	+	

Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

DRV to AfD

Is it considered standard procedure to ping prior editors involved when an DRV is closed as relist, are there any examples of this happening in the past? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I consider it good procedure. I don't know if it is actually required, but it should be. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It has happened (including where I was actually notified) and I myself would like to be, especially if it was a subject I frequently comment at such as businesses and companies, biographies, etc. SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I haven't seen it before so it could be utilized more. I am not sure what to do anymore in regards to this AfD, obviously if this fails I won't touch article again. The amount of heat and off wiki harassment is enough. But I do feel that authority is the only way to override this going forward. This AfD highlights mobbing at the highest level, when editors see the number of attempts at restoration they become increasingly defensive with each incarnation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk · contribs) and Casliber (talk · contribs) are the only two editors that had any legitimate reasoning for there vote to delete and I appreciated that. The rest of the editors appear to be there to attack me and the article and have created an environment so hostile that editors supporting this concept are afraid to speak their mind. Editors appears to have ignored the fact that I went through DRV and garnered overwhelming support from even Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) himself who not only favored inclusion, but strongly supported it. The inherent bias now makes this AfD flawed. Cunard (talk · contribs)'s strong sourcing and well reasoned policy based inclusion seems to be ignored. Any editor reading the wall of text before his post is going to be bias or reserved about supporting this. I am not sure what to do next and have considered pinging all Arbcom members to see if they consider this entire debate historic to improving Wikipedia. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's personal. Besides any particular prejudice against this particular topic, WP can show a remarkable degree of prejudice against some sexual topics. Like many individuals and organizations, WP's willingness to accept such things is in principle very broad, but in practice is limited to what people are familiar or comfortable with. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Pushpay

Thanks for your constructive criticism of Pushpay. I would welcome some constructive suggestions to address some of the perceived issues with my initial post on the page. VCandPEInvestor (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

commented on the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Mahboub Baccouch

Hello DGG, please provide your opinion on this AfD: Mahboub Baccouch. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Question for you.

Hi, DGG. I've been watching you on Wikipedia for a while, and it led me to ask this question: Does WP have a mentorship program that you know of, and if so, where? I'm not new to the project, but I still feel like a new editor and never really have any idea how or where to contribute. The Teahouse seems geared more towards general "welcome to Wikipedia" topics, whereas I'm not sure that would help. I came to you because you seem rather knowledgeable about the inner workings of this place ... any ideas or suggestions you could offer, I would greatly appreciate. Thank you for your time. Lithorien (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016

peace bell

Thanks for your support in 2015, - ring the peace bell often! - Look for hidden music by Bach, Sibelius and Verdi! Love the latter especially, great to begin the new year with Verdi's wisdom ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

COI/N on OzBioMan articles

Hi, you left a message for User:OzBioMan raising a concern about potential COI. In addition, the users' articles have no third-party sources. See User talk:OzBioMan#Need for third-party sources. --Macrakis (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:OzBioMan#Need_for_third-party_sources

Huljich Brothers article needs some work

Hi DGG, thank you for your patience in assisting me with previous edits relating to New Zealand businesses and businesspeople. There is a page that I feel needs some significant work, but I am mindful that the page has been previously subjecting to some kind of edit war and evidently, some sock puppetry as well (it would seem someone with a direct interest has been trying to use the article to create newsworthiness). The article is Huljich brothers, who are a very high net worth family in New Zealand involved in some large NZX listed companies. I have suggested on the Talk:Huljich_brothers page a number of proposed edits I think are useful, but no-one has yet responded. Should I go ahead and make the edits I have suggested, or is there a better way you might suggest? PragmaticOutcome (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure that an article on the family is justified. We already have articles on one of the three Paul Huljich and on the family firm Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd. But the edits you propose would improve the page, so make them, and ask me to look again. The article on Paul needs some major attention, from considerations of BLP and advertising, as well as whether he is actually a notable author. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I have made a number of changes as I outlined. Would appreciate your thoughts. Hopefully there is enough there to justify a page rather than outright deletion (or reversion to the old article that was warred over). PragmaticOutcome (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

06:22:25, 5 January 2016 review of submission by DwayneJAlexander

• DwayneJAlexander (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Andrew Howard Barnes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi DGG I am Dwayne Alexander , let me know if you have time to review the massively reduced article on Andrew Howard Barnes, particularly the philanthropic focus on impact on war medals etc.

Happy to discuss

Regards

Dwayne Alexander

I will look tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What to do

In regards to this Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination) accusation, I am not sure how to proceed. I've left Spartaz a message, and sent Arb Com an email though I am not sure I used the right email. I think it is vital to the discussion that I find out who the accuser is. Is it an anon IP or is there an established user behind this and can this information be provided? Just for the record whatever "evidence" their is has been completely fabricated I've never heard of those editors and I never go to random inactive editors for advice. Any established editor knows that these thing harm a discussion not help it. This accusation is again going to distort the AfD, perhaps that was the purpose. Canvassing for this always occurred in favor of deletion not inclusion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

?

Hi DGG: Your recent edit at User talk:SwisterTwister removed around 28 kB of content there (diff). Was the content removal in error? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

fixed DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Milan Vitek

What happened to the history of Milan Vitek? --Hegvald (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

will fix DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Green Spaces in Freiburg

Hi DGG. In class we talked about our site Green Spaces in Freiburg being up for deletion. As we are all new to Wikipedia: Do you have any suggestions what we can do to keep the site? Thank you very much in advance. Evemuriel (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Evemuriel, I commented, and what I said should settle it, though the community decision at an AfD can be unpredictable. The most important thing you can do now is to add the references from the de WP article. The en WP always wants the actual references there, from the very start. They should have been added immediately; do it as soon as possible, and then go back to the AfD and say so . It might also help to use a little less detail, and more descriptive writing. And don't include really minor events just because you have a reference for them, since you do have good references. (German references are perfectly OK, but they do have to be put in our format--the fields in the deWP reference structure will give error messages if they are just pasted in DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Common Movement for Development

Hello DGG. I think you might have misread the prod rationale on Common Movement for Development. The party did not win a seat in the elections, which is why I prodded it (I agree that any party that does win seats is notable, but this is not the case here). The information in the article is false and unreferenced (a reference to the actual results was provided in the prod). Could you reinstate it please? Thanks, Number 57 17:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I see from Paul Biyoghé Mba that it needs to be reworded. Perhaps . Paul Biyoghé Mba, elected to the parliament under the PDG, retained this seat after he split from the PDG to form the MCD in 1994 & held the seat until 1996 . As a member of the party he won a seat in the Senate for 1997-1998, and was a member of the party when a Minister, 1999-2002, when it merged back into the PDG." DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, this seems quite odd. The party isn't listed as winning a seat in the Senate in the 1997 elections according to the IPU, but is listed as holding a Senate seat here. I'm happy it's notable now, but there's a lot of contradictory information out there (I've found sources stating it was established in 1990 and 1994...). I'll try and expand the article. Number 57 18:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

White Lies (1996 film)

DGG, are you really sure about publishing White Lies (1996 film) from AFC? I'm not sure why nor whether it would pass WP:NFILMS. Are you just going by the fact there were reviews? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I think it has a good chance at AfD, but the only way to is find out is to nominate it. The German article has several reviews, and there are probably more to be found in English language sources. which is the standard for passing AfC--a much higher standard than "just passing Speedy", but less than, "will surely pass AfD. (The German article is also more extensive, but almost all of it is just a detailed description of the plot). I am in general very reluctant to not accept articles that are accepted in the deWP , which has a more rigorous standard of notability than ours.

More generally, how "good chance" is defined is an unsettled question. The actual AfC guideline says more likely than not, which I and almost everyone working at approving AfCs thinks is much too low. What I would give as my advice on this is 75%, but in practice I an be much surer of the likelihood in some fields than others. I have sometimes accepted an article and sent it direct to afd for a determination. I have not infrequently send articles other good people have accepted there also. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Aroon Shenoy
• Draft:Bristol Law Journal
• Draft:Bronfman Center for Jewish Student Life at NYU
• Draft:Bruce Piasecki
• Draft:Bulacan State University College of Criminal Justice Education
• Draft:Burger & Jacobi Pianos
• Draft:Butte Knit
• Draft:Child marriage in South Sudan
• Draft:Clean Plate
• Draft:Climate change in Kiribati
• Draft:Independent animation in the UK
• Draft:International Society for Philosophers
• Draft:John Miller (printer)
• Draft:Leque Island
• Draft:Martin L. Beck, Architect, Professor of Architecture, Princeton University
• Draft:Mel Gilden (writer)
• Draft:Myronn Hardy
• Draft:Narender Nath
• Draft:Nimod, Rajasthan

• Draft:NIMT Group of Institutions
• Draft:North American Invasive Species Network (NAISN)
• Draft:Patricia Bracewell
• Draft:Paul Levitt
• Draft:Pohnpei Bell Tower
• Draft:Prof. Rabi Nanda Bhaumik
• Draft:Second Life research
• Draft:Thangavelu Engineering College
• Draft:The Dear Departed
• Draft:William Wiser (writer)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chi-Dooh (Skip) Li
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Therapy
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Colegio Euroamericano
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Contemporary Architecture Practice
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Burke
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dana Klisanin
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Darley Cliffe Hall
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David A. Schultz
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Thomas Albert Brockwell
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lloyd J. Reynolds

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Defense of Plava and Gucia

Please join the discussion at the talk page if you have anything relevant to add to it. The article has serious issues and should have been put up for speedy deletion, but is given time to discuss the numerous issues it has - some of which are POV, OR and wildly inaccurate and unreliable sources it provides. Please do not remove the warning(s) unilaterally, and wait for the consensus to be reached among the involved editors. Thanks. Sideshow Bob 10:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone may remove a prod tag for any reason. I removed it because it is not a suitable way of settling disputes over content, because it does not lead to adiscussion. I warn you not to repace it a second time. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Acquire Business Process Outsourcing
• Draft:Brian Van Arkadie
• Draft:Cartoon and caricature in Bangladesh
• Draft:Charles E. Dagit Jr.
• Draft:College of Veterinary Science, Hyderabad
• Draft:Depletion precipitation (chemistry concept)
• Draft:Dissimilar Metal Design
• Draft:John Dyer
• Draft:John Pope
• Draft:Patrick G. Maggitti
• Draft:William Wilkens

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

07:56:25, 16 January 2016 review of submission by Lily Prigioniero

• Lily Prigioniero (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pompea Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please give me a specific example (at least one sentence) that sounds like a "press release". It is vital that this article is edited to qualifications as there is a tremendous lack of live women represented in wikipedia. Thank you.

1. avoid adjectives or phrases of praise or quality: especially vague one like "one of the largest" "mini-empire" "major accomplishments" 2. avoid jargon: "to educate and empower" "sought the opportunity to negotiate" "An impetus for Smith to continue her dedication" 3. avoid related organizations' web pages as source , e.g Hollywood Farmers Market, See LA; avoid Vimeo, utube. 4. avoid PR sources, such as business newswire 5 avoid extensive quotes from her saying how important her work is 6. avoid bullet points 7. avoid repeated statements of mission 8. Don't refer to her by her first name alone -- and don't repeat her name so much. 9. don't use minor material like being a panelist

The Hollywood Farmers Market is probably notable--that's what most of the good references are about. I'm not sure about her. Her awards are minor & local.

Also, do you have a conflict of interest with her or her work? If so, you must declare it. DGG ( talk )

Redirects becoming articles

Here you are my friend: Special:AbuseFilter/342. Let's look into re-enabling, it'd be good to have the log for review, even if they are mostly constructive. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Turns out the page curation tool already picks up articles that become redirects. Not sure how, but I did some tests, and it works. This means they will appear in Special:NewPagesFeed. Now all we have to do is tackle that 1000+ page backlog :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Keba Gotti

Hi DGG. I don't know if you have an OTRS account, but if you do, you may want to check out ticket #2016011610014594.

You recently deleted the article Kebo Gotti as G11. It's an established article with a history going back years, but has suffered from uncorrected vandalism for several months, substantially altering the content. The version you deleted was indeed worth deleting. But looking back in the deleted history, the damage appears to have started after last April. That April version is definitely not promotional, therefore it didn't qualify for G11 deletion. It should have been restored to the older version.

The subject has some notability concerns, but it isn't clear-cut due to the artist contributing to a song that made the Billboard charts. If it is to be deleted, it should be via AFD, not speedy.

Do you agree? ~Amatulić (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an OTRS volunteer; I will check. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Amatulic I am about to restore the latest clean version I can find, alongwith the earlier history, and remove some BLP information that does not seem to be sourced. Please reply, but urge the individual not to make further edits themselves, which are likely to only harm the article. Whether someone in this field is notable or not is a question I leave to those who know the subject better. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, DGG! I am the OTRS volunteer who got the ticket in the first place. I will advise the client according to your statement. And thank you for undeleting (I am sure the relevant "legal team" of the record company will be glad to hear it). KDS4444^Talk 11:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

U:KDS4444, that's why I asked you to reply, rather than replying on OTRS myself. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

carola insolera

i just created this link to give credit to this amazing model (translation in english is provided). please let me know if it helps: https://insoleracarola.wordpress.com

I also have added the "visual language expression" paragraph on the model's wikipedia page. it might explain it better.

Busasu (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

see your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: i just replied to you in my talk page. i would pleasure very much if you can give me feedbacks re how i can improve the article and have it back. btw, what is your opinion about the "visual language expression" paragraph?

Busasu (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no way you can improve this content to write an acceptable article until there are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The various websites usedas references are none of them reliable for this purpose. You need newspaper or magazine articles in recognized periodicals,print or online. You are trying to do publicty for her. WP is an encyclopedia , and encyclopedias do not do that. There's no point in asking me further until then. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi! re: feb 4th editathon

Hi! I'm back at it... will be hosting another editathon on Feb 4th, this time in Charlotte... trying to do once a week for all of February. Just thought I'd let you know in case you were available by phone or something to help new editors. I'll do the user names again, but so far I have only found one person locally who has any experience and he can only stay an hour. Or if you know anyone. Thanks!!--Heathart (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion in a research presentation

Hi DGG. I've been building robust measures of productivity for Wikipedia editors. I'd like to use your edit history as an example when demonstrating the measures. See my write-up of the general measurement strategy here: m:Research:Measuring edit productivity. See my notes on your productivity here: m:Research_talk:Measuring_edit_productivity/Work_log/2016-01-18. TL;DR: It looks like your contributions to Wikipedia have been consistent since 2006. This stands in contrast to the bursty activity of me and Jimbo Wales. You've also contributed several orders of magnitude more productive content than I have (2.5 million vs. 17k "persisting words"). ;)

I'd like to present these graphs and the discussion you see beneath them at the January version of the mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase tomorrow. Would that be OK? --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

EpochFailCertainly you can include it. I note that when I retired from Princeton & LIU as a librarian, I discovered Wikipedia, and after a few months experience, consciously determined to make a consistent almost full-time effort. There are others in similar positions. For some of us in my age group, various life factors have caused periods of inactivity, but that has not happened to me. Anecdotally, I've seen that for some of our members in the 30s to 50s, periods of their activity in WP have coincided with periods of their unemployment. Analogously, it's long been known to librarians that increased library use is seen during periods of economic depression.

I have one question that is not clear from your graphs: is your data coming only from Article space? I ask because I would have thought that more of my activity in recent years has been elsewhere. And I am only 98th in the count of WPedians by number of edits. My rank in that table has risen only very slowly over the years DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC) which would confirm your hypothesis that the other highly active editors are also consistently active. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm only looking at article space, but I would imagine that your work on drafts would eventually lead toward article space. Generally, measuring productive contribution outside of articles is very difficult, but something that I hope we'll have some good new thoughts about. E.g. productivity on templates may be related to template usage. Talk page productivity would be much more difficult to track, but I imagine that we can at least flag obviously unproductive discussion posts automatically using machine learning and natural language processing.

I haven't done any sort of ranking for Wikipedians by this measure of productivity yet, but when I do, I'll get back to you. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

for Drafts, when I accept an article that needs fixing, sometimes I make my edits on the Draft and then move to mainspace, but equally often I will move to mainspace and fix it there (especially if I want to use visual editor, which I prefer for finding the correct internal links to add) DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

del why?

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Pai_Lin — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeSeaBlueDogJueyin (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

HeSeaBlueDogJueyin This is the English language Wikipedia.Article on the Portuguese Wikipedia must be discussed there, not here. DGG ( talk ) 11:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

why cant have in en.wik too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeSeaBlueDogJueyin (talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Because someone will have to translate it: you can add a page request red link in the WP:Requested articles Project section with the proposed title of the article and add an interwiki link to the foreign-language Wikipedia page(s). DGG ( talk ) 12:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG. pt:Liu Pai Lin, of which Liu Jen Yu was a verbatim translation, has most of the faults of the deleted article, very poorly referenced, a lot of original research, overly detailed, and not neutrally worded. Having said that, he was quite notable in Brazil. It was not helpful of HeSeaBlueDogJueyin to try to create the article here under the name he used in China, since he is widely known (and only known) in Brazil as Liu Pai Lin. I could create a brief, neutrally worded and referenced bio. However, I'm not sure I could face the inevitable (?) attempts to subsequently turn it back into the lengthy morass that it was. Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

this writing that was Chengfu yang student must have information on the page Chengfu yang global en.wik language so that everyone knows — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeSeaBlueDogJueyin (talk • contribs) 15:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

fine with me, but someone has to write an English article or translate the Portuguese one into English. This is the English Wikipedia, and our articles are in English. Thee's no point asking me, because I don't know Portuguese. I already told you how to ask for a translation. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Immediate deletion of start.me article

Hi DGG. You deleted the start.me page without discussion, even without putting it on the speedy deletion discussion list. I would like to protest both. First of all, the article is just as relevant as articles on similar services (cf. Protopage, igHome, Netvibes and Symbaloo). Some of these sites have lower site ranks and less visitors. That would indicate to me that start.me is sufficiently relevant. Secondly: it would have be polite to ask first and put the article on the nomination for speedy deletion, rather than directly deleting it (which I consider very rude). So please undo the deletion and if you insist, put it on the speedy deletion discussion list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michieldewit (talk • contribs) 06:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Michieldewit: I've posted a bit elsewhere, but here's an answer to things. First, not all pages have to go through a full deletion discussion. If something meets speedy deletion criteria then it can (and usually will) be quickly deleted without any discussion. There was a post put on your userpage notifying you of the deletion. I'm aware that not everyone logs on in time to contest the deletion, but permission and discussion is not required with speedy deletions. Secondly, the existence of other pages that assert less notability does not mean that other pages should automatically remain on Wikipedia. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Those pages might need to be deleted or they might pass notability criteria for whatever reason. Finally, companies/services are not automatically notable because they exist (WP:ITEXISTS) and you need to provide sourcing that is independent of the company/service that would assert notability - this is usually established via news articles and reviews about the service. I also need to warn you that you need to be up front about your association with the service (ie, that you're one of its owners/founders). This might seem obvious by your name, but you still need to be transparent about things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Also, press releases cannot show notability, nor can passing mentions in blogs or postings in self-published sources. I did do a quick search and offhand I'm really not seeing much out there. It's possible that coverage could be in other language (sourcing does not have to be in English) but so far I don't see where this would necessarily pass notability guidelines. It's up to DGG whether or not to restore it to the draftspace or take it to AfD, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• @Tokyogirl79: Let me cite some coverage that you may have missed (Michieldewit (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)):
  • "6 Browser Extensions That'll Make You Way More Productive At Work". Forbes.com. Forbes. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  • "Start-Seite für Chrome-Browser neu gestalten". N24.de. N24. Retrieved 21 January 2016. (German)
  • "start.me". producthunt.com. Product Hunt. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  • "Mailbag: What to do when your favorite personal home page disappears". The Denver Post. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  • "37 Life-Changingly Useful Websites You Should Know About". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  • "iGoogleAlternatives: A comprehensive review of iGoogle Alternatives and Replacements". iGoogleAlternatives. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  • "Miss iGoogle? Don't Worry, Start.ME is Here!". .ME. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  • "194. Start.me: Al uw online bronnen en internetadressen altijd en overal op overzichtelijke wijze beschikbaar". ICT-Idee. Retrieved 21 January 2016. (Dutch)
  • "Start.me - Persoonlijke startpagina in de cloud". ComputerIdee. Retrieved 21 January 2016. (Dutch)
  • "Finding an iGoogle Replacement". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  • "Persoonlijke startpagina". Consumentenbond Digitaalgids (January / February 2015): 41. January 2015.

Almost all of these are merely incidental mention, and will not support an article. Which of them exactly do you think meet the requirement of being references providing substantial coverage from' third-party independent reliable sources , but not press releases or mere announcements ? DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC) (By the way, according to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure,if you have any conflict on interest with the subject you are reqyured to disclose it.

• Part of what concerns me here is that he doesn't seem to understand how Wikipedia defines a conflict of interest, so that's something I'm going to more clearly define on his talk page along with a rundown of the sourcing that gives an explanation as to why they would likely not be able to establish notability if this was taken to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Michieldewit, almost all of these are mere mentions. You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements Which of these do you think actually qualify?

And, in case it should apply,I remind you of our rules about WP:Conflict of Interest, and our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• DGG: It looks as if this CSD somehow slipped through the net as I can't see a notification at User talk:Michieldewit or in its page history, or in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Start.me. Apart from the usefulness of notifying the creating editor, those talk page notifications are sometimes very useful for non-admins trying to look at the history of a newly-created article as they're evidence of existence of a previous version (if it gets CSD'd and then re-created). PamD 10:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Start.me

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Start.me. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Andréas Christo-Foroux
• Draft:Blood Brothers (novel)
• Draft:Chandraprabha Saikiani
• Draft:Charles Hewett
• Draft:Children's Savings Accounts
• Draft:Clarence D. Martin Jr.
• Draft:Common pool resources
• Draft:Continuing Church of God
• Draft:Council for Opportunity in Education
• Draft:De novo protein synthesis theory of memory formation
• Draft:De Paul School Brahmapur
• Draft:Democratic Left Front of Sri Lanka
• Draft:Derek Cabrera
• Draft:Devere Allen
• Draft:Emery Hyslop-Margison
• Draft:Gary Yannone
• Draft:Gautam Mitra
• Draft:Gemma Calvert
• Draft:General Motors Gen 5 "Small Block"
• Draft:Grégoire Hetzel
• Draft:Health care in Ontario prisons
• Draft:Howard L. Weiner
• Draft:Inqilab Nadirli
• Draft:Japhy Ryder
• Draft:Jason Wakefield
• Draft:Jay Lebow

• Draft:John Rattray
• Draft:Kjell Habbestad
• Draft:Latinist
• Draft:Longyou Caves
• Draft:Malca-Amit
• Draft:Marjorie Schlossman
• Draft:Melanie Jackson
• Draft:Michael M. Oye
• Draft:Morgan Rice
• Draft:Nagdah,Madhubani
• Draft:Newton's Point

• Draft:Noma Copley
• Draft:Sean Gervasi
• Draft:Shaikhan
• Draft:Shin-Tson Wu
• Draft:Steine Depression
• Draft:Summer Bridge Programs
• Draft:Tandis Jenhudson
• Draft:Town Hall Harbor
• Draft:Tungapadu
• Draft:Tynemouth Medal
• Draft:Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem)
• Draft:Vidisha Devi
• Draft:William A. Cohen
• [[Draft:Wilmot Gibbes DeSaussu

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

MeraEvents re-creation

Just thought you'd want to know: the article MeraEvents, which you salted and for which you declined an undelete, has been re-created at Meraevents by a new account which an online search reveals to be the name of a company employee. I've repeatedly removed blatant marketing and copyvio, but this looks a lot like an end-run around a level 4 warning, sockpuppetry or similar. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

what this is, is an end-run against salting--my protection of the page against re-creation. But I do not consider the present version falls into any speedy category. AfD is the place, I suppose. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Chip Espinoza

Wikimedia was contacted (OTRS) regarding a deletion. I informed him that he should talk to you, which may already have happened. I did not review the article, so I have no opinion on the merits, but I assured him you would respond appropriately.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm an OTRS volunteer also what is the OTRS number?

I did not make the decision, but merely commented. There were not many participants, but the opinion was unanimous: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Espinoza. I'll reply, of course, when he gets in touch. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Duque

Looks like right after you deleted it-it got recreated Sarah Duque. Probably should salt it as well as the other name that it was AFD for. Wgolf (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

done,and editor warned. Thanks for spotting it DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I´m part of the PR team of Sarah Duque, and we tried to recreate the page after you deleted it, so we could start it from scratch, we´d like to know what do we have to do to create the page again, we´ve been struggling since October to create it, and every time we tried to save the changes, they wouldn't stay up on the page. Now that it was propossed for deletion we thought that we had a new change to re-do it, but it turned out that it was up for an speedy deletion, please help us so we can create this page from scratch so Miss Duque have the english version of her page. Thanx. Jernestt ( talk ) Jernestt 01:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Do not try to do publicity on Wikipedia; we do not permit it. If she is notable, someone unconnected with her publicity team can try to write an article about her on Draft space. I have blocked re-creation of the article on main space. If an acceptable article that is likely to pass a group discussion at WP:AfD is written on Draft space, I will remove the protection, and move the draft to become an article. Anyone who disagrees with me can still list it for a group discussion--the last time we had one, everyone who commented said it was not acceptable. My role is not to make a decision but to carry out the implementation of the group consensus. For additional information , see WP:Conflict of Interest. DGG ( talk ) 07:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:OHIM Board of Appeal

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Beulah Normal and Theological Institute
• Draft:Edward Walbridge

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Anita Thapar
• Draft:Bigelow Kennard Lamps
• Draft:Bonnie Burnham
• Draft:Brian Jay Jones
• Draft:Channel 24KZ
• Draft:Deborah L. Duvall
• Draft:John Strachan (professor)
• Draft:Lee Yu-Ri
• Draft:Medical Communications Industry
• Draft:Rahul Pandey
• Draft:RESIST
• Draft:Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh
• Draft:Thomas G. McGinn, MD, MPH
• Draft:Williams Art Mafia
• Draft:Wolfgang Luthe

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Sumita Misra

Hello again, DGG. Thanks again for past input. This is not at all urgent, and in fact you need not respond unless you see something in particular. If you have a moment to look at what I wrote as a comment on this AfC resubmisssion and on the original editor's page, and let me know if you have any "gentle advice to the contrary" to share. (i.e. this is another of my occasional "do it but then check" reach outs to you, based on your good advice and extensive familiarity with the processes). Since I was trying to let the original editor glide to a safe landing, I decided not to draw fire down on the SPA and probable self-affiliation aspects, as it just didn't seem particularly necessary. BTW, I might take on Draft:Wolfgang Luthe from the list in the above bot posting, just out of some interest from what I saw there, but it wouldn't be something I will do much with for a few days I imagine, and I will need to troll for sources. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I commented, and warned. Any further attempts, please let me know. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That is what I was actually fishing for, sir. I hoped you would make this nicely plain. Perfect! Thank you for handling this. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Leque Island

Hi DGG. Here's a draft that you commented on some time ago. I have cut it down in size substantially, and removed a lot of opinion and non-neutral wording. I added some news reports. Do you think it's ready?—Anne Delong (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ready--I just moved it. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi DGG, someone has started an ANI thread on you: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Massive_deletion_of_userspace. Just a polite heads-up; I have nothing to do with it. Reyk _YO! 10:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It feels odd...

...to be on the opposite side of a discussion from you, but it seems to keep happening recently! So here, have a thumbnail picture of a cup of tea, which apparently has some form of magical reconciliatory power :) Thparkth (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Explocity page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC) =

Admin help required

I have seen you work at AfCs, so thought of asking you. Your input here will be appreciated. Regards, Yash! 12:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll get there today of tomorow DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Help with an edit type classification project

Hey DGG! I'm reaching out to you for help with a project that I'm working on because I think you'll have some valuable insights. See WP:Labels/Edit types. We're working on developing a practical taxonomy (see talk page for our debates) for classifying the type of work done in an edit so that I can build some machine learning models to predict those types and we can get some fun, new wiki tools. Would you be willing to get on a phone call with us to review some edits in the context of our taxonomy some time in the next couple of days? --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I commented in some detail first. A good time for a phone call would be Friday. My personal guess is that you will be able to tease out some clear instances that this approach can be used for, but not a general purpose tool is everal years ahead. Not that I see anything wrong with working at that time scale. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft prod instead

Ok, it looks like the G13 thing is going like the prior G13 discussions so I say we think up something new. What about a draftprod idea? It's suggested. It's not a speedy but it'll clear MFD through a different process and I think it can cover most people's concerns. Something like "any userspace or draftspace draft of an article that hasn't been edited in six months where the creator hasn't made an edited in the last year can be proposed for deletion if after seven days an admin determines that the draft has no likelihood of becoming an article." Any draft can be obviously removed by anyone and there's MFD then. Just off the top of my head but one year is WP:STALEDRAFT so maybe one year not six months and make this part of the STALE deletion process. I'm not sure where this complexity of 'what is a draft' is coming from but that's the only problem I'm still seeing. It's enough multiple parts here but we can suggest the idea first and then do a separate exceedingly complicated broken up RFC to offer the idea. What do you think? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Strike this whole idea. It's not necessary. MFD, while not ideal, I think could handle this. I may suggest it again if MFD becomes unmanageable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In figuring out to do , we need to consider the purpose. There are three basic classes of material

1. Material that might significant contribute to a plausible article. In my opinion, this should never be deleted regardless of time, or whether the editor is active. What we need to do with these is to make findable. My main concern with these is to make sure that none of these get deleted. I've been spending half my time on that for a year now, and I would oppose anything that makes this harder.

2. Material that is abandoned but harmless, and will never make an article. There's been a lot of activity here lately--I regard this as a rather low priority. When we do clean up, it's more important to clean up the areas of Draft space and WT:AfC/ , which are joint-use non-private work areas, than Userspace or User talk space, which can accommodate a little harmless junk because it is not in the way. Cleaning up user/Usertalk space is in my mind an extremely low priority. The priority is in removing stuff that is harmful, and fixing what is erroneous or outdated. That probably amounts to at least 1 or 2 million articles.

3.Material that is harmful and shouldn't be here. The main types of that are advertising and copyvio. G11 & G12 is what we need here.

The main use of MfD for Draftspace is removing material that keeps getting resubmitted but will never make an article and isn't bad enough to be called G11.

The current attempt to remove variant incomplete article versions that do not contain harmful material is in my opinion unnecessary. It would be more important to check them to se if there is material there that would be useful in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board

Hello. You declined a draft I submitted about a documentary film, Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board that I saw on the Discovery Channel. I have gone back and added significant reliable sources to the article, but have not resubmitted it yet. I want to see if there is any advice you can give that would help it get approved. I tried to follow all Wikipedia guidelines as well as modeled it after other documentaries in the same area without sounding like a press release. Please let me know the best way to let you see the draft or have someone who specializes in documentaries like User:Bzuk since the movie does contain several aviation experts and compares healthcare to aviation. It also interviews several persons of notability including Chesley Sullenberger and John J. Nance. The analogy is that aviation saw that they had system errors that would doom the industry and they got together to fix the problems by forming the private-public joint tsk force, Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST). In healthcare, there are 440,000 people dying in the US annually from medical error, making it the third leading cause of death. There was a fair amount of press about the movie when it came out, so I have added lots of reliable, secondary sources.. Any help is appreciated. --Radom event gen (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see where you have yet actually added the material you mention to the draft at Draft:Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board. The first step is for you to do so; that is the way to let me see it. I will give you my opinion then. You can then decide whether or not to submit the draft. If you do submit it, any established editor can review it and if they choose accept it. I also point out that if the draft should be accepted, by myself or anyone else, anyone who disagrees can and probably will list the article for a deletion discussion at WP:AFD, and the community will decide. The criterion for accepting at AfC is likely to pass a discussion at AfD, and in my opinion neither the original article nor the article supplemented with the sources you cite is likely to pass.

As advice, I point out that the importance of the issue or the urgency there may be for change, or the merits of the proposal, are all questions of advocacy, and not relevant to an encyclopedia. Similarly, material about the NTSB that does not substantial discuss the documentary is irrelevant. Material about To the extent you include any of this, it will negatively affect the article. The question is whether this particular documentary has been discussed in 3rd party reliable sources.

In the material you cite above, ref 1 is a good source in general but does not mention the film, refs 2 - 6 are about aviation, not health care, ref 7 is advocacy, not news, ref 8 does not mention the film, ref 9 is a reliable source in general though it reads to me more like advocacy than the usual dispassionate medical review. --note the doi goes to a paid source, the free link [28] should be so indicated)-- ref 10 does not mention the film; ref 11, 12 and 14 are press releases related to the release of the film, but do not discuss the film, 13 is advocacy, ref. 15 is an advocacy blog, ref 16 is a mere announcement about the film's existence with a link to it. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I have found other references that discuss the content of the film from reliable, third party sources. I will focus on those. Radom event gen (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Lenore Manderson

Hi DGG. I just history merged Draft:Lenore Manderson into this article. It was pasted to mainspace last year. After that you copyedited one of the sentences, but I had to leave that edit deleted with the later postponement because of overlapping dates (sorry). You may want to take a look. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't find my edit atthe time, but I made some edits to the accepted article; further cleanup is still needed--I don't think all her books are include, and each waward needs a reference. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Housing in the United Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Housing in the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

commented

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayitham

Hey Dave , I would've and was going to comment at the above AfD so would you open it? (As always, I attempt to comment at all AfDs but I missed this). Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 01:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

reopened. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Karalyn Brown

I noticed that you deleted Karalyn Brown with the note "sufficient consensus to show that what is demonstrated is not notability". I left 3 comments and nobody answered them. Could you please read my comments and tell me how a consensus has been reached? --Siavash65 (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Stavash65, I don't see how I could have closed otherwise, since nobody agreed with you. In general, not as a judgment but to give you the best advice I can on the basis of my experience, being a contributor to a top tier publication has not usually been considered here as notability. Again, in my many years of experience, very few AfD discussion have accepted being not quite notable in several different careers as being a sufficient argument for keeping. But you are indeed right that to show notability in one country is always considered sufficient. You are not prevented from trying again, in Draft space, but my advice is that there is no point in doing so until she has more substantial evidence. A national-level award is ideal, or being the author of a best-selling book from a major publisher with multiple third party reviews. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DGG for clarification. I think it would be a good idea that I build the page in draft. But it seems that only admins are able to view deleted pages. Is there any workaround that I access the contents? --Siavash65 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Chris Baldwin (theatre director)
• Draft:Fabrizio Calvi
• Draft:Finnish Folk High School im Gothenburg
• Draft:John Carnes
• Draft:King Hussein Institute for Biotechnology and Cancer
• Draft:National Music Centre, Calgary
• Draft:Order of Izzuddin
• Draft:Sean Kicummah Teuton
• Draft:Ships & Ports
• Draft:Virtual Walk Videos
• Draft:Warren Lehrer (2)
• Draft:Xiao Feng Zhang

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Danish Association of Lawyers and Economists
• Draft:Dwight Hall at Yale
• Draft:Jerry Bostick
• Draft:Madeline A. Cain
• Draft:Meg John Barker
• Draft:OzCon

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Seneff AFD

"kkk"? Not sure what you meant there but I don't think it was this. Everymorning (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

error in one of my keyboard macros. I fixed it. thanks for noticing. ``

Marty Moe - notability template

May I remove the template that says "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline" from Marty Moe, or have I not established notability with the 16 sources? Thank you. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I stopped the speedy deletion, saying that as the head of very important companies there should be good references. There should be better than the ones there now. Remember, anyone who chooses can still nominate it for regular deletion, and the result will be a community discussion at WP:AFD to see what the consensus is. I predict on the basis of experience that it will probably be kept, but it needs to be improved. It is highly advisable to make the article as strong as possible. This is not done by number of references, but quality of them. TRefs like the businessweek profile are not 3rd party references, but can be used for facts, such as where he went to school. Minor mentions, like an article about someone notable who is in a relationship with him, do not contribute to his notability, Minor mentions like the businessinsider reference do not show notability. I wonder a little about the reliability of allthingsdigital, which seems to cover gossip as well as news. You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your response. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Saturday February 6 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon

Saturday February 6 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon

You are invited to join us and the AfroCROWD initiative at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign. Saturday February 6 Black Life Matters Editathon (RSVP). 12:00pm - 5:00 pm at NYPL Schomburg Center, 515 Malcolm X Boulevard (Lenox Avenue), by W 135th St The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC) (Bonus upcoming event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednesday, February 17)

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

Erm. Think you must have been distracted.

No-one has suggested a redirect yet! --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

fixed, thanks. (I seem to have pasted the comment from previous worked on afd) DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

:-) --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:137th New York Volunteer Infantry
• Draft:Blu Dot
• Draft:Bob Wing
• Draft:Bulletin of the Comediantes
• Draft:Countryside biogeography
• Draft:David Yesner
• Draft:Fung Global Institute
• Draft:Glenn Bassett
• Draft:Humber Sloop
• Draft:Kesavan Ravindran
• Draft:LotfAli Haghighi
• Draft:Mickey Keenan
• Draft:Philip Troen
• Draft:Queen Mother Dr. Delois Blakely
• Draft:Randy Shull
• Draft:Terry Dame
• Draft:Warner Brown
• Draft:Werner Clement

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dollar Shave Club

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dollar Shave Club. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

on me…. Padudarrific (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Campaign to Keep It an Encyclopedia, not a Business Directory

Can you take a look at these two: Stellar (payment network) and Pure Storage? I don't think they warrant being in an encyclopedia. What's the criteria for a company having an article in Wikipedia? It has to be remarkable in some way, right? Chisme (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

not exactly. It has to meet the WP:GNG, as explained further at WP:CORPDEPTH, but any individual case is decided at WP:AFD according to the policy-based consensus of the Wikipedians present. The general view is that the GNG is not met by routine announcements and Press releases, but the interpretation of this is often disputed. I personally sometimes take a stricter requirement for this than does the consensus, and the consensus is what decides.

In the two cases you mention, Pure Storage is on the main board of the NYSE and therefore almost certainly willl be considered notable enough for an article; Stellar seems to have gotten a good deal of technical press about its algorithm, and would almost certainly qualify also. Both articles are however quite promotional , and in need of major improvements.

I see you have been trying to fix articles on some similar companies. I consider AppDynamics borderline; Shyp borderline at best though there is some recent material that might make me think otherwise; I listed Stripe (company) for AfD as not notable; Sidecar was never notable, but it did get some press; I'm going to try to merge it. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all that. I don't think Wiki should be naive. There is a certain cache about having your company written up in an encyclopedia, but I don't think Wiki should be used that way. Chisme (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My strategy in raising our standard, is that the key step is to deal with the material which clearly does not meet our current standard,and that will clearly be deleted at AfD. In my experience, AfD rather than policy pages is where the action is, because it's how we interpret the rules that makes the actual difference . Removing that raises our average, and we can also proceed with trying to convince the community to raise it further--that is best done by trying to see with a few AfDs just what the consensus is, and how fast it is changing. In arguing, I try to lead a little; in judging, I stay with the mainstream; in giving advice, I try just to say what the current practice is and try to emphasise that it is not I who makes the decisions. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I was at a business meeting in Silicon Valley a couple months ago as part of a freelance PR team. I was the writer. The subject of Wikipedia came up. "Can we get an article for our company?" This kind of thing goes on a lot. Wiki really ought to lay out criteria about when a company or business belongs and when it doesn't. Chisme (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but Wikipedia goes by consensus, and unfortunately consensus has been to rely primarily on the GNG. I've been trying to convince people of the absurdity and inconsistency of this for 7 years now (my first year here I was naïve enough to believe in it). The way to do it is to argue in that direction at enough AfDs that people accept the idea. Perhaps it will only take a few years more. I'm a librarian--librarians think on that time scale. DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

15:51:14, 4 February 2016 review of submission by MrSmooth31

• MrSmooth31 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kyle Leighton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Dave, I did not mean to re-submit to AFC and apologize. I intended to submit to Onel5969 after making the changes that Onel5969 directed and was currently awaiting further instruction. The article is not intended to be a promotional bio as it is factual and no plagiarism has occurred on the subject, but I greatly appreciated your feedback. The subject does meet GNG and WP:ANYBIO criterion given the independent, reliable sources that are listed in the article to warrant encyclopedia inclusion. Also, the National Association of Electrical Distributors (NAED), a notable trade association for the electrical distribution industry, covered the subject in depth and issued the subject a national award additionally satisfying GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Further, the third notable piece of the subject is the Siena Heights University award. The subject possesses a communications degree from that university, and that university gave him a prestigious award based upon his communications career that was outside academia but in his academic capacity. That specifically satisfies criterion #7 of WP:ACADEMIC evidenced by independent, reliable sources. I will take a hard look at the draft and improve WP:NPOV based on your constructive criticism.MrSmooth31 (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it is generally considered here that an alumni award from one's own university shows notability--and this is onlyca junior award to a "Recent Graduate." And I have some doubts that any other of the awards will be considered a top-level national award. To some extent we have difficult judging notability in many applied fields of industry. Please note that the most extensive coverage, the Yahoo Finance article, is from Market Wire, which is a press release service, and is not reliable for notability or anything else besides uncontested plain facts. But the even bigger problem is that you need to remove the material that might appear more suitable for a webpage or press release: pictures of him with dignitaries, removal of adjectives of praise and other puffery,avoiding an extensive list of see also's, which constitute link-spam. When the article is no longer promotional, it will be easier to judge notability.

Anyone may review an AfC, & it is often desirable that more than one person does so. The purpose of reviewing AfCs to to avoid the wasted effort of having articles rejected in mainspace, as this one surely would be in its current state. But even after an article is accepted, anyone who thinks it promotional or non-notable can list it for an AfD discussion, and the decision is made by consensus.

Although your intention may have been to write an encyclopedic article , the nature of this one seem to make it only fair for me to remind you that if you have a business or professional connection, you must declare this, according to our policy on WP:Conflict of Interest, and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I am very sorry and I would like to be honest with you. I do not have a business or professional connection to the subject, I am a student and heard him give a speech about energy efficiency at the University of Michigan about a year ago. I don’t actually know him. This is my first time writing a Wikipedia article, and I’m trying not to be a pain for you guys. I thought he would be a really easy subject because he’s been in so many articles and his work is notable in the electrical industry. I am sorry if it came across as promotional. I do not have any relationship to the subject. On my first draft, I basically copy and pasted everything I found in articles because I thought that’s what I was supposed to do, and the main task was to assemble the information in Wikipedia. I found out that that was not the case after I read WP:COPYPASTE, so I re-wrote it. That’s also why I had a million sources and Onel5969 put WP:CITEKILL. I thought I was supposed to list everything he was listed/mentioned in to be verified.

I understand what you mean now after re-reading it and reading WP:NPOV and WP:WBA. There were basically “peacock phrases” everywhere. I just want you to know that while I know my article sucked to begin with, it was in good faith and not intended as spam. The See Also links are in the article because that is what he writes/talks about. I will delete some. Induction lighting technology (i.e. Electrodeless lamp) is a controversial lighting technology that competes with LED lighting technology. Amongst lighting people, it’s a very important topic. That’s why his studies have been published in industry publications and by other universities like the University of California, Davis. Title 24 (in the article) is a California Law that was mandated a little over a year ago, and the subject helped write a how-to guide that was distributed by the University of California, Davis so that commercial buildings could become energy efficient through the use of induction technology and meet the state building codes. I unfortunately don’t have an online source for that guide, but someone else might be able to add it later. That’s also one of the reasons he was given the award from the NAED and SHU. You are right, it was an alumni award, but with all due respect DGG, WP:ACADEMIC doesn’t specify that for #7. It says that for #2 but I did not claim #2 because it was an alumni award.

WP:ACADEMIC says: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Number 2 says: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The alumni award does not satisfy that. Number 7 says: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. • Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. • Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. Books on pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories are generally not covered by this criterion; their authors may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.

Regardless of his communications degree, the subject is a professor at Jackson College, and holds a seat on the Advisory Council for Jackson College which further adds to academic capacity, and his notable impact happens to be outside of academia, ie #7. The only criterion needed to satisfy this is reliable sources, which he has, such as an award from a university. The subject also has widely distributed applied science studies in national publications and studies that have been distributed by other universities such as the University of California, Davis.

I personally have no idea if the award he received from the National Association of Electrical Distributors is notable or not. But what I do know is that he got one from them, too, and I assumed that they must be notable because they happen to have their own Wikipedia page. So I couldn’t possibly understand how an organization is deemed notable, but a national award given by them is not notable, too. Being that the NAED is the governing body of the $72 billion dollar electrical industry, and they gave the subject a national award, and said that he was a "leader" is why it's in the article.

The article has been substantially reworked, reworded, and the promotional links, and commercial links (I didn’t know those shouldn’t be in there either) have been removed. I’ve also deleted all of the photographs except for the profile pic. I have re-read WP:NPOV and WP:WBA and removed content I believe that could have been promotional in nature or even have been promotional in “tone”. I have not removed the Yahoo! Finance articles because they’re relevance to the article is not the subject’s notability, although he authored the articles. However, a different subject’s page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Long_(producer) has an article from Yahoo! Finance included in it that also originated from a press distribution service. On the subject’s talk page, two editors specifically state that that article can be used towards the subject’s notability. I will remove the Yahoo! Finance articles if you would like me to, but the bottom line is that my subject still authored case studies that were featured on Yahoo! Finance and it cannot be used to satisfy one subject’s notability per one group of editors, and not for another subject’s notability, i.e. my subject. Regardless of Yahoo! Finance, it is not my opinion that my subject has met GNG criterion by satisfying WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC with verified independent, reliable sources (at least 3 in depth articles about the subject) and should not be excluded from the encyclopedia. It is a fact.

I will also humbly admit to you that I still have no idea if my article is ready for AFC for not, but I’ll have you both know that I worked very hard on this, and I tried very hard to stay within the integrity of Wikipedia guidelines of WP:NPOV and WP:WBA and GNG. And, I took both of your comments very seriously. And for the record, I do applaud your tireless criticisms, because without it, Wikipedia wouldn’t be what it is today. I look forward to your thoughts. Please see Saved Draft.MrSmooth31 (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, the article is enormously better in terms of NPOV. One of our problems is that promotion and advertising are so prevalent in the world, that the manner of writing they use has become very natural, and it take effort to avoid it. It can therefore be difficult to tell from someone's first article whether whether they are or are not trying to be promotional, so the only thing to do is to make sure all contributors who write material that might be considered promotional are aware of our rules. I therefore try to never accuse anyone of having COI without very good reason, but just suggest the possibility as I did here.

When I give advice I try to say what is likely to happen on the basis of my experience here, not what I think ought to happen. The way WP policies and guidelines work depends not only on what is written, but on how they are interpreted. I've seen many thousands of AfDs using WP:PROF and WP:GNG as a criterion, and in [articular I've probably looked at more than half WP:PROF AfDs nominated in the last 8 years , and I have never seen a "Recent Graduates Award" award ever accepted as sufficient for notability. Nor is it likely that "one of the top 30 electrical industry professionals under the age of 35." would be accepted as a sufficient distinction. In terms of the WP:GNG, I think all the publications reporting his awards would be considered either not independent or press releases.

But --and it may sound a little contradictory--I also advise you not to go entirely by what is accepted in other articles. There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. There are several hundred thousand others that contain individual references that are not really reliable and should be removed, & will be if we ever get to them. The least we can do is not add to the problems.

I hope you continue to work at WP: my advice to you is to start by writing on subjects that are certainly notable, rather than borderline. For example, I think it would be accepted that each successive President of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America is notable. I am also prepared to argue that the chief executive officer of a company with more than $1 billion revenue is notable, though this argument is not always accepted. Note that each case this includes everyone all the way back, though it can be very difficult to find online references for business professionals earlier than about 2000. Print, of course, is fine, but relatively few libraries hold non-current technical or business material. We are also very badly in need of material on technical subjects in most fields of industry, current or historic. For such subjects, current books are usually the best sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for helping me with a clear set of eyes now that we have gotten any pre-assumed bias of COI out of the way. I am grateful we are past that.

DGG, I appreciate your opinion on my subject and I value it, but I disagree with you because not only have you not previously seen something like my subject’s notability pass as notable, you likely never will. Each notable WP:Academic is unique. Criterion #7 for WP:Academic is not a single award of notability like a "Recent Graduate" or NAED award or even 3 measly articles. The other criterions of WP:Academic like #2 are for that and so on. A "person to have made a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" isn't defined as a single event. Debating whether or not one award is more notable than the other is irrelevant to criterion 7 which is what you have focused on. All of my subject’s awards and facts count towards criterion 7 because criterion 7 is a criterion that has been met with totality, or in other words, “substantial”. My subject is a professor and an electrical industry leader. And, in my subject's case, he designed an initiative about lighting adopted by the state of Michigan. He has published at least 13 studies nationally and internationally about lighting applications in 7 different publications, and has also widely distributed work independent of those pieces by other universities such as University of California, Davis about lighting laws and lighting education. Articles about his work and career has appeared in at least 8 different reliable sources referenced in the article. He received an international award for a video that explained lighting technology. He received 2 additional awards from 2 notable institutions about his research and commitment to lighting technology. All of these facts including the subject are about the same thing: lighting science. It is a substantial academic impact and evidenced by independent, reliable sources and I'm not just talking about articles that you think "might" be press releases. I'm talking about his studies that are referenced in the article that include the actual studies of his work. While I understand the interpretation of notability is broad, and not everyone may share your view or mine, we can both agree that every notable impact or notable act could be different. No two criterion #7's will likely be satisfied the same way by either a single thing or a combination of things so it's OK if it comes in a form you haven't seen. It does not mean that the subject is not a notable lighting science academic just because you haven’t seen it in your years at Wikipedia. I have significantly altered my original article for WP:NPOV based on your directions. It is a fair, and honest article about the subject's academic notability and within it is the subject’s unique totality of satisfying criterion 7 as evidenced by a "person to have made a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" with awards, references, studies, news articles and videos, lighting science, education and university publications needed to support that. I believe in the facts of my subject, sir. You're a tough crowd to please DGG but WP:Academic #7 is not borderline, it is undeniable regardless of how it is interpreted or what side of the fence you're on. There is not one thing.... there are simply too many things to negate it. I, too, would love to continue working for WP: but I wrote an article that at a minimum has met notability criterion WP:Academic as honest as the day is long and if it is excluded, then I'm not sure why I would want to continue. I could go on about WP:ANYBIO #2, but I don’t think it’s necessary. Respectfully, are you willing to move my article to mainpspace for other users or may I resubmit my article in its current state?

And PS that article with the Yahoo Finance piece I referenced in my last post wasn't from years ago. Those comments from the editors were posted last week. Just an FYI.MrSmooth31 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• It is not me you have to please. You have to write an article that will pass AfD. I will comment on it there, but others will comment also, and my view is not always adopted by the consensus. The consensus decides, and some other admin who does not participate in the discussion will look at the discussion and decide what the consensus is. All I am doing is providing advice on the basis of my experience about what will or will not get consensus. (ie, some types of things I think ought to get consensus to pass nonetheless usually do not; some types of things I think should not get consensus to pass usually do). The advice I give is based on what I think will happen, not what I want to happen. I assume that's what you want to find out. I do not think this will pass, but of course it might. The rule at AfC is just the same; not whether the reviewer thinks it ought to passAfD, but whether it is likely. I will not approve it because I think it is not likely to. Someone else might think otherwise, and pass it. It is also possible that someone who doesn't think it will might decide it ought to have a chance. It is not me who makes the decision at AfD; it is not me you have to please. There's no point in arguing it here further. If it gets to mainspace I shall list it for a discussion, on the basis that he is not an academic at all, and that it fails the GNG. Th argument will continue there DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Camp Colorado, Texas
• Draft:George Macpherson Stalker
• Draft:Indian Institute of Fire Engineering
• Draft:Johan Roos
• Draft:Jonathan A. Foley
• Draft:Shirley House and Park
• Draft:Stone construction in the Middle Ages

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Naive paid editor with mystery contact

Please see User talk:Simonefortiarchive. She writes there "Hello - I am an archivist and I am updating Simone Forti's wikipedia page - about 75% of the article was factually incorrect before I started this edit. I informed David Bernard of the Wikipedia Information Team about wanting to start this process of editing on December 19, 2014, and he wrote me back on January 18, 2015, saying to go ahead with this editing."

My question is who is "David Bernard of the Wikipedia Information Team" Maybe somebody at the Help Desk? Probably not since they gave a "real name." Wild guess - this is somebody who runs a paid editing service masquerading as an "official Wikipedian." Somebody with some experience should look into this. I'm not concerned about User:Simonefortiarchive, though I asked her the obvious question - who is he? The user could be a real information source for us. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikipedia Information Team is the name WP:OTRS signs its emails with. Bernard is likely a VRT volunteer who doesn't want his name publicly associated with his username. FourViolas (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I know who that person is, a regular Wikipedian. Even those of us who use real names at WP generally prefer not to use them there. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Château de Mesen
• Draft:Dams in Amaravati District
• Draft:David Cheetham
• Draft:Don Foresta
• Draft:Florida Geological Survey
• Draft:Integrated Earth Data Applications
• Draft:Joan Gelfand
• Draft:Katkari
• Draft:Montoya, New Mexico

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll just note that the article Montoya, New Mexico (different from the draft of the same title) has existed since 2013 and has a photo of the Richardson Store, which is listed on the NRHP. So obviously the draft should be deleted, but not the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erik Buell Racing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Buell Racing. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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