User talk:DGG

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

Today is Thursday, May 16, 2024; it is now 04:37 (UTC/GMT )

Reminders
Topical Archives:
Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , IPC, Fiction, Bilateral relations. WP:Academic things & people, Journals, Sourcing, BLP
General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb, Mar-Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec 
2008: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2009:: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2010: Jan10, Feb10, Mar10, Apr10 , May10 , Jun10 Jul10, Aug10, Sep10, Oct10, Nov10, Dec10

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

---

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

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

---

User:DGG/LG

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

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

Noticeboards, noticeboards, noticeboards!

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

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

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

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

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

Re: User:Jbmurray/Madness

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

Category:Flagged articles

Hello again ...

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

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

Category:Flagged editors

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

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

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

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

)

Current project

Your third suggestion: I like. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. As this is out of the blue, I am referring to the section on your userpage. "A good faith request by any established editor is sufficient for any administrator, whether or not the deleting administrator, to undelete an article deleted under speedy, except for BLP and copyvio. This should be automatic, and need not involve Deletion Review. it is polite to ask the original administrator first, but not necessary, and, even if s/he refuses, any administrator can undelete it without it being considered wheel warring. The article would normally be immediately sent for AfD. By definition, if an established editor disagrees, it is not uncontroversial and needs community involvement. "

Yes, that's the one. I think it would actually save a lot of drama and free up some wasted time for creators, onlookers & DRV contributors. It might increase the load at AfD, but I'm inclined to think not that much. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fringe

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

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

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

Consistency

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

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

Stress

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

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

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

archiving

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

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

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

prod

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refining AfD outcomes

Hi. I read your comments at the AfD and DRV of List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters. In particular, I noticed your suggestion to alter AfD/DPR. I started a discussion WT:AFD#Merge outcome, based in part on my interpretation of your comments and concerns. Flatscan (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding at the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

54]] (T C) 12:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN

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

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

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

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

An offer of help, other inclusionists, and suggestions

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

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

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

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

Speedy keep

Hi DGG. You may be surprised to see me championing anything regarding "keep" !votes, but you might find this discussion about this AfD discussion interesting. My conclusion is that WP:Speedy keep might do well to have at least one non-bad faith / non-nominator-generated reason, such as WP:SNOW. Thoughts? Bongomatic 18:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have elsewhere commented just now [1] that the reason for speedy keep should be a "clearly mistaken nomination": or something of the sort, without implying anything about good faith. Except in extreme circumstances, we can't really judge people's motivations, and they are not necessarily relevant. for example, I readily admit that the motivation of one of my principal opponents in some recent discussions is their good faith and honest and forthright desire to reduce the Wikipedia coverage of fiction, which they in all honesty think excessive. That they are totally wrong and will destroy one of the key positive features of Wikipedia does not affect their good faith.

SNOW is a different matter, and I think we use it altogether too rapidly, because we should give a chance for people to say things that we might not have thought of at first. I think it would be a good idea if almost all afds ran a full 5 days =120 hours.

As for engadget, it closed before I had a chance to comment. I think the nomination was about was wrong as a nomination can be, and showed some inability to understand either the article, or a temporary lapse in understanding our guidelines. I think the nominator sometimes does interpret our guidelins in a way that i would not, but that at most is a persistent error, or non-standard viewpoint. Bad faith in a deletion nomination would be if someone wanted to delete the article of a competitor, or about an organisation that espoused a different ideology, or an article written by an opponent here or in the RW, or to make a POINT irrelevant to the merits of the article, or to do deliberate harm to the encyclopedia, or out of purely reckless vandalism. None of these were present here that i know of. DGG (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to reach a consensus (or at least spark further discussion) at Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion#Summary up to now. Feel like weighing in? Bongomatic 02:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

useful general remark

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

The notability problem in a nutshell

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

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

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

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

You are me

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

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

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

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

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

Prods

You have lost me when you say that "unresolved issues is not a good enough reason to delete". Taking Manhunt (urban game) for example, the issues raised are as follows:

It does not cite any references or sources.

t needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.
It may contain original research or unverifiable claims.
Its factual accuracy is disputed.
It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.
It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

Its lead section requires expansion.

In other words, it is an extremely poor article that is almost certainly providing misinformation to the readers. So why keep it? Are you perhaps being pedantic and trying to insist that I duplicate all of the above as the prod reason instead of merely referring to the loud and clear issues that appear immediately below the prod box?

We are supposed to be providing the readers with a credible encyclopaedia, not preserving patent rubbish. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• In the case of the above article the prod wasn't correct as the article had previously had a prod removed, AfD therefore is the only way to go. RMHED. 19:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As for your question though,since it applies equally to Prod and AfD:
You should not nominate an article for deletion if it can be rescued: see WP:BEFORE and WP:Deletion Policy. It is an excellent idea to remove rubbish, but only if it cannot be improved. The mere failure to have improved an article is not a reason for deletion by itself, no matter how long it has been unimproved. Let's look at those reasons:

1. We do not remove articles for being unsourced. We remove them for being unsourceable. You need to do a proper search. For games of this sort, I think this should include printed books on children's games. Atthe very least before nominating, you should check Google Books.
2. The second reason is just like the one above; it does need them, & the thing to do is to look for them. It's not a reason for deletion unless there are none to be found. (t
3. If the factual accuracy is disputed, then it should be edited, not deleted. The disputes about accuracy should be discussed on the talk page and resolved. It would only be a reason for deletion if you were prepared to show it did not exist at all, or that there was so much dispute that it was impossible to write even a brief article.
4. If copy editing is needed, then it should be done. The need for this is never a reason for deletion.
5. Ditto for general cleanup. If it needs it, do it. This too is never a reason for deletion.
6. If the lead section needs expansion, expand it. This again is never a reason for deletion.

Thus, none of the unresolved issues were a good enough reason for deletion, just as I said. I hope this explanation helps, more than my edit summary did. As a general rule, what we do with poor articles is improve them. What we do with misinformation is correct it, if we can show it incorrect. If you know enough about the game to make these statements, you know enough to help the article. Articles of this sort do tend to attract dubious material, and need proper attention. Then Wikipedia will be a more credible encyclopedia and not provide patent rubbish. I see you are interested in these games, so I look forward to seeing your improvements in this set of articles. DGG (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see you mean well but you are being very unrealistic. If the original editor will not make the effort to provide proper sources, why should anyone else? You have to remember that other editors don't have the time to do "proper searches" or expand the lead or edit factual inaccuracies and original research. Quite often, when you find a bad article, it has been created by some redlink userid who has made no other "contributions". Best thing to do is get rid of it or you end up wasting valuable time. If the creator is a genuine editor, he can always come back and recreate it. --Orrelly Man (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

why? because of our Deletion policy, as clearest expressed at WP:BEFORE, our need to encourage new contributors, and WP:BITE. It is you who unrealistically expect perfection at the first edit. It is every bit as valuable and necessary to fix articles as contribute new ones. DGG (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

New York Public Library classes

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

NAS

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

Were you able...

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

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

Libraries & the Cultural Record

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

Clickety click

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

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

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

mediawikiblacklist

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

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

Wikipedia Students' Guide

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

Extinct editors

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

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

Edwin Osgood Grover

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

There's enough to tell. The NYT isnt substantial, 51 words, butt he very fact they gave it an article at all is significant. That he then published a long essay in the NYT Bk review is significant. The LA Times article is a signif ref. also. But the most useful general approach is something fairly new: WorldCat identities; best technique is to find a book by him in the regular WorldCat, then click on the author's name.: [2]. Significant author & lecturer. Meets WP:BIO. DGG (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

from a recent deletion review: how to close XfDs

judging consensus is trying to evaluate what the other responsible people there think should be done. One can evaluate arguments, but only to see which ones are not in conformity with policy. I completely disagree one can choose which policy of competing ones applies, or how to interpret policy: both are for the community to decide (or whatever small fraction is paying attention). I do not argue to convince the closer in particular of the merits of my argument, but to convince others who may come and look at the discussion and give an opinion. The closer should follow whatever policy-based argument a clear majority agrees with, unless it's totally irrational. DGG (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources about journalists

Hi DGG

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

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

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

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

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

from an afd

"It was asked above what the inclusion criteria should be for material like this. the answer, is they can be whatever we want them to be. We make the rules, and we can make whatever exceptions are indicated. It's not as if we were working on someone else's project." DGG (talk)

Historical notability

". Fifth century people are notable per se just by having their names remembered fourteen centuries later. Even if their actual record is scanty, and you can sum up all that's knowable about them in a single paragraph, print encyclopedias brim with stubs of exactly this type. - " [3]. good comment by Smerdis of Tlön, for reuse as needed. DGG (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

merge/move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shameless theft

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

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

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

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

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

Kudos, comment & question

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

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

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

List of digital library projects

This is just a quick note that the a page you've commented on before List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at [4] Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Rescued

I have added a "rescued" tag to show where in AFD debates the rescue effort has begun, previously we have been adding a tag that shows when ARS was notified, but I don't think that is useful since nothing has changed at that point.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahamas–Russia relations See here for an example that contrasts the difference in placement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest modifying it to include major changes by people not in the squadron. We there have no monopoly of the good editors, & it's just as important whoever does it. Additionally, I think it over-advertises the ARS. I urge you to change that template right away or we will be back at TfD.DGG (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

your comments on bilateral AfDs

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wanted to draw your attention...

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

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

Indeed, WP space.

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library

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

Too long, but you read it anyway

Thank you for your very courteous comment of support at WP:RFC/PAID#Statement by TheGrappler. It's extremely reassuring to find that somebody actually spent the time to read through the "tldr" section, cogitated upon it, and found it worthy of comment (and indeed praise, though for the time I invested in writing it, I would have been pleased even to receive a criticism!). Rather like you, I'm a reasonable person with a studiously considered (but hopefully open-minded) approach to Wikipedia; unfortunately I'm not so good at expressing that approach concisely! I've long admired your tactful and intelligent contributions, so your words were especially appreciated. Regards, TheGrappler (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Rescue

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For tirelessly rescuing articles from deletion discussions. Also, for giving me a new outlook on how to view inclusions/deletions. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

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

Arguing against redirects?

Any idea why all the sudden several editors are taking the unusual stance of insisting fictional characters can't even get redirects? I mean, I am sure it is probably coincidence, but it is rather annoying having to waste my time arguing for redirects. Surely there is strong consensus that these type of redirects are complete appropriate and they cost almost nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think I do know why:

1. They are afraid the articles will be re-created using the existing information
2. They are even afraid that if the article is deleted (to remove the history) and then the redirect created, that something like that will be restored anyway.
3. They no longer even ask for merges, because with a merge it is not permitted to remove the history: there is no such thing as merge, delete history , & redirect, because it violates the terms of the license
4. In a few instances, they may simply want to remove as much information about fiction as possible. I checked the 18th c Éncyclopedie yesterday on this very point, and their article about novels simply mentions the names of a dozen French authors and a few works, without talking about any of them elsewhere. That's the sort of encyclopedia some people want.

Now, I myself would be extremely happy if some genres of fiction had never been devised in the first place, but, astoundingly, in many cases the people wanting to remove material are fans of the series or the work. They apparently feel that they are wasting time with things that aren't worth talking about in general company. DGG (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I just made a question along these lines at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavilan ElessedilDGG (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Points 1 and 2 are good ones. It is unfair (and a waste of time, ThaddeusB) to rely on people checking their watchlists to find reversions of redirects, which occur all too regularly. There should be a mechanism to prevent this without a new consensus.

Otherwise I give a lengthy explanation of my rational in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lokar which I would like your opinion on, either there or (preferably) here. I like to think that if I am in the wrong, I, like DGG, can see my position evolve. Abductive (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying on Lokar, but I still thing a "redirect" through disambiguation is better than nothing. In any case, Lokar is the exception - normally these character names only have one possible target. In general, a redirect is better than deletion for several reasons:

• Obviously someone was looking for the material or the page would have never been created
• Pointing new editors directly to a place where the content exists encourages them to edit there and/or spend their time on something else rather than recreating material that exists somewhere
  • Yes, redirecting makes it easier for experienced editors to undo the redirect, but experienced editors are far less likely to do so against consensus than a new editor is to recreate against consensus
  • Additionally, have one's first page deleted is probably the #1 way to scare someone off. Better that they not create the worthless page rather than be crushed when it is immediately deleted/nominated for deletion.
• Adding a page to your watch list costs essentially nothing in terms of time or effort. Additionally, if you wanted to insure the page wasn't recreated the blank page after deletion you'd have to watch list the non-existent page or otherwise keep an eye on it.
  • I have merged and/or redirected more than 100 articles in the last couple months and only 2 or 3 were undone by anyone (and none went through AfD prior to my redirect). If people aren't undoing my BOLD redirect, I really don't think people undoing consensus redirects is a serious problem.
• If a particular redirect is becoming a problem, it can always be protected just like any other page
• Redirects cancan't be hit by "Random article" so there is no risk of someone being pointed to one by accident.

• • • That generally makes sense. Three things; I do find that monitoring my watchlist takes time, a few minutes each time, and over many times it adds up. A reversion rate of 1 or 2 percent per month is 12 to 24 percent per year. And, are you sure that redirects are found by Random article? Abductive (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Of course monitoring a watch list takes time, but (at least for me) almost none of that time comes from changes to slow moving articles (or redirects). I have ~1000 articles on my list and probably 90% of the changes come from noticeboards and swine flu articles, as all the rest of my list is slow moving articles - in many cases I am probably the only active editor watching.

My results are perhaps not typical but take at Patrick Star. Even this very prominent redirect has only been undone less than once a month on average. If the page was repeatedly deleted (and not protected) rather redirected, I can quite confidently say it would be recreated more than once a month.

Finally, I meant "can't" that was an unfortunate typo. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Now is the end of the world if some fictional character doesn't have a redirect? Of course not, but neither should it bother you or anyone else that a redirect exists. It is just sitting there doing no one any harm and if it is helpful to a few people a year, then that is enough to keep it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What do would you guys think if a new popular work of fiction along the lines of Twilight came out, and a user created all the redirects prophylactically? Abductive (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally would be fine with that as long as the characters are mentioned by name in the target article. The redirect could always be overwritten if needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You are probably correct. I think this sort of attitude is a real shame. While I personally care very little about fiction, I do think that for a large percentage of our readers fictional topics are of great interest. It would be a great disservice to remove fictional topics altogether and would surely be a net negative for Wikipedia. I know you are a strong advocate for merging fictional topics in the "characters of"/"places of"/etc type article and I am on the same page entirely. If the information can be covered in one article there is no need for 5, 10, or even 20 stubs with little more than a basic character description. At the same time, there is no reason to delete information that is of interest to our readers just because it doesn't need its own article.

I think the majority (or at least plurality) of editors agree that merging is usually best, but there are far too many (on both sides) that simply refuse to compromise and I don't really understand why. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

and of course in our system such people can prevent consensus indefinitely. The basic problem which affects every topic lies in our not having a mechanism to get reasonably consistent and stable decisions on content. (There are techniques though for handling very large watchlists, by looking for related changes. What is lacking is some way of filtering so only changes above a certain size are listed. ) But I see many changes in the other direction also--stable agreements to keep content, destroyed by someone going in and changing everything to redirects, or removing large amounts of content from a combination article. The main reason I still support keeping many articles intact even if perhaps better combined is to discourage that. We each think the other side is doing the worse, and it doesn't matter, because both are wrong. A first step would be a rule that BRD cannot be used for redirects and merges--that non-obvious ones MUST be discussed first, with full notice, and consensus. I suppose in equity that should apply to splits also.

Thaddus, the reason why people reject compromise is very simple. Rather than get a situation that consistently gives a result they can accept but do not really like, they prefer a situation where they will get what they want some of the time, even if they will lose others. They prefer chaos to a decision that does not satisfy them. I've heard people say as much in AfD in other topics entirely--their reason for deciding case by case instead of precedent , is that they can at least keep a certain percentage of the articles like X in--or out--even if its a random selection. This general way of thinking is characteristic of young children before they learn how to interact in groups in kindergarten. There's a large number of editors here who never learned. DGG (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be curious as to what kind of articles tend to suffer was this later deletion of merged material. I personally do a lot of merges, but they are mostly all from 6+ day old PRODs where article being merged is either pretty unlikely to be notable or has very little content (2 sentences or less). I figure it is better to PRESERVE what I can than just let it disappear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope I'm not like that. Abductive (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check your current argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavilan Elessedil, [5] DGG (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody looks at the article, and there are only 42 Google hits, and the search bar and the user's brain will take tham to the article on the novel, I would still prefer outright deletion. What if somebody created an article on a village that the characters visited, but it was not important to the plot or an encyclopedic discussion of the work? How about a stew with a unique name that the characters ate once in the novel? Should Wikipedia have an article, disambig or redirect on every named thing in every fictional work? Abductive (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very hard to define the concept of "important" to the plot. In literature worth the attention, every place named there, even in passing, is included and discussed in works on the subject. There is always a reason for authors writing what they wrote; in good literature it is worth tracing the reasons--it adds depth to the story--the reader, or at least the careful reader, is much intended to make the associations. There has for example, been very extensive work done with Austen's names for people, places, and houses; similarly with Faulkner, or Joyce, or Hardy. Nothing is too trivial for a good writer. I remind you of the extraordinary care that Tolkien gave to this--he constructed a complete legendary history behind ever single name, and discussed it either in the works themselves, or his notebooks. Or the considerable less complicated but still meaningful names in Rowling.

As a librarian, I have learned to assume nothing about users' brains in searching; if they used them the entire profession would be much less necessary. The goal is to set it up so the users will find directly exactly what they no matter how stupidly they go about it. DGG (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but point out that the metric from importance is mention in secondary sources. I've read Tolkien, Rawlings and Brooks, and recall thinking that Brooks was a pale imitation. The paucity of secondary sources on him and his works suggests that his treatment on Wikipedia needs to be scaled back; it seems especially unfair given that minor characters in the Harry Potter series are playing by the rules on their page. Abductive (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Optional request for opinion

After dipping my toe in again, I noticed some unfortunate things about what seems to be casual application of the rescue tag, and on clicking through today's AfD discussions I see a pattern which I don't understand: This, this, this, this, and this page subject each appear to be created as autobiographical or self-promotional, and of the group I'd only keep the library as notable. Does the AfD process commonly ignore self-promotion as a factor in keep or delete closes? In only one case of the five was the self-promotional aspect mentioned in the nom. How should this weigh in the closing admin's decision? BusterD (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

nothing common in the article history, and 4 promotional articles in one day is under the usual quota--there are many thousands of equally bad ones here. (That's why I regret the effort in fighting over whether to merge character articles and similar obvious things--there is real work that needs doing). The library page is a copyvio,by the way--pages that read like that usually are. They will all 4 probably go, unless the motorcycle art is actually notable. The problem is the use of the rescue tag by different editors as a matter of course when the articles come up for deletion. It should not really be used for lost causes, but it's hard to tell what's a lost cause until we look for references--some amazing rescues have been pulled off, typically where a very bad article is written about something where there are actually references for notability--sometimes excellent references for major notability. Ideally, each article on AfD should get attention, and receive a careful look for the possibility of doing something with it. Ideally every new article should get a careful look for the very likely need of improving it and making a strong article out of it. In fact, all the old articles too should individually get the kind of concentrated attention a potential FA gets, to update and strengthen it. We are approaching 3 million articles. Another 100,000 active careful skilled editors are what we most need. If they each revised one a week, we could reedit the encyclopedia properly in 7 months. Or 5,000 people as active as the best people here, who could devote considerable time to it and do one a day. DGG (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All this gives me more respect for those of you admins who take on "drinking from the firehose" directly. I feel I just help with splatters. There's only so much one can see without doing RC patrol a bunch. Thanks again for offering your view. I may come back around to this again. BusterD (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

we in turn rely on you and all the other sharp-eyed editor to spot these problems. Do not be reluctant to follow up. Never hesitate about letting someone know if you have doubts about something. DGG (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're not already reading this, I'd appreciate eyes (but please hold your comments). I've been reading some of the previous discussions on this subject, and sampling actual tagged processes, and it's not pretty. I'm going to perform a more formal examination as soon as I figure exactly how I'm going to set it up. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Members of the project things in different ways--I'm a member myself. What would be an interesting analysis is the % of time the tagging got the article kept by consensus. If it is very low, taggers are not being selective, or not improving it sufficiently, or there is a prejudice against them. If it is very high, then either they are very successful, or there is a prejudice for articles they work on. I expect something in the range of 30% to 70%, which I think is an acceptable range. What I think the ideal range should be is 60%-80%. Let's see how the evidence matches my guess. DGG (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to suggest a sample size? BusterD (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Turns out to be easy, using Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles subpage, which I should have known about but had not recalled, in June out of 416 articles, 279 were saved in some form or other, and 137 were not saved. This is 67%. More than I thought, but at about the minimum level I would consider acceptable. Next question: also can be done by counting, how does this compare with the ones not tagged, or the % before the ARS started? One would expect a higher % of the total afd's articles saved than those not tagged, or there would be no need for the tagging--though there will be articles so obviously a keep that there's no need to tag them. I hope there would be a higher % saved now than there was before the ARS started--but that's hard to differentiate from changing views towards deletion. Harder questions: how many should have been saved, but were closed wrong, how many should not have been kept, but were closed wrong. Obviously everyone will disagree here. However, all these numbers as not as meaningful as they look, because many of the saved were saved by a merge or a redirect: I do not consider a redirect with loss of all content a save, though it is technically. Key question? of the ones not saved, how many should not have been nominated? maybe 10 or 15; if 15 out of 416 were tagged in error, or at least wildly overenthusiastically, that's 3.6% of the total tagged. No wikiprocess really operates with errors much less than 5%. They're doing fine, though more articles are being lost than should have been. Evidence of a few really foolish ARS taggings are the sort of anecdotal evidence that should not say anything about the general process. The main reason I think they should be tagging more carefully that if they did, they might save some more articles overall by concentrating on them. I found at least 10 in there that should be appealed or reintroduced after improvements. DGG (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD

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

your comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WikiProject TRANSWIKI

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

DSB project

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

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

Pity the picnic never actually happened.

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

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

Coatrack

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

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

Wikipedia:CiterSquad

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

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

Name dropped in an off-wiki article

DGG here is a little sun to help brighten your day. LA @ 05:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ribbon 1 • Ribbon 2

Dear DGG...I was reading Where oh where has my trivia section gone? which lead me to "Should Wikipedia include trivia?" which lead me to "The Charms of Wikipedia" where Nicholson Baker dropped your user name in the final section of that article. I just thought you might like to know. Have a nice day! LA @ 20:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am much less patient now. Some of the above messages about failed compromises at fiction and the challenged compromise high schools may give some idea of why. DGG (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems the high schools compromise still holds. DGG (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with just your talk page as far as I can tell. I can't access it directly from clicking on my user contributions page nor from your user page. I get a weird message "Override this function." Do you know what that means? LA @ 06:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And now it seems to have gone away, but it could be back. LA If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 06:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's happening erratically all over the site; happened to me also.. Saw it mentioned at AN/I. Bug reported earlier today [6] Cause presently unknown, except apparently related to a software update.DGG (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Great userpage

		The Excellent User Page Award
		I just want to say that I greatly enjoyed reading your userpage - probably because so much of it is both true and in need of saying. Thanks, Ben Aveling 08:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

== afd procedure ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kudos

I just wanted to compliment you on your tact. Good form! — Ched :  ?  02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, and glad it is already resolved. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

SOD/CAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Postmortum: DGG please see the breaking news re: [7]. I thank you for your original support for my article and also included the forgoing url reference as an FYI. Much will be revealed in the coming months about Sirtuin 1 activation, soy isoflavones, antioxidant enzyme induction, etc. I am grateful to you for seeing the potential in the information and article. Too bad I failed to garner additional support, because the information in the article was very much on point as you can see.

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

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

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

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

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

Anhel GmbH

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

Re:International Theatre Vienna

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Allison

Hi DGG, the outcome of the above debate surprised me, due to the RS. As I respect your judgement, I would like to hear your opinion on that matter. thanks Power.corrupts (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I commented at the closer's talk page. It is almost always wrong to cut off an AfD in this manner before a range of people have a chance to contribute. If he does not revert his close, & I doubt he will , the only possible course under our policy is to take it to deletion review, and you should think carefully. BLP policy is essentially OWNed by those who use it as an excuse for overly deletionist interpretations of NOT NEWS. They can sometimes be combatted if it is only NOT NEWS, but when BLP is involved , they usually win, because people stop thinking clearly when they hear that phrase. This is in my opinion not BLP1E one event, because it is a continuing major international story, with implications on public policy. BLP is based on do not harm, and this article does no harm. I would take a look for additional international stories, as the most likely approach, or for its inclusion in a book--even if it takes a while, before going to del rev. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I simply dont get the BLP argument, which relates to contentious info not sourced in RS. IMO, being a victim of sex offender registration legislation is not contentious; and even if perceived as such, when referenced in a leader in the The Economist, this exceptional RS would trumph it all. I likewise fail to see BLP1E when The Economist consider the case relevant for national policy in many countries. The RS span at least two years, this is not NEWS. Being nominated for speedy and PROD within a few days I was not exactly taken aback by the AfD nom. But the pile-on of delete votes by editors who I respect, and the repeated rapid snow closures was a real so-called qualitative surprise to me, and I think it reflects group think. As this has flabbergasted me, I would like to ask for your opinion, if my reasoning is flawed. I dont have the time this week to dig into what human rights organization have written about the case. But could you line up some reasons, why a DRV could possibly fail. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI. I have jotted down some refs that might aid your assessment of DRV chances , even though I really should spend my time otherwise. User:Power.corrupts/Sandbox/Allison sources. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just adding my $0.02 here. DGG is right in that AfDs should generally be kept open for the full seven days, but BLP violations (which this article was IMO) need to be dealt with differently. Therefore I endorse Tiptoety's early closure, and if I had to guess, I'd say consensus at DRV would likely say the same. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(I asked Julian to comment, btw). In practice, I agree it will be an uphill fight and I consequently continue to advise waiting for more material--additional material is the most frequent reason for permitting re-creation of an article. I share Power.corrupts' surprise at the rejection of his arguments without any attempt to refute them,, and am further astounded at refusal to permit normal discussion by good faith editors. "It is a BLP-violation because we say it is" strikes me as the sort of non-argument that must be based on something other than reason, but I can only speculate about what it might be based on. I am unfortunately too involved with some other things here to take the lead in dealing with this, much though i would like to. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

reguarding redirects

I wrote on another editors page the possibility of a RFC.[8] I know you were embrolled in all of this. I don't want to have hundreds of newly created WP:BATTLEs over redirects now.

The redirecting was supposed to stop these battles.

As I mentioned to LibStar, I always wondered what he would do when he was unable to delete anymore articles. I saw a preview earlier: put the articles up for deletion a second time, and now today, put the redirects up for deletion.

Please advise if you think a RFC would be a good idea, either highlighting the editor, or over the entire series of articles. Ikip (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been seen many times. Many many times. In many subjects. The various XfD processes other than AfD are small closed shops where newcomers are badly needed, but generally not very welcome, at least until they learn the particular style of argument that works. And even then, it's one newcomer at a time, so they can expect to hand in there for a very long time until there are enough new people to have much of an effect. My proposal is the deletion of a redirect after an AfD should go to AfD, where it will be visible.

With respect to changing articles into redirects, as you have proposed elsewhere, this is now a multi-directional conflict between

a./changing to redirects with the intention of then doing a merge, because of thinking the material is best put in the larger or more accepted articles

b./ changing to redirects in order to preserve the content in the history for future expansion gradually

c./ changing to redirects in order to do gradually try to delete the redirects, in the hope that RfD is relatively poorly watched as compared to AfD

d./ keeping as small articles in the hope of improving them quickly

e./ keeping as small articles in the hope of defending them at AfD

f./ keeping as small articles in the hope of merging then into larger or more accepted articles

I favor f as a second choice to d. As you are now seeing, using redirects especially when the material is not clearly represented in the article redirected to is a poor and unstable compromise--& should be done as an act of desperation only. It's technically called "keep", but it is not. It's a delete as far as the article is concerned, which is no longer visible to users. The only difference is that the history stays there read to restore. But history can always be retrieved for those wanting to work on articles. I look forward to restoring improved versions of essentially all these articles over the next year or two. My working guide is Big with anything: article; Medium with Medium:article; Medium with Small: article if on same continent or otherwise related or if there are special circumstances, otherwise merge; Small with Small: article only if they are close neighbors or there are special circumstances; otherwise merge. No redirects. No deletions. I can understand people going one step less inclusive, and I'll accept Big with Small or Medium with Medium if merged. I will not accept any redirect or deletion, but how hard I will fight them depends on the circumstances. Usually I won't fight a redirect very hard--but that will change immediately if people start trying devices like deleting redirects that were originally articles. A person who !votes for a redirect with the intention of later deleting it is in my opinion not acting in good faith, and is violating NOT BUREAUCRACY, as with other procedural tricks.

The odds of anything good happening at a conduct RfC are never very great unless the person is cooperative and in good faith-- and if they are then an RfC should not be necessary. The visibility. What Wikipedia needs is ways to encourage more people to participate in RfD and similar processes, and do what the judgment tells them on all sorts of articles. Not to get decisions I would prefer on this topic--which might not be the result, but to get better decisions generally, which is much more important. And more people in any process here protect against error, prejudice, and trickery. Unfortunately, too much rescue work in these processes takes time from improving articles and few people can keep it up for long. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks DGG for your comments. whilst we don't always agree, the best way is to get more people involved in discussion to gain better consensus of issues. I'd rather spend my time improving notable articles than arguing over policy interpretations. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your long, thoughtful response DGG. I find it ironic that only you can get away with such long answers. Several other editors have been critized for such long answers. You probably are excempt because you are a much better writer than those other editors.

It appears like LibStar was only targeting a small, select group of redirects, it felt like peeling onions to get to the real answer from him.

I wish he would have contacted me first before putting these redirects up for deletion, I would have simply renamed these redirects correctly.

I have more questions than answers at this point. The opaque way wikipedia works, I may never have all the answers to what happened today and why. Ikip (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. You never will. And it is not worth trying. The thing to do is acknowledge everyones good faith all around, and get on with things. Lib Star, if you nominated them in good faith please do not read any implications into what I said above & if it sounds otherwise I apologize. I was discussing a general problem. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

no problems DGG. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You may find this a useful argument in some deletion discussions

Responding to several comments over at the NOT talk page, based on the idea of "unencyclopedic" content, I put up a new section, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly on that talk page. Much of the "unencyclopedic" argument is a pet peeve of mine. It's a bit of a tangent to the main discussion, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. Basically, when people say "unencyclopedic", they may be under the impression that Wikipedia policy is a lot more restrictive than it really is. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"unencyclopedic" just as well as "encyclopedic" is a word that can mean whatever one wants, and any book, can be called an encyclopedia. Therefore either terms can be used to support any argument whatsoever. I tend to interpret "unencyclopedic" as meaning "inappropriate for this encyclopedia." I've commented there. It's interesting seeing all the perfectly reasonable arguments being used to destroy the weird and inconsistent assortment of criteria we use in Wikipedia to decide what to include as articles or as content. Nonetheless some things do belong and some do not, and we have to find some way of agreeing on what. Find a rule, almost any rule, and with enough ingenuity one can use that rule to support either keeping or not keeping any particular article. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

grey literature subjects

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

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

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

Nicolo Giraud

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

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

evaluate shirechurch?

Bunzyfunzy (talk · contribs) is requesting unprotection of Shirelive. The new version of the article appears to be improved, though it at least resembles the old version. Can you take an objective look at it? I know you were involved in the DR. tedder (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

they are possibly notable, however, they do not have the references to prove it, and the article remains somewhat promotional. The information present shows 3rd party coverage, but of very borderline significance. The most significant verifiable story is a negative one, used as a ref in the article for the an item of data [9], but with the negative information not included in the actual article. Assuming it were added, there might be a case. But what really bothers me is that I cannot even verify the basic facts about membership. The Church's website is remarkably uninformative about even minimal specifics. (What is probably the key website, Some of the other articles linked to in List of the largest churches in Australia are in similar shape, almost equally unverifiable, and the membership data in that article are equally unverified for the most part. The basic website for them, http://megachurchwatch.org/ does not seem to be working, at least not today, though it does have many links in google. I would need to see this site to know what to do about the article in terms of our present rules--it may link to actual data..

Our present rules, though, for churches in general are extremely unsympathetic to articles about them. Other language Wikipedias seem to accept that they will be significant in their communities--we do not. It's our general problem on deciding about local coverage, where our rules rely on the more or less random presence of findable web sources. I sometimes think we need a peripheral Wikipedia layer for items meeting V, but N being based on general assumptions. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. The solid explanation you've given is very helpful, and it matches what tan said on the RFPP. tedder (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The last statement by DGG here is intriguing - a "semi-meta" level for verifiable articles that don't meet current notability standards. I don't think this particular article meets that (the V is too weak), and there would be inherent problems in keeping advert articles off, but interesting nonetheless. Only poked my head in here because Tedder commented on the RFUP thread that you had made a comment. Tan | 39 01:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the spam would be a problem , but there are two ways: first, V will require that all vague praise be sourced, so we can still deal with promotional language; we could have a rule on content--do we or do we not include schedules, phone no.s, how many named people etc.-- and some general rough standards for N that don't have to be argued article by article, simply say OK all asst professors, any college team membership, all local chapters of Notable organizations, all business streets, all bus stops, all and maybe some of the things we now do accept in Wikipedia-- I could see moving most high schools there, and subway stations; and topics we quarrel about such as baronets, & characters in games --It could raise, not lower, the standard of notability in the main Wikipedia!-It would at least be a good directory. There's not really anything out there that does it adequately, and people need that sort of information also. It could be a separate project, Wikidirectory--just as we moved out dicdefs, and quotations, and so on, except that the WMF really doesn't want any more splits, as there are already too many projects to keep track of. Could we do it within Wikipedia, perhaps as a namespace? DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Wikidirectory" was my first thought, but upon further thought it seems a bit nightmarish to moderate. Would it command the interest level that is required for the legions of vandal fighters, admins, etc that this project has? Probably not. Combined that a split is discouraged by WMF, this probably isn't the best route. A namespace strata, on the other hand, seems to work in my mind. I'm not quite sure how one would set it up... Tan | 39 17:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator

You commented at: WP:AFD:ARSify
I thought you maybe interested in this: Wikipedia:Article_Incubator which will go live soon.
Your comments are very welcome. Ikip (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

it will be an heroic accomplishment if it succeeds, and i will leave to you the problem of handling the details and getting it integrated into our procedures. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

how to delete

if we have only 5% of articles that snuck in by negligence at NPP, that's still 150,000 articles, which ,as you say, will be quite a job. Especially since we have to separate them from the considerably greater number that look equally bad, but are fixable. The only practical way to do this by subject area, where people can concentrate of a group of related articles of similar merit. This has been going fairly well for athletes and porn performers. Not group nominations, which almost always include the good with the bad, but carefully considered individual ones in reasonable groups of 4 or 5, and starting with the worst. And, of course, following WP:BEFORE, and fixing at least the easily fixable ones. I would actually like to do more of this myself, if I didn't need to deal with emergencies when people try to delete without using BEFORE DGG ( talk ) 13:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from 16th World Economic Forum on Africa

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

Talkback

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

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

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

Re: Debate over Oral Torah

Dear DGG,

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

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

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

Perspective

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

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

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

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

"Perspectives", again

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

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

Just a hello...

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

Coombabah State Primary School

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

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

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

Notifying of prods

I apologise for ignoring this message. I have now formulated my policy - see this exchange.

Incidentally, I was most amused by this edit! — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 02:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

David, notification of deletion notifications is one of the issues that gets my attention. So I took the liberty of popping over to User talk:RHaworth#Notifying of CSD noms, and leaving some comments of my own. I listed four strong reasons I consider it essential for good faith contributors to be advised every single time someone deletes material they contributed. And I added that I thought lapses in advising promising newcomers why their material had been deleted was a contributing factor in triggering some promising newcomers into the kind of vandal behavior that gets them permanently blocked.

Anyhow, I thought I would let you know. I'd welcome any comments that occured to you on my comments.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

ask for a favor

Hello David. You know the only time I stop by here is to ask for a favor. I am currently scheduled to be out of the country for a week or two, with very limited internet access. In that I am presently involved with an article Jews and Hollywood in which you commented on at the AFD here. I’m asking if you could review the current discussions, at both locations, and monitor both pieces and employ your calming advice to both sides of the discussion. As always, appreciate your help and advice. Take care, and again, thanks in advance. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I will watch & comment, though you probably will not really agree with what I say. If you do want someone to represent your position, please ask someone else. The subsequent course of the discussion has made me a little less moderate. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we are that far apart in our opinions, it is more on how we approach the outcome. Do I believe that Wikipedia has a place for an article that addresses these concerns, yes. But believe balance from both sides need to be forwarded. Regarding asking your advice on this particular piece was not to get a strict representation of my point of view. But rather I have always found your advice balanced and fair. Even if we disagree from time to time. In my opinion no two editors ever should walk locked-step with one another. That is just the beginning of a cabal. In the mean time, I am off, will not think about Wikipedia for a couple of weeks. But will check on the job you did when I get back:-) And again, thanks for you insights. ShoesssS ^Talk 10:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that success in the job i do will in this instance not be achieving a compromise for the article, but in re-awakening a fundamental commitment among some Wikipedia editors to the principle of NPOV writing, and lack of political censorship. What happens to an individual article or two is minor in the scheme of things here, and in any case I am not sure about how good the initial approach to the article may have been, & I am not at all satisfied by my attempts to establish a dialog with the initial author of it. The claims at the AfDs that Jews did not take a leadership position in the development of the movie industry are either ignorant or hypocritical, as is the denial that some Black leaders as well as some professional bigots, took exception to their role. This is racialism disguised as resisting racialism. More critically for Wikipedia, a refusal to use the works of anti-semites, bigots, and other unpleasant people as sources for their positions is fundamentally opposed to NPOV writing--that applies to not expressing our POV about what we despise--not even about what every individual person here unanimously despises. To use an example I've used before, we do not need to say that Stalin was a tyrant; we just report his actions, and everyone capable of reading and thinking will understand. ` DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

flict is to restore good relations, and considerations of which party was more in the wrong can be irrelevant--either with response to the particular exchange or the fundamental issue. As predicted, this has escalated, though I have not yet commented myself at the Request for Arbitration. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello David, sorry to say, not the outcome I was hoping for, though not through the fault of your arguments. As an editor once said to me "the voters have spoken, and now the voters must be punished." ShoesssS ^Talk 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Incredible result, actually. Some further challenges to articles about Judaism, e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriageable age in Judaism

]] show similar lack of objectivity. I've commented there. I would simply rewrite from scratch, but not my field 7 too much else is happening. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Jews and Hollywood comment

Just wanted to say I agree with the comment you just posted. I'm baffled by this whole situation. I figured Wikipedia was the last place where I'd see over-sensitivity to such a subject. You've stated pretty much what I would have liked to say long ago, and would have, if I thought I could make it come out as well as you just did. Equazcion (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In checking how frequent this is , I noticed that Jewish exceptionalism & Israeli exceptionalism are both red-links. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline infobox and header template for deletion

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Louisiana history. In your first comment you write "... and Karnac's templates help considerably". Actually, Karanacs has nominated it for deletion as soon as he noticed it! Your input on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 21#Template:Infobox outlines would be very welcome. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Similar things happen frequently: Someone will see an article they dislike, try to fix it, decide it cannot be fixed , and nominate it for deletion. Sometimes they're making a serious try hoping to succeed, sometimes they're trying to demonstrate it's unfixable, and sometimes they're trying to take over the article to destroy it before trying to delete it. It is often in good faith. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In this case it looks like the 20 or so outlines were nominated as a test run and that the same nominator (Karanacs) also nominated the template that addresses several of the main concerns of the outline opponents on some spurious grounds. It would be great if you could have a look at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 21#Template:Infobox outlines. (BTW, Karanacs was not involved in the creation of any of these pages, only in their proposed deletion.) Thanks in advance, Cacycle (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems the dissatisfaction with one particular outline triggered an over-reaction (in the manner of, i don't think the tone of this article on xxx; let's remove all articles on that whole class of subjects, or I think article Y has a NPOV against a particular ethnic group; let's remove all articles that might possibly have a NPOV about this group.) Personally, I sometimes think we might do better if we concentrated our efforts on fewer systems of organization. As a librarian, I think systems of organization are necessary for browsing, not searching--excellent evidence from 100s of studies has shown that in all information systems, keyword searching does as well as anything more elaborate for finding specific known topics. (There's an exception--the typical term paper search: I need a biography of someone--anyone-- who _____.) How people browse is almost by definition idiosyncratic, or it wouldn't be called browsing. Our systems amount to partial solutions to the general problem of predicting what someone would like to read next: e.g.. Having read about one President, I may well be interested in the succeeding one, or events during the period of his administration. But I may also want to read about some other people who came from the same state, or went to the same college, or have the same ancestry, or died the same year, or are famous for the same type of thing (such as, the famous speeches of other presidents besides Lincoln). I consider this an example of the [[AI-complete| general artificial intelligence] problem, which we here are unlike to immediately solve. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander reply

DGG: Thanks for offering your email address. I may take you up on it in the future, but at this moment, I am swamped with work, home-repair, and a math team I'm coaching. Wikipedia takes way too much time :-) I'm not sure how typing just 100 words can take 30 minutes (I guess its all the other stuff I have to read :-) Anyway: Thanks for participating in the ANI discussions, and I'll just let those play out. I dont have enough time to even participate in the ANI discussions properly. --Noleander (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would feel enormously more confident defending the work you do if we were in direct communication. I'm not going to let those articles go in any case, & I intend to talk about the problem that people see in them here at the NYC meetup in November. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(Cutting in) Why? Can't you determine for yourself David the difference between substance and a lack thereof without privatizing your relationships with other editors? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am unimportant, so there is no need to defend my articles. What is important is the encyclopedia, and ensuring it provides accurate, uncensored information to users around the world - especially to those that need it most. That needs defending, and censorship needs to be confronted. --Noleander (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As you will notice, I said said defending the work you do, not defending you. In terms of defending you, I'll defend people unfairly attacked not necessarily for their own sake, but to persuade the attackers not to do such things to others. In this case there is, as you say a principle involved, one I think a tremendously important principle, both in the RW and in Wikipedia: anything can be discussed if it is done properly & the more outrageous the subject the more the need to discuss it. Not everyone feels this way--a great many people in Europe seem to think that things may not be discussed if they are too upsetting to people's sensibilities (not libel, but sensitivities as one of a group). The model case is of course the laws against spreading Holocaust denial. Now, I think the people who espouse that theory are either doing it to be peculiar, or to be obnoxious, or stupid, or have a genuine prejudice against the Jews, or the desire to do them as much harm as possible. That does not affect whether they should be permitted to publish, and us to report on it. I recognize no exceptions. The making of genuine child pornography is a crime, because of the harm to the children in it, but I consider laws against simulated child pornography indefensible. We prevent speech that poses a direct harm to people, and nothing else. (I follow JS Mill in this line of argument--I suppose I would be best described as a left libertarian. Many of the people who share my politics do not agree with me, and would ban material supporting things or groups that they and I equally despise--the result of this is my inability to participate in the politics I would like to. Even if I were to accept them, they would not accept me. Wikipedia, like the American academic world, is a place of freedom from this, and I have consequently spent most of my career in one, and am finishing it in the other.

I am aware of using used some examples that might provoke strong reactions. I do not propose to discuss them here, unless they arise in practice with respect to Wikipedia articles.

otherwise I can only say that by concealing yourself you give rise to the view that you might fit into one of the 5 unsavory classes a few sentences up. Personally I don't care with respect to what you write, but there are people in some of those groups whom I will not defend; I am not naïve about possible motivations. As far as my talk p. is concerned, this topic is closed. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You may not be important, Noleander, but this has little to do with you. It doesn't even have that much to do with this particular article. It's people's reactions to them that have me worried, and this is (or could be) representative of a larger issue. One way of dealing with the encyclopedia is dealing with these issues when they occur. The next time I want to write something about anti-semitism or anti-christianity or anti-cancer-research or anti-anything-else-that's-considered-sympathetic, I would like to not be encumbered by concerns that if I don't do it just the right way, I'll be labeled "anti-[something]" myself.

I have to admit the POV fork argument has me rethinking my position on whether or not the article(s) should exist, as that's an actual policy argument.

Nevertheless, I've only seen that argument from one or two people, and only once 4 days of arguing has passed, when I invited it myself with my "little essay" that spelled out a thought process the intelligent people in this discussion probably would've had a long time ago, had this issue not involved religion. The overall response has been so very disheartening. Many people, in fact it seems like a majority of those involved, seem so on-the-lookout for religious persecution that they lose objectivity when matters of religion arise. Notions of proof and policy go out the door, to be replaced by "demanding proof ... is a blatant sign of bad faith", and "I suggest we all let our conscience do our talking" (actual quotes -- from admins).

Hopefully this is an addressable issue. Freedom of information should also be free of political encumbrances, in my opinion; but maybe that's just a pipe dream. Equazcion (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice your "topic closed" prior to my posting this, DGG. If you want to remove my comments here you may. Equazcion (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

no problem--just an edit conflict. But I think the matter involved is ethnic persecution, not religious persecution. The Jews are are a people, what Wikipedia calls an ethnoreligious group. At present in Wikipedia the ethnic aspect of conflicts seems the greater problem. DGG ( talk ) 12:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing rationales

Would it be a good idea to add this proposal to Template:Cent? Fences&Windows 16:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

yes. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion has suggested that I close the RfC, admitting that consensus is not going to be gained for compulsory rationales, and instead gain consensus for a new wording that requires a rationale in the case of substantial disagreement. I'm thinking this is a good idea. Whaddya think? See User talk:Fences and windows#Deletion RFC. Fences&Windows 02:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

might as well. The sensible thing to do is to get what can be gotten now, and continue if still needed in 6 months or so. Just as it takes a good while for children to reach the age of reason, it takes a while for new and chaotic organizations who originally try to do everything ad hoc to develop systematically fair ways of proceeding. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You probably know about it

But in case you don't: last "briefly" mention here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-26/In the news. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Journal categories

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

Well done

Well stated (and reasoned). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OCLC outside linkage to worldcat website

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

Notice how this was AFD was closed?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between U.S. states and countries nominal GDP

"Quite a few of the usual "it's notable" non-votes which are ignored as usual"

It appears as if this admin is once again using his philosophy to close AfDs against overwhelming consensus.

Suggestions? Ikip (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

commented on his talk page. But I would suggest NOT carrying it to deletion review; the practical result isn't worth the trouble in this case. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I ignored three Keep votes. DreamFocus' was a bare keep per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Colonel Warden's was WP:ITSNOTABLE, and Boxsockrox88's was WP:INTERESTING. All these are listed in "arguments to avoid", and I will always discard such !votes, such as I would any of the Delete arguments listed there as well. Discarding those three, we have two Keep votes and two Delete (including the nominator). Hence "no consensus". At what point will people realise that "AfD is not a vote" is actually true, regardless of how many administrators keep closing AfDs badly by counting votes? Black Kite 10:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• • On happening to come across this on DGG's talk page (which I don't usually stalk unless he and I are talking about something else), I'm concerned about the issues raised here. I certainly do not have an issue with that close, but I am concerned about the general issue of WP:ATA being considered in a closure. WP:ATA is an essay, and users may disregard essays if they wish. But there is no point in having a distinction between an essay and a policy if closers will treat essays as policy in a close.

    Further, WP:ATA is a crap essay. It's a list of arguments that other people think shouldn't count, and in a number of places, its reasoning is distinctly shaky. It needs to be disregarded in closing. But I want to be clear that I can very much understand discarding !votes that do not bring any useful new factors into the debate.

    But what really concerns me is that this looks like the beginning of yet another skirmish between elements of the Article Rescue Squadron and elements of the Article Extermination Squadron. There is a recognisable group of editors who show up en masse to !vote "keep" in certain discussions, but there is also a recognisable group of editors who show up en masse to !vote "delete" using arguments that are not perceptibly better, and on examining Black Kite's closes and occasional sharp phrases when he runs out of patience, I can't help wondering whether Black Kite perceives this clearly. It seems possible that Black Kite thinks the problems are all one-sided.

    It's hard to discuss this in detail without naming certain problematic users, and I certainly do not intend to pollute DGG's talk page by naming names here, but I do think this is less simple than it looks and there's a genuine issue.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • The problems are certainly not on one side. Yes, WP:ATA is pretty crap, but the three examples I gave above are perfect examples of !votes without rationales that should be disregarded, in exactly the same way as if the same votes were "Delete: other stuff has been deleted", "Delete: not notable", or "Delete: not very interesting". However, I think the community as a whole is rapidly running out of patience with the block-voting, wikilawyering, and process avoidance of certain members of the Article Rescue Squadron. The "rescue" tag does seem to be used as a canvassing tag these days. I have to admit that I do not see as much block voting from so-called "deletionists" in XfDs, though I am willing to be presuaded otherwise if you can give examples. If there are groups of users that show up en-masse to vote in pre-determined ways on AfDs, then the solution is simple - topic-ban them all - on both sides - from XfD. Black Kite 14:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Can I email you to name names, Black Kite? Shouldn't be airing them here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's fine. Black Kite 16:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • PS: Topic bans are too simple. Last thing Wikipedia needs is another incentive to sockpuppetry, and I'm already having enough trouble keeping track of who's really who without that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Which is why I think admins should be recognising such patterns and, unless such !votes have reasonable rationales - just ignoring them. Black Kite 16:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Since we are on this subject, I've got some material that I should probably send your way as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

to the extent the rescue tag is used as a canvassing tag it won't work well--it's not really canvassing because anyone with deletionist tendencies can look there also. It will only be effective if people use it on rescuable articles--and i do not think anyone can object to it being used for those. I don;t actually know how it's being used, because I don;t check there--I simply look at every AfD, to the extent possible, and comment where I think my comments would be appropriate and helpful. Appropriate = where I have something sensible & pertinent to say, helpful = where it might make a difference, or --sometimes--register a protest that might be useful in the future. some people have used it wrongly in the past, but then people have done wrongly here everything that it is possible to do wrongly--I think by and large the ARS overenthusiasts have learned by now. If we come down to topic bans, I see a number of people saying delete as a reflect immediately after nomination, without even checking the links to references that are given. And how about denials, after references are presented? What some people do not seem yet to have learned is the inadvisability of proposals to eject one's opponents, instead of out-arguing them--and I have other things in mind here than What some people do not seem yet to have learned is the inadvisability of proposals to eject one's opponents, instead of out-arguing them--and I have other things in mind here than that. , such as many of the cases at arbcom.. In general, it seems an argument used by those who know they cannot outargue the opposition. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm talking here about stopping block voting from both sides. I completely agree that there is an issue on both sides. On one side, you have people !voting "Delete" without looking for ways of improving the article, or sourcing. On the other side, there are people !voting "Keep" with spurious reasons, and adding reams of irrelevant trivia and sources into articles and then claiming this makes them "notable". Clearly, there is no problem with a deletion nomination being "outargued" if it is argued reasonably and in line with policy. What is a problem is swathes of !votes with little rationale which can sway closing admins into closing AfDs incorrectly. Black Kite 16:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(I want to clarify that this is a discussion between us, not a debate--BK and I may personally have very different positions, yet as editors, AfD !voters, and admins, we would probably agree about 80% of the time on particular cases, It's with the relatively few not quite so clear ones where the conflict lies, and we should not over-estimate their frequency). If BK and I did not consider each other's arguments worth serious consideration we would not be discussing them in this detail.) DGG ( talk )

BK, I think you misunderstand the position of admins. We're not here to decide issues. We're here to do the necessary operations to carry out express or implied community decisions. We're not to even guide the community, except by arguing like any other editor on the strength of our own positions. People in clerk-like positions like ours' can manage to have a great deal of effective authority, but here it's a temptation that must be resisted. There is a group here who decide certain types of issues-- arb com, and proposals to have a similar group for content have been soundly rejected. I may consider myself competent to be editor in chief of an encyclopedia, but I did not come here to try to maneuver into such a position; in appropriate other places, I am very willing to make judgments--such as my book reviews for CHOICE. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I realise that, but we are charged with judging the level of valid contributions when assessing consensus at XfD. It is noticeable that when admins do this rather than counting votes, the inevitable resulting DRV usually backs their position up. However, too many admins seem to regard being taken to DRV as something terrible (or maybe they're so lazy that they can't be bothered to do anything except count votes), and so many AfDs are closed, IMO, wrongly. Now much of the time this is functionally irrelevant (i.e. the difference between No Consensus and Keep) but in a non-trivial number of cases, it isn't. Black Kite 18:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are saying that more questionable AfD closings should be taken to Deletion Review, I certainly agree. I think we would all also like to see more participation there by ordinary WPedians--at present, unless something exceptional is involved, it tends to fall to a few of us who specialize in it. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have to admit I'm as guilty as many others there; I rarely participate at DRV unless it's one of my closings (which happens less often than I expect, considering that I often close the "late" AfDs that others have shied off from). DRV is certainly underused and often misused, and too often turns into AFD2, however many times people point out that it isn't. Black Kite 21:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

DRV will inherently partake of the nature of AfD2: A close must be reasonable. An incorrect decision on which arguments have no support in policy is an incorrect & unreasonable close. This often involves examining the arguments in light of the article. An incorrect decision on which policy rules, and whether it is sufficiently clear to overturn consensus is a mistake, and an unreasonable close. This too requires evaluating the arguments in light of the article. Since IAR is a fundamental policy, it is always relevant, and this essentially opens all issues to review. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Black Kite does not seem to have read my contribution to that debate with sufficient care. I did not simply assert that the matter was notable but provided a link to a source and an association between the example and the list. As it seems that brevity is not understood or appreciated in such cases, I shall perhaps have to be more wordy to avoid my contributions being discounted in future. This seems a poor outcome but so it goes. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, I read it. You found a single source with a mild relevance to the article and synthesised that the subject must be notable. This is arguing from a false premise for the same reason that someone saying "I couldn't find any sources on the Internet, so it must be non-notable" is doing. Black Kite 18:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, I have seen numerous comparisons of this sort in the past and so already had a good understanding of the matter. If I'd just given my own experience and knowledge then that would have been WP:IKNOWIT and so I did more - I made a brief search to cite a third-party example. This is everything one would expect from an argument at AFD - knowledge of the topic, cogent argument and evidence. The closing admin's job is not to second-guess such contributions and discount them if he doesn't agree with them. Your failure to recognise that multiple experienced editors found your close to be unsatisfactory seems to show that you are unable to properly assess consensus in cases of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• In my view, BK, what you have done is the situation often is is that the closer has reached a desired conclusion by evaluating the arguments in view of the conclusion you want to reach. This is acceptable in a debate-- most of the time, most of us holistically decide whether we want to keep or delete an article and look around for reasons to support our position. This is not acceptable in a closing. The closer has to close in accordance with consensus, after removing irrelevant arguments and arguments contrary to policy , spa's and sockpuppets-- or if the closer departs from it, to show why the consensus is clearly opposed by unambiguous policy. I do not think a closer is able to do this in debates where he has a personal opinion. In such a case, he should contribute to the argument and let someone else close. BK, you say you've been selecting difficult closings, which makes it all the more necessary to pay due regard to this . DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connel Fullenkamp

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

Thanks for a Job Well Done

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

Re A7 Speedy Delete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSD A7 and schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD nomination of Denialism

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

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

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

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

Your user page

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

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

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Hi DGG,

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

Happy editing,

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

Wikipedia:Jewish Labour Bund Task Force

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

Psychology of AFD

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

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

Thanks

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

Scraping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, am I reading this right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like, for example:

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

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

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

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For being consistently active in all sorts of deletion discussions, and keeping an entire segment of Wikipedia running smoothly, even if we don't always agree. Keep it up! –Juliancolton | Talk 05:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Might ..

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

Academic sources for short stories

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

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

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

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

Something you may be able to shed light on

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

Will you have another look at the talkpage of R1a?

See latest results: [10], [11].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

User:Kurtd71

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

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

Adam Lyons

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

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

Auto-Archiving (again)

The ANI thread that I set-up fell off again. I'm hesitant to restore it for a third time, thoughts? GainLine ♠ _♥ 22:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Tomorrow Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scama school

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

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

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

A note

Hi David. I haven't had many occasions to interact with you of late, but I wanted to express my appreciation for your good work on the encyclopedia. Take care and enjoy your holidays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Question from Grsz

Hey David, thanks for commenting on my RfA, which I have just withdrawn. I was wondering if you could clarify what you meant in your comment; I am unsure how my response to Question 7 is off-base with regards to policy. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 01:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I need to apologize about this, for I was really responding not just to that question, but the general approach to BLP/AFD. And this too was influenced by the weird coincidence of the same problems with several closely timed RfAs. For that particular article (David Shankbone), even the admin who closed the DRV & sustained the AfD close, said the closer at the AfD should not have closed it. I'm not going to repeat my strong opposition to both closes, and my view that both were outrageous misstatements of policy. (the only reason the matter was not taken further was the realization that it was embarrassing DS, but I don't think either admin would pass an RfA if they had to run again). Had I been asked about that particular AfD in a situation like yours', i would have replied "please pick another example--that one was too much involved with wikipolitics". So, yes, my response was unfair and too brief. However, the other issues raised were equally my concern, and no doubt i would have gone back and expanded my comment if there had been time, even had you not asked--I usually do realize when I've said something unfair, & return to modify or explain. If I thought it would have made any difference to the RfA I would now ask you to un-withdraw, or ask a bureaucrat to do so--if, for example, others had followed my lead. But as you see the general feeling was pretty clear, that you needs some more experience in wording things both in terms of accuracy and tone. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the response. I do understand that that was not the best example to use. Do you feel I was on the right line with the weight given to arguments, or is there an more appopriate way to break a wiki-tie, in your opinion? I mean, if I gauge your opinion correctly (and forgive me if I'm wrong) but you feel that all "no consenus"es default as a keep, but is there leeway for a closing admin to consider the weight of each side? Grsz¹¹ 03:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

the basic principle of consensus is to continue discussing until there is a resolution. When there is no clear consensus , it often helps to close as no consensus and try again in a month, especially with something that becomes emotional or gets involved with side issues. People often do better the next time around. For an example of discussions which do continue until consensus is reached, look at AN/I. (It has some other problems, but it does generally reach a consensus, be it right or wrong).

I disagree with admins making decisions on content issues. Our only role is to execute what the community wants us to do. We just need to determine what it is that they want. (When we decide by speedy, we're essentially assuming that we are sure what the community would say, and the CSD criteria are limited to those where we reasonably can do that.) At AfD, we do two things only: we remove the views of those who are not really in the community, such as sockpuppets and SPAs, and we discount arguments clearly not based on policy, such as ILIKEIT, under the assumption that the community wants those not counted. Most of the time, it's pretty clear. What we should not do is weigh one argument against another, or decide which of two conflicting policies that have been cited should rule. If the people there disagree on things like that, then they disagree. I know many admins do these things, and I will always vote to overturn at deletion review when that is the basis for a decision--even if I personally like the decision.

It is not "my opinion" that no consensus defaults to a keep for all articles, it's policy. Attempts to change it have repeatedly failed. Asserting otherwise is the sort of non-policy based argument that should be discarded, as an instance of IDIDN'THEARTHAT. There's a minority of people who think it should be policy, and that question can be re-discussed every year or so, out of the context of an individual case. I see their basic argument as not trusting the community to have a clear consensus when something should be deleted, & I think that incompatible with the basic way Wikipedia works. But they have the right to argue otherwise. Some of these people , though, seem to think the way to get it adopted is to boldly assert it at all opportunities, hoping we will get used to the idea through hearing it a lot. That's a propaganda technique, based on the assumption that the rest of us are fools. When I give a !vote on the basis that something ought to be policy, I say so, because the policies can be changed, and one of the ways of doing so is through repeated consistent decisions on individual cases. But for me as an admin to close that way, would be unequivocally wrong. If it were that clear, the community would have said so. If those at the AfD cannot decide what to do, we are not to decide for them. There's a very good reason for that: there are over 700 active admins, each with their own individual idea of what ought to be policy.

There is a role for admin discretion in deletion debates, which is why admins need to be sensible people as much as to have experience at Wikipedia: we use discretion in deciding if some opinion has no basis in policy,; we use discretion in deciding whether consensus is clear enough; we use discretion in saying whether a decision is so wrong it must be reversed; we use discretion in deciding whether to salt. And there is an occasional AfD once every few months where we must use discretion to say that IAR is necessary for the protection of the encyclopedia or for avoiding insoluble conflicts or to reach an obviously desirable end. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

AN

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

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

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

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

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

		The Discussion Barnstar
		Awarded to DGG for calm discussion to try to resolve a policy and practical matter and bringing up astute observations to help others have a deeper understanding of Wikipedia Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

collaborative work systems vs collaborative working systems

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

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

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

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

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

Death of a source

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

Joseph Schlessinger page (Again)

TrutherTruther seems to be back to editing the Schlessinger page once again - now as 'ScienceAndTruth'. The edits are the same - trying to push the horribly defamatory 'wikileaks' link once again. I have edited to remove the defamatory connections (hope that was appropriate), but am concerned that this will move in the same direction as before TrutherTruther was blocked from editing. Any advice?Hillhealth (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC) I just noticed that 'ScienceAndTruth' is actually also responsible for much of the defamatory material associated with the wikileaks link regarding Schlessinger (and other pretty outrageous postings on other sitesHillhealth (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

fixed. Next time notify me, please do not ever try to fix it yourself. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks. I shall not try to fix again.Hillhealth (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Of librarians and Eguor admins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nova Science

Dear Dr. Goodman!

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

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

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

review bio please

DGG - would you review the bio at [13]. I think everything is referenced and the verbiage has really been cut to the bone. I would welcome your further edits, if you would be so kind.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 16:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

the difference between a CV and a Wikipedia biographical article, is that the CV includes everything possible, and an encyclopedia article focuses of the part that actually constitutes the notability. There'sstill a way to go. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any possibility that you could actually just fix this for me? This is the crux of the reason people shouldn't do their own bios. I acknowledge that. I need help, and someone to move it to prime time when done.

Also, I need an admin for a user called Platinumphotographer so I can get a photo uploaded to a page with his bio. I can't load the photo, and the system won't let him do it until he's a confirmed user. Can you confirm him so he can upload? He's done the ten edits. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 18:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I will deal with the article; as for the photo, I cannot find the user account, either as one word, or as Platinum photographer. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats ok, another admin did find it, and we were abel to get the photo up. Remember at CU, I asked you if the Founders and Senior Officers of Notable International Agencies are per se notable and you affirmed that they were? Please look at the discussion at [[14]] (bios). They have really re-written my bio to take out most of what I ruly thought gave it notability, and then refused to move it a page. See my arguments re the FICS Medal, WP:ANYBIO, criterion 1, and also 2, these guys disagree. Can you help ?^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry for the delay. What I can say definitely is that the chief executives of major international organizations are always held to be notable. There is no formal policy to this effect, but if the organization is important enough they are always held to be Whether this extends to every agency with an article in Wikipedia is disputable, because some will be barely notable. I think one criterion for "major" would be the principal organization in a substantial area. I do not think there is really consensus for it being a general rule in every case. In general I think it might be best if they were assumed to be, but I doubt everybody agrees--there are always some people who say no such notability can be assumed. As for "Senior officers", this does not hold, and I certainly hope I didn't say it did--there is considerable difficulty in getting articles for anyone who is not the head of the organization, for anything much less important than , say , UNESCO. (for anyone who does not know, CU=the Nov. NYC meetup, at Columbia University). I've now revised the article, and asked some questions on its talk p. If you want to do the last two steps I mentioned there and put it in mainspace, go ahead, but do not be surprised if it will need defense at AfD. The community decides, not me. . DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

DGG, Cirt and I are agreed that the NPOV tag at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry could be removed now. However, as you were the one who placed it, I did not want to remove it without your consent. Could you have a look whether the changes Cirt and I have made have addressed your original concerns? --JN466 21:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Merging at AfD

Hello DGG. I've replied to your comment at User talk:EdJohnston#merging at afd. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the real issue, the broader issue, is the relationship of AfD to merging, about which there is no agreement (There are certainly n a number of proposals, at a number of different places, (for example, whether deletion review can revert a merge carried out as a consequence of an AfD closing), but I am not sure that any of them really represents agreement--and not just because there are different views about the desirability of particular issues it might affect, but because we simply don;t know how to handle this. I think I am going to propose a rather radical solution, which is to call AfD Articles for Discussion, and accept any solution there as within scope (more or less like the other XfDs)--in other words that AfD should have jurisdiction over contested merges. I'm not sure it will get the result I want for all the articles that I care about, but I think it's the most workable solution, that will cause the least work, confusion, duplication, and --especially-- the least opportunity for wikilawyering.

this particular part of the issue, how much changes can be made during an AfD, is a problem, because I can see the advantages of saying to never do it, to avoid confusion , and the advantages of taking any steps that will improve articles whenever we can do so. Different people have argued different ways, depending on what they want in a particular AfD. or type of afds--I am not sure how consistent anyone has been.

Enough background. specifically, I agree with your view of the matter, that most people support keeping the present state of discouraging it, to a similar extent or perhaps more so Where I disagree is that the change accomplishes it. ; I doubt whether it might not do the reverse. WHat I would like to do is to try to write something that accomplishes the goal you and i seem to agree on. Tomorrow, I hope. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

DGG, may I ask why you did not comment sooner? EdJohnston worked on the close for two weeks, including nearly a week rewriting the relevant paragraph. It appears that you reverted before preparing a justification. I see the broader WP:AfD and mergers topic as mostly irrelevant to this specific issue.

Regarding Articles for discussion, you may be interested in WT:Articles for deletion#Consolidation. Flatscan (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I did comment early on--frankly, I regarded the need for change as so unlikely as not to need further attention. and so i lost sight of it. I appreciate your view that I have the ability to keep track of everything here. I do try , perhaps more than my actual capacity, and so I get to some things late, which is better than not at all. I think you are correct in your friendly reminder that I should pay more attention to policy disputes, even though it means less to individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Skema school., business

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

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

Follow-up

Since the controversy section in Alina Cala article has been restored [15] now, I would like to ask some follow up questions - when you said that Alina Cala's interview is usable did you mean that the interview itself is a notable event and merits its own section in biographical article, or did you mean that article is usable to establish Alina Cala's opinion on certain historical events, or did you mean something entire different? Thank you. M0RD00R (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Filmography & Kevin Rockett

Sadly, the author seems to have left the project for the last few days. Hoping he'll return, I meanwhile found enough to create an article on the book's author in order to remove a redlink at the above. The man is apparently one of, if not THE, expert on Irish film and Irish film history. I also believe that at least three other of his tomes also may merit articles. Please look in at Kevin Rockett and advise. Best wishes, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Good news: He's back!. Hope he's been enjoying the holidays. But please look in at Kevin Rockett yourself if you have the time. I do not believe I made any major BLP blunders, but always appreciate another set of eyes. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I normally do not support making articles for ordinarily notable non-fiction books; According to our current policy, we would be able to justify one for any book with a few substantial reviews, but I think that we should generally not do that. We should think of our inclusion policy here and elsewhere not as getting as many separate articles as we possibly can justify, but getting the necessary articles to appropriately cover a topic. The goal is including the information, in reasonable arrangement. The difficulty here is that our "notability" guideline is interpreted by the outside world as implying notability in the ordinary sense of the word. Therefore whether or not someone or something gets an individual article is a measure of its significance or importance. This is what makes it difficult to decide rationally on content. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? In an ideal world, what would you do with the two articles here? Merge The Irish Filmography to Kevin Rockett? Abductive (reasoning) 19:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Tricky one this, the book in question is more of a big almanacky-type thing..and the person is the eidtor not the owner. But still, maybe merging to the person (?) if not a stand-alone. The analogy I am thinking of is Leonard Maltin sort of..actually his books don't have an article...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC/CENT

2/0 makes a good point:

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

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

You probably already noticed: [16] Ikip 00:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Un-protection request

Hello, I am asking that the Rodney Glassman Wikipedia page be taken off protection. There is a newly written article that I believe meets the standards for Wikipedia and includes more sources then the original article in question. If you would like to review it that can also be arranged. I would like to post the article with all the requirements so that this does not occur again.

Mbellovin (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Mbellovin 12/24/09

After Jan 4, please. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Cite sourcing and personal attack

Having a minor issue in the Jediism article. An editor is considering simply naming a book and making a WL to it as properly sourcing it. Along with that, he attacked the editor that made the previous edit. [17] I reverted and explained that it wasn't a proper citation.. He then went in and reverted it. [18] I did a second revert, explaining that he needed to show which version of the book, what page etc. He reverted again. [19] Then he decided to vandalize my user page [20]. Perhaps a word from you would be of assistance. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

More important, considering it's a novel show could it possibly say it say what any of the RL believers actually believe? The user seems a little over-attached to that article. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban discussion prematurely closed

I was hoping that opening a new thread would help leave some of the histrionics of the earlier discussion behind, but the thread has already been closed without a chance for people to weigh in. I think this is a no-brainer, but if the thread gets archived this quickly that is moot. I know the timing is poor, but are you willing to open a new discussion? I think you see the problem and perhaps if I'm not personally involved it will go better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I too would like to continue it, but I gave up on it last night. My advice is to watch for future behavior from NJROTC--I do not think he understands in the least what he did wrong, if it were up to me I'd block him for harassment. I do not think this particular issue is worth it. And , as you say, given the timing.... DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have opened a new discussion here and already been inexplicably blocked for my trouble. I have added information from PCHS-NJROTC's contributions -- the bolded quotes -- that is relevant to the off-site activities we discussed earlier. I expect this one to end similarly to the last one, with the possible additional result of me getting a topic ban. :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello DGG

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

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

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

American Health Lawyers Association

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

The Holocaust

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

OpenBiblio (software)

I deprodded this based on the number of google scholar hits. If you know something about it, perhaps you could help improve the article. I'm getting kinda burned out being one of the few adding references to AfD'd/prodded software. Pcap ping 14:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

GS hits in this are deceptive, most of them are including it on a list, where the focus in on another system. There seem to be only 11 live installations, all small.[21]. The number of people working on it in any sense is probably about twice that. The two widely used opensource library systems are Kona and Evergreen, and they are the only two I would consider actually notable. But for Linux software there is an ongoing argument about how complete to be, on the grounds that in this particular field we are the major reference site. Most recent accessible ref to state of the art on OS library systems is a high-quality student paper [22]. There are of course other and more formal refs, & I will add them. The question is how much work to do on an article i do not think important. I gather you have the same problem. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken this to AfD. Pcap ping 09:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Oldcsd

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

Article on Ava Gardner in Esquire

Hi. I am working on the article on Tom Wolfe's anthology The New Journalism, and I'm trying to find out whether the article Ava: Life in the Afternoon by Rex Reed was published in the may 1967 issue of Esquire . Do you have access to the Esquire's archive, or something like the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. Your help would be much appreciated.The Ministry (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

G books has several sources saying so, including a reliable bibliography [23]--is it contradicted anywhere? DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. (As far as I know, it is not contradicted anywhere, but I just wanted to be sure.) The Ministry (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Some more Questions

Do you think you could also help me find when the article Gear by Richard Goldstein was published in the Village Voice, the article Timing and a Diversion: The Cocoa Game by George Goodman (under the pen name "Adam Smith") was published in New York World Journal Tribune, and when Beth Ann and Macrobioticism by Robert Christgau was published in New York Herald Tribune? The Ministry (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

JSTORE

Hi, I saw at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources that you have access to JSTORE. I am working on the article The New Journalism, a would like the access this article The Review of Politics, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 306-309. Can you help me? My email is what.is.the.1404[at]gmail.com. Thanks in advance :) The Ministry (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for discussion, encouraging compromise

Hi. Could you expand on how your proposal at WT:Articles for deletion#Move a disputed merge to AfD, retitled Articles for Discussion "encourages compromise"? It's the last point (#8) in your list of reasons, but it seems somewhat redundant to "keeping all options open" (#7). Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Keeping all options open is a rather general statement that merging the processes will establish the disputed proposition that a merge or redirect close is enforceable, and tlet any discussion end in the appropriate way for the situation--even letting a disputed merge end up as a delete, i that's really what consensus thinks is needed. Encouraging compromise means that merging the processes will immediately present the solution every time of a merge or redirect--will not leave it open to the possibility that someone will say so, and bring it more often to mind. It's the difference between the present: should we keep or delete this, and of course we might decide to recommend a merge. and saying what shall we do with this: keep/merge/redirect/delete. Instead of encouraging people to say, as I often do, "keep, but as an alternative merge". I would say "Perhaps we can agree on a merge, though I would rather keep it separate." It would induce the nom to say, if they did want a delete, not just why it should not be kept, but not merged & not redirected.

Any comprehensive argument generally has parts that overlap--one tries to say it in a way that will address the way different people see the problem. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I see the distinction now. I think that "encourages" is an exaggeration over "allows". Flatscan (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year David. I've been reminded of your outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia building effort over the last few days in coming across several of your insightful comments. Thank you very much for your good works. I hope you have a very healthy and happy 2010 ...and beyond. If you're able to go easy on the doughnuts and bacon, (and stay out of the political tussles) I'm sure you'll be fine! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And Happy New Year to you!!!

I left a message at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edwin_E._Jacques. I hope you will reconsider. Even though I trust your experience as a librarian, I will dare mention that there are many people in Wikipedia (let's say soccer players who play in the 6th category of Ruanda), that are less worthy of being in wikipedia than Jacques.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 22:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

it's futile to compare notability in one field with notability in another. There are probably several million people who unquestionably deserve to be in Wikipedia in terms of our clearest unambiguous standards, and who are lacking articles. In my field, every present & past holder of every named chair in a research university; in other fields, every member of any state or provincial legislature, or mayor of a medium size city--worldwide, and going back to the beginnings of records. Besides people, there is every Supreme Court case, every high school, every state park, every book that won a significant prize --all of them, for all countries, going back. Even just in the English speaking world, we have the potential for at least doubling our size; for the proper international coverage, perhaps five times that again.

In this particular case, my role as administrator is not to decide personally on notability, but to enforce the community policies and community decisions. The article was rightly or wrong deleted at AfD ; the new one is essentially the same and does not answer the objections. Whatever my personal views are, it may not be reinserted until it does. If the article were substantially better, with one or two additional really good references, then you could put it in, and I explained to you the way to do that without arousing immediate objections, by writing it in your user space first. Even if I though the deletion totally mistaken, I would still have to do the same and offer the same advice. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That urge to prod

A fruity New Year to you, DGG!

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

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

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

AfD for John Rosatti

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

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

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

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

GNG question

In an AfD, you made a comment about GNG possibly leading to over-coverage and I wanted to ask you about that. I agree that it is being used to shoehorn in otherwise non-notable people. In an AfD I'm involved in, the artist was the subject of an article in 2008 about how he hasn't made it big and was hoping to make it soon. In 2010, he still hasn't even released an album. But based on that one single article, GNG is being used by all the keep !votes. Based on their strict interpretation of GNG, if my local paper (which passes WP:RS writes a profile of a local karate teacher when he opens his new building, that should pass GNG. The coverage is "significant" and the source is reliable. To me, that's ridiculous and not what GNG was intended to accomplish. I don't even know how to begin to get something like GNG amended or clarified. Do you think it is even worth making the attempt? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To me, the real problem is not the inclusion of borderline articles, which does not ultimately matter very much, but the use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes, inevitably exacerbated by Google, which destroys the reliability of our content. This needs attention not just to removing promotional articles, but promotional content. To some extent promotional and encyclopedic coverage and content overlap: the description of a product or a performer does both. to some extent, this can be overcome by more structured articles offering less chance for expansive writing.

My position is that the GNG is unreliable in both directions, and should be used only as a rough guide, and in those cases we cannot figure out anything more rational. We should, instead have inclusion criteria based on what is worth encyclopedic coverage. This is unlikely to be adopted, as in most fields we are not the least agreed on what is worth encyclopedic coverage. When we think we do, we have been more likely to express it by the vague provisions of WP:NOT, which is a very indirect approach and leads to endless discussions with incompatible results. This is probably preferred by many people here, as the inconsistency offers a chance for getting one's way by argument or influence, or even just by chance. In practice, the arguments usually turn on the exact interpretation of the nuances of the WP:RS criteria and the very variable consensus on how to interpret the over-generalities of NOT: given the contradictory guidelines, is possible to justify almost any result. (However, in my opinion It really does remain appropriate that something intrinsically not usually worth coverage can be worth coverage if enough ouside attention is paid to it.)

My solution for this is twofold:

First to make decisions not on the basis of whether something is worth an article, but on what extent the coverage of something should have, from the spectrum of a mention in a list, a sentence, a paragraph, a sub-article, a full article, a group of related articles. the about-to-be-approved modification of WP:AFD into Articles for Discussion with an explicit remit to cover merges as well as deletions will be a first step towards this. (The difficulty here is that the outside world unfortunately but understandably views "having an article in Wikipedia" as a measure of true importance, both personal and commercial, a view unavoidably brought about by the present Google search algorithms. Ultimately we must align ourselves with the way the real world wants to use us for; we are now too important to disregard our effect--our play is now being used for serious purposes, and we must act more responsibly.)

Second To have a WikipediaTwo, or Wikipedia Supplement, for local, more detailed, and less consequential things. Just possibly, Google may decide to give this an intermediate weight. In combination, I can see people or institutions having just a mention in Wikipedia having fuller coverage in WikipediaTwo. I have previously called this supplement Wikipedia Local, but it has more general applicability than that. This should be able to satisfy the inclusionists, in permitting coverage of a wide range of disputable subjects, and the deletionists, in keeping those disputable articles out of the main Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for that much more detailed and thought out answer than I expected. Very interesting take on it. I guess my frustration is seeing people who have done nothing and simply aren't notable can be included solely because a single writer in a single paper (regardless of which one) decided to write a piece about the person. In essence, that is WP:ILIKEIT once removed. That particular writer decided they had enough interest in the topic and decided to fill some column space with it. In the case that prompted me to ask this, it was an article about the guys inability to be successful. If we take this to the next step, my local paper, again a reliable source, has done pieces about local residents losing their homes to foreclosure. They're the main topic of the piece, so under the current interpretation of GNG, they must be notable. Do nothing. Accomplish nothing. Meet no standards set down by the criteria for that particular profession (ie WP:MUSICBIO), no problem. All you have to do is attract the attention of one reporter and you're in Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You can always argue that a single "I liked him" article from a local journalist is not NPOV, and a single source is not enough per WP:GNG unless it allows NPOV coverage of the subject. A counterexample is perhaps OggConvert, where the (2nd) AfD voters decided that the sole but fairly critical review was NPOV enough for a separate article. Ahem to "given the contradictory guidelines, is possible to justify almost any result". Pcap ping 16:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Also: I find it pretty problematic to have biographies assembled from news coverage. E.g. Elonka Dunin and Hildegard Puwak are written mostly from news coverage, but the latter also passes an inherent notability guideline (WP:POLITICIAN). Despite that, it's damn hard to write a balanced bio of Puwak, because 99% of the sources are about the corruption scandal. Pcap ping 16:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please let me expand on my POV a little. First, let's use WP:MUSICBIO as an example. Criteria #1 is that the artist be the subject of multiple published works. That criteria seems totally illogical if we are to follow the idea that a single published work is sufficient under GNG. Second, the idea of a single work being sufficient under GNG in this case seems to be at odds with WP:BLP1E. If 10 different reporters, from 10 different papers write about someone doing something, we delete it under BLP1E (a policy I support). In the case of the Cash Prince, the article is about no event, yet you feel it falls under GNG. If we apply GNG in the same manner to regular bios, most should never be deleted because they were covered in a reliable source. The fact that it is one event shouldn't matter because they get in under GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

but we do not follow the guideline that a single source is enough, unless in the case of a source both fully reliable in terms of accuracy and known to be very highly discriminating in terms of editorial control for the subject involved--and even then we normally ask for substantial coverage. The NYTimes is often regarded as such a source for many topics, and the specific source there is a full length feature article. I certainly would agree that we would not go badly wrong including a Wikipedia entry for every person who is the subject of such a profile. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• My devils advocate moment: GNG says nothing about how discriminating etc. It simply says reliable source. The Idaho Statesman in Boise is a reliable source. If they did a similar length article on a local band, they should pass GNG. Now we are applying opinion about which reliable sources are more important than the next? Is this a "some animals are more equal than others" moment? Doesn't it strike you as somewhat odd that a single reporter from the NYT wrote about this guy (not about anything he did, just that he hasn't made it yet) and we can't find any other paper in the country that wrote about him? Like I said, if he'd done something, this would be BLP1E, but since he hasn't actually done anything, we can't even apply that. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You've missed the devilish subtlety. That's implied by "independent of the subject", by "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources" and by NOT INDISCRIMINATE. The interaction of the various policies is a black box from which anything can come out, or perhaps more precisely a magician's hat out of which a clever & experienced person can draw what is desired. The written rules are an incomplete version of what we actually do, and the ones that make the difference are well hidden; this is the usual way systems work--see for example Cloture. Thus we see at Wikipedia very fervent debates on what seem exceedingly minor changes in wording. But remember, that the practical working rule is that you can do whatever you can get consensus for, which is perhaps more honestly worded as , whatever you can get away with. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to see how WP:GNG can be used to bludgeon real world notability, have a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GT.M. Pcap ping 10:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

floating idea at AFD

WP:BEFORE concerns by Jimmy Wales:

"I think one of the core problems here is that the original nominator should have raised the issue on the talk page of the article!!! We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article." Full post by Wales is very enlightening. [24]

Mr. Wales comments made me think. What do you think of the chances of proposing that editors must comment on the talk page of the article before putting it up for deletion? Or something to that effect. Ikip 16:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom just decided that repeateadly nominating stuff for deletion that passes the google books test is not a punishable offense. So tell Mr. Wales to pound sand ;-) Pcap ping 16:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arb Com does not make deletion policy, and at this point in the development of the encyclopedia, neither does Jimbo. The community can make what policy it decides to make. But going on from those generalities, I think Jimbo made very good sense here, though in many cases of prodded or AfD'd articles, the case for deletion is pretty obvious, and adding required rounds of discussion would not accomplish a fairer result. He was commenting a particular case, where an apparently really absurd doubt about the article had been raised.

As for Arb Com, they are saying in the proposed decision that "[various parties] are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing." Thus, they support WP:BEFORE. Had that procedure been followed, the deleteable articles would have been deleted none the less, and the accusations of wikihounding would have been less likely to have been made. Following careful procedure diminishes the effect of personal antagonisms--and I think the arbs see it that way also, . DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I read:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed decision#Deletion_best_practices

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed decision#Miami33139 and_JBsupreme reminded the same way DGG did.

I am no longer a supporter of Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem I simply mention his statment because it got me thinking about soliciting community consensus about WP:Before. (which has, BTW, been tried and failed many times before) And Mr. Wales can express himself better than I can.

I have brought proposals to WP:AFD before, which are embarrisingly brutally torn to pieces by a super majority of editors, so I have found the best course of action is to solicit responses from veteran editors before, attempting to get help in refining my thinking and proposal. But instead, this solicitation always results in me never bringing the proposal up in the first place.

I would be interested in DGGs opinion about this idea.

Pcap, I will continue a question I have on your talk page. Ikip 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I always follow WP:BEFORE, and yet I find that topics which have no secondary sources, no encyclopedic content and no internet buzz still get kept at AFD, so I fail to see a problem. I have not seen anything deleted in the last year that did not richly deserve it. Abductive (reasoning) 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have. Just off the top of my head: SUPER (software), OggConvert, Licq at AfD. Never mind prods: Klibc, fping. Pcap ping 18:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

They're all still there, or merged. I did remember one merge I disagreed with, Mariqueen Maandig. Abductive (reasoning) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Because I restored them (except for licq, which is still in my sandbox); they got deleted first. Pcap ping 19:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the system works. Abductive (reasoning) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Except WP:BEFORE is a joke, which is the point of this thread. Pcap ping 19:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it? I believe in it, and failure to follow it usually means keep. If more people followed it, less incorrect nominations would make it to AFD, which would result in more deletions in the long term, since false claims of not following it would more likely to be discredited. Abductive (reasoning) 19:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Starting from the easy end:

1. It is inevitable that some prods will be unreasonably deleted. Just ask for them back--they will be restored at the request of any good faith editor.
2. It is also inevitable that some AfDs will be wrongly decided. My guess for the frequency of erroneous keeps is between 10 and 15%, of erroneous deletions about 10 to 20%. A statement that the erroneous deletes are essentially zero is absurd, no matter what one thinks the standard should be. With even the most optimal procedure, we could not expect to reduce it to better than 5% either way for any group process like ours.
3. The real argument is not error, but standards. It will be no surprise that I consider Abductive's standard in those areas where we have both worked extensively to be generally much too rigorous, and that I consider Ikip's often too permissive. It should also be no surprise that i consider the correct and sensible standard to be my own. More generally, I'd think we will have a better encyclopedia if we accept anything a significant group of Wikipedians want to keep, than if we delete everything a significant group wants to delete. I consider the opposite attitude incompatible with cooperative work on a group project, which requires tolerance of each other's favorites.
4. Arbcom's statement of preferred practice is, as usual, an accurate although bland statement of currently accepted policy. I think that they give as ":generally preferred" ought to be "absolutely required", but they do not have even collectively the authority to say that. The community does.
5. It is more reasonable to expect the community to get there in a series of steps. We have now seen a number of them accomplished: The length of time for AfD and Prod is now 7 days, not 5. More items are relisted--we no longer have decisions after one or two comments only. The contested merge and the delete procedures are about to be partially merged. There is less tolerance of quickly repeated AfDs, though we still have no formal time periods. There is less tolerance of over-grouped nominations. The project notification is working quite effectively, for those projects where there are people paying attention. What should be next? As formal steps, I would say first, mandatory notification of significant contributors by bot supplemented by manual checking--this seems the minimum for basic fairness. Second, the explicit statement by a closure of the reason; ditto. And third, requiring WP:BEFORE to be followed explicitly to the extent it applies. There are also attitudes: greater participation in /deletion review, greater participation in a variety of afds by those without any key interest one way or another, greater modesty in administrators claiming to decide which of two competing rules should be followed, greater public scrutiny of admins making idiosyncratic decisions. All of these would reduce the error in both directions.

And a personal statement. I agree with Abductive that following the rules would result in more good deletes, as well as more good keeps. There is a lot of newer and older junk here, especially promotional junk, that has escaped careful scrutiny. the key to this is not just following the rules to make procedure simpler and bad arguments more obvious, but also the practice of compromising what can be compromised, which will let the material than should not be compromised be more carefully examined. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Notification. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Erwin85Bot_8 is already approved and has been in use for months. All creators are notified. All editors with 5 or more edits are notified.

Working extensively on wikia myself these past few months, I think if we were to create a bot which automatically moved, or help move articles to wikia's when they are put up for deletion or after deletion, then the deletion process would become less argumentive. Ikip 21:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept Wikia as a substitute. I am committed to the principle of a comprehensive but advertisement-free encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, the conversation about wikia just ended. I sense a firmly held belief, border line doctorine. next subject.

Back to the conversation. thanks DGG, your comments are always so insightful and helpful. :) Once again, the proposal has died before it ever got to WP:AFD, which is a good thing. Ikip 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that much of an honor?

It's not like everyone or mostly everyone that dies gets an honor. Barely anyone's deaths get an honor like that. Joe Chill (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I and the nom are the almost only voices of reason here, at the AfD for Bill Barker (police officer). Had I seen afds like this before i had seen ones on major characters of War and Peace, I might have been firmly in the deletionist camp by now. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Chordless

Well, I am not sure that Chordless IS of any significance whatsoever. It's just a project I am working on that I find should be interesting to others, and it is also one of rather few independent implementations of Chord. So I guess it should just be deleted. But would be happy if anyone could find a reason not to :)

Also, I don't agree with the notability criterion, I find the non-notable subjects to be a treasure of Wikipedia. But there's not much I can do about that I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zond (talk • contribs) 10:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean, because we certainly try to remove the really non-notable subjects. If we didn't, the encyclopedia would be full of listings of totally unimportant businesses, and vanity pages. Perhaps you mean the oddball subjects, but they are not removed if they have the necessary reliable sources to show their notability. This particular article is, however, a topic i cannot judge. DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories: Music competitions prize-winners

Hello DGG (Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft?)! Several categories related to music competition winners are being targetted, and I think it would be useful that you give your opinion regarding the neccesity (or not) of these categories and maybe later help proposing changes to the present guidelines (music awards and prizes). Category:Primrose International Viola Competition prize-winners has been already deleted. The categories proposed for deletion are #Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition, #category:Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition, #Category:Operalia, #Category:Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition and #Category:Prize-winners of the Besançon Conducting Competition. Cheers.--Karljoos (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So .... you were blatantly canvassed.

1. You didn't warn the canvasser.
2. You didn't mention this when you !voted at CFD.
3. You went on to change the guideline to suit the canvasser's request without mentioning the canvassing, but citing "emerging consensus" at a heavily-canvassed CFD.

You have been editing for long enough to know better than to think that this is the sort of conduct expected of an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done

Thank you.

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highgrove Luxury Condominiums

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right, I think it's time

Hi, David. Would you be willing to nominate me for adminship? I've lately been feeling like doing more janitorial work.--Father Goose (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Searching for sources on journals

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, this is tomorrow's part:

Some preliminaries:

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

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

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

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

More generally:

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

The GNG is not "proof" of notability and nowhere in the guideline does it say it is. It says it provides the "presumption" of notability -- "presumes" is a word somewhere in the middle between "guess" and "demonstrate". The concept behind the guideline, though is sensible, & has considerable merit: for many thing (including scientific journals), notability can generally be determined by seeing if people have paid attention to something. Sometimes (including for scientific journals), we can measure the amount of attention they pay by abstract reproducible numerical criteria. The notability of an academic journal is in terms of the function of a journal, which is to provide citable information to other academics, and this can be measured, and is the impact factor (or other related measures). As Samuel Johnson said (18 April 1783) "' That, Sir, is the good of counting. It brings every thing to a certainty, which before floated in the mind indefinitely.' " [25]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appreciation

Thanks for your fantastic contributions. I'm truly impressed by your remarkable stamina. You are a great source of inspiration, I'm unlikely to be the only person thinking so. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Note sure I "get" something

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

FYI

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

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

Special Rescue Award for saving from AFD the Albanian participants in the Declaration of Independence of Albania

		The Rescue from Deletion Barnstar
		I, Sulmues, award DGG with this star for saving Rexhep Demi Azis Tahir Ajdonati, Veli Gërra, Jakup Veseli, Zenel bej Begolli, Dervish bej Ipeku, Hajdin bej Draga, Bedri bej Ipeku, Dhimitër Zografi, Zyhdi Efendi Vlora, and Taq Tutulani from AFD. Since the AFD went well, all these articles are to be considered as if you owned them...Thank you for your helping Wikipedia be a better place!-- sulmues> (talk)--Sulmues 15:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

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

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

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

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

Multiple deletions

I was initially thinking of keeping the deletion requests together and had no idea of how to go about it. I was trying to be very cautious even while nominating the current set as I don't have a very deep knowledge about early Islamic history. Right now I will wait till the current discussions are closed and then bring up the notability issue on the Wikiproject Salaf page - many pages about non-notable individuals (as I see it) seep to be under the wikiproject. Do you have any better suggestions? Thank you very much -- Raziman T V (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your user page as a box that says "This user is muslim and think that Muslims need to go back to the fundamentals of Islam". I see you keep a legit alternate account for work on Islam-related articles. Nonetheless, it seems you are working on deleting those you consider the least important, not in trying to find source for them. If the articles on the individual Companions of the Prophet are your idea of what will be most easily deleted, it is my opinion that you have misconceived the purpose of an encyclopedia. Every similarly important figure in early Christianity has an article--and the amount of contemporaneous documentation for the first century of Islam is much greater than for the first century of Christianity. To be sure, fewer works in English have been written about early Islam (especially google-accessible works), but I am pretty sure that for Arabic works, the proportion is just the opposite--though they may not be on the internet yet. If you can read Arabic, my suggestion would be that you look for sources in that language for these pages. If not, I recommend that you encourage those who do to work here on these articles. I find it curious that recently there has been a number of deletion nominations about figures in Judaism--from self-identified Jews; there's a bias here--many people are sometimes stricter about what they are most familiar with--myself included: I tend to be rather skeptical about articles on librarians and libraries. . . DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You are perhaps right - When one knows about a topic, they are more prone to consider what they don't know as unimportant. But please don't get the impression that I consider those articles as can be most easily deleted. I have read a lot on Muhammad's companions during my Madrassa days. So when I come across a name which I have even heard before, I do not even think about getting it deleted. But there are individuals with articles about them on Wikipedia with the "supporting source" to be just the mention in one Hadith. I am unable to see how they comply with Wikipedia's idea of notability. I see that the current discussions are going in the direction of "Keep" and I am okay with it. But it will be great if we have some sort of centralised discussion on what can make a person in Islamic history notable. Perhaps there is something more to it than saying that every Sahabiyy is notable. With all your Wikipedia experience, what do you suggest that I should do? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, and best wishes -- Raziman T V (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Look for information on the less important ones--this is sort of the universal answer to whether Wikipedia should include something. Most Wikipedia articles are written rather carelessly--if a single supporting source is given, this does not mean there are no others, and you need to search for them. And then you need to see how this source is discussed in other works. . What people learn, should not be limited to what is in their formal education. Wikipedia not only provides the opportunity for sharing what you already know about, but for learning more in order to share it. At the end of my graduate work, both in biology & librarianship, I knew a great deal about my own specialty, but considerably less about even closely related topics in the same field. I learned about many of these, because I needed to teach students in broader courses, I've learned about still more topics, by working on Wikipedia articles about them. If a madrassa education is at the level of a religious oriented undergraduate college in the US, a graduate of that will have adsorbed a great deal of the general principles and ethos of their religion, will have read thoroughly their sacred scriptures, and will have a general knowledge of the history of their religion and the basics of theology. The Muslim religion is noted for a long and rich tradition of scholarship beyond that level.

My own feeling is that Wikipedia has greatly under-included traditional scholarship in all fields. I think we need articles on all individual figures in all of the different sacred scriptures, and of all people about who anything is known or speculated from the early history of the traditions.

As for people in ancient and medieval times, as a general rule information has survived primarily for those who might reasonably be considered notable: those who have left a literary or artistic heritage, or been in leading political or military or religious positions. (There is one continuing problem: we often have names of the spouses & sometimes other relatives of such people, but know nothing more than dates of birth death & marriage.) But as we get nearer to the present, we come across a great number of people who are named only in surviving funeral inscriptions, property and tax records, and legal disputes; the extent of this varying by period and region. Historical scholarship in the past worked primarily with aggregates of such records, or with selected representative individuals. But with the availability of data processing, there are many projects trying to build up the complete network for some particularly well-documented areas (eg [26] [27], and an historian can extract a surprising amount of information even from mere genealogies. The question is where to stop, as far as we are concerned at Wikipedia. My answer to the question is WikipediaTwo an extension for local individuals and other detail. The difference from Wikia is that it would be verifiable, NPOV, and free from advertising. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the Sahabiyyeen list on Arabic Wikipedia. There are articles about many more individuals, but most of those are very poorly sourced. But if we go through them properly, I think it will be possible to at least get enough information about notability and minimal biography. But the problem is that my Arabic is very very poor - All I can understand on reading nearly properly is the Qur-An. I tried Google translate as well, but the quality seems to be very poor. But I will try my best to do what I can to improve those articles. I used to work basically on Astronomy-related articles on Malayalam Wiki. I think this can be my major field of work here.

I agree with your view that we need more accessible information about all these individuals. But I am not sure whether Wikiipedia would be the right place for that. Perhaps, as you said, an extension...

And thanks for all your time. I can understand that you are a busy person but you have been very kind to me and have spent a lot of time discussing with me. I hope I will be able to deal with my co-Wikipedians in such a manner. And I will try my best to take your advice and improve these articles and their sourcing. Perhaps it will help improve my Arabic as well....

Thanks again and best wishes -- Raziman T V (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm always glad of an opportunity to explain something that I care about deeply, and I thank you for the opportunity--and the way you facilitated it by your excellent questions. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Curious

Since you were strongly opposed to a CSD criteria for unsourced BLP deletions, do you have any comments on the ArbCom's imposition by motion of this rule? (I know my question is a bit loaded, but that's how I see their action.) Pcap ping 15:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, I do. Expressed them at [28], and at the RfC [29]--Rd232 has a good proposal there. One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it can move very fast when necessary. One of the disadvantages is that it can move very fast without thinking. To take a situation that has been a real problem for years, and try to solve it in one day, is not reasonable. To endorse arbitrary action by admins is a very dangerous way for arb com to proceed. They have often moved too slow before, but this is beyond ridiculous. There's a good proposal The term I use for this is BLP panic. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

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

They are accessible, but only in major libraries. But you are in a university, so they should be available. PsychInfo is still there, [30] and does include books, and gives a narrower level of subject indexing. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about a list

I ran across a list yesterday that just bothers me: List of school-related attacks. The list is reasonably well documented and I'll even give them points for going back to 1764 to list an attack on a school by Lenape Indians......but this ends up having a lot of very minor incidents too. A kid committing suicide is now a "school attack"? Any way, this lists criteria is: "These are attacks that have occurred on school property or related primarily to school issues or events. A broad definition of the word attacks is used for this list so as to include public attacks or one's self (suicide)." That seems really broad to me and this whole list sort of gives me a "news" feel. You're one of the most balanced, policy based people I've interacted with on here, so I wanted to get your take on it. Am I completely off base with feeling that there is is more of a news reporting feel with an overly broad inclusion criteria? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

it would help to follow the usual rule and remove those that are not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles on the incident or the victim or the perpetrator. Suggest it on the talk p., and you can quote me. But I am too busy right now preventing the further deletion of unsourced articles without people making the least attempt to verify them. Trying to cope with what i can only call recklessness is taking up the time of many editors. That not only arb com but Jimbo has just congratulated the apparent leader [31] makes the need to protect the encyclopedia all the more urgent. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarah de Guademar

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

Coffee is bullying and threatening an editor about removing PROD tags

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

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

how to help

moved from user:ikip.

You will help much more by adding at least one source and removing the tag, than by being provocative. Don't behave like the opposition. DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		The Socratic Barnstar is awarded to those editors who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their arguments. This barnstar is awarded to DGG. Thank you for the excellent advice. More than any other editor on wikipedia, everytime you give me advice, it gives me serious pause. I know it annoys you that I quote you so much, but it is because you have such a talent of eloquently expressing the root and essence of any given situation, in a way that in four years, I have never seen another editor on Wikipedia be able to do. I am not the first nor the last editor to remind you of this incredible gift you have, but I among the most grateful. Thank you for being such a guiding star for so many editors in this project. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 16:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Great comments. I am so proud to know you and to be your friend. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion criteria

"on the basis of the various comments below, I simply cannot tell if he is notable, so I am back to undecided. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)"

Not being able to determine notability would a reason to delete, right? I don't understand your neutral comment. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. One should only !vote to delete for lack of notability, if one thinks that on balance the person is not notable. When I can not decide what to do, I defer to others. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? You think that everyone in the world should have an article unless we can prove that they are not notable? This is turning Wikipedia policy on its head. Articles should only be written if the subject matter is known to be notable. This is particularly important since the default to no consensus is keep. By burdening Wikipedia with these articles we have overwhelmed the volunteer work force making it impossible to maintain and improve the quality of our articles. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I only speak/read English

With regards to the edit comment you used with this edit, you said "in national Historical Buildings register, as the fiWP clearly says; that's a RS for notability. Please check other Wikipedias when relevant before nominating for deletion." How was I supposed to know this when I only speak/read English?--Rockfang (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I did was to a/examine the article for their references and external links sections, which are similarly located in all Wikipedias, and then, b/ try Google translate . It doesn't provide a good text translation for a finished article, but it can deal with something like this. (some people use msn translate, or the various other programs, but I find Google Translate tends to do fairly well for Wikipedia articles or newspaper articles.) It is very unfortunately frequent for people making enWP articles based on those in other Wikipedias to not bother with the references and links. when I see them lacking, I normally add them even when I cannot translate them. Fortunately html is a universal format. The presence of a Wikipedia article on a national subject in its national Wikipedia is an alert, though sometimes it can be spam or promotion--and some Wikipedias have even looser citation practices than we have. I was giving a hint, not blaming you. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, your edit comment seemed a bit rude when you said "..as the fiWP clearly says...". Not everyone speaks or reads Finnish. Also, just because an article is notable on one language's wikipeda doesn't mean it is worthy of an article on an other language's wiki in my opinion. I assume (I haven't actually checked) that the Notability guidelines on each different language wiki may have different standards/criteria. If I may make a suggestion, you might want to consider making future "hints" on the relevant editor's talk page more often.--Rockfang (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they have different notability guidelines; some are more stringent, some have no notability guidelines at all. We do not always keep articles other Wikipedias keep, and v-v. But it's always a reason to at least check the other article. In this case, regardless of the Finnish guidelines, about which i know nothing, the information provided in the article--the external link to the national historic buildings database-- is what makes for unquestioned notability in the enWP--I would think most WPs would consider the same, but at any rate we certainly do. I apologize for sounding impatient, but the present deletion spree on unsourced articles has be a little overworked trying to rescue the notable ones. I realize this wasn't part of it--but the damage that group of editors did is affecting a good deal of Wikipedia. It's not the least your fault, of course. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger that. I understand.--Rockfang (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

List of deleted BLPs

I have made a list of those unreferenced BLP articles that got deleted a few days ago. User:Apoc2400/Deletion list. Feel free to use it or send it on to anyone who might have use for it. I have not really followed what happened on the issue since the RfC started, but it seems you have. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope someone else is working on this, because I am fully occupied with preventing yet additional ones to slip through WP:PROD if they can be sourced. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am working on it, and some others are also. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem BLP

DGG, you asked me about the BLP violations I saw while going through Kevin's deletion log. The worst of them was actually undeleted (after I looked at it) with its problem statements intact: Bounleut Saycocie. When I went looking for it just now and realized it had been restored I removed the worst of it, but I still think it's a serious problem--it covers potentially controversial material and based in large part on sources that would not normally qualify as reliable. My general position has been that the deletions were abrasively done and not necessary, as I've said in several places. But there were certainly serious problems in some of those articles. Chick Bowen 21:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is precisely the core of the problem. There is no relation between an article being unsourced and an article having (possibly) problematic statements. The right thing to do is to fact tag such a statement or to delete it, depending on the gravity of the statement. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What are exactly the pressing libel and slander concerns here. That he continued to fight the communists after the communists won?, that he remains politically active today (whatever "active" implies), or that he seeks asylum in the US (which was fact marked)? Power.corrupts (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Reinserted text, with refs. Power.corrupts (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

looking at the Dec 14 version of the article, I would consider immediately problematic--the give away is the "now seeking asylum" the last sentence. Looking at the history, the "now" was added in 2003. By 2009, there ought to have been some developments. I would consider it equally problematic no matter how well the article was sourced, unless there was a reference for that fact from 2009. It represents the problem with our older articles, sourced or unsourced: they have not been updated. We set out to build an encyclopedia, without recalling that encyclopedias get revised regularly. Many editors worked on it in 04, 05 06 07 and 08 without noticing. it was marked as unsourced BLP by Fram, an excellent editor, on Feb 3, 2009, apparently without realizing that just marking it that way was insufficient. That at the latest was the time to have caught it. When tThe Cunctator added refs on Jan 21,2010 he apparently found nothing to source that statement, for he correctly marked it with a fact tag. On Jan 24, Chiuck saw it, and the first thing he did was remove that sentence. I assume that was after he too could find nothing. And neither can I.

There is another indication of problems: the article was added by an ip editor back when ips could start articles. Perhaps these among the unsourced BLOPs should get first priority. Perhaps the ip added BLPs would have a higher yield of problems sourced or unsourced, than just the unsourced ones.

what we need, as I said somewhere among the twenty of so different places this discussion has been taking place, is to treat BLPs carefully in every respect. This was in front of the eyes of many editors, but never critically looked at. Every one of them is at fault--probably all of us are, for if Fram was careless in handling a BLP, who is likely to have done better? DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this entirely. There is no substitute for care: even deletion, in this case, did not work, because the article was undeleted and sourced with the asylum claim intact. Chick Bowen 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Had not seen the IP involvement. Cleaned out more, and will copy this discussion to article's talk page. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I also found some problematic un-sourced BLPs, mostly dealing with Romanian soccer, pretty much in the same vein as the above issue: [32] (said the guy was famous making bad referee decision in a given match) [33] (one line article that said the guy is currently unemployed). You can check the details of the rest even if you are not an admin because these articles haven't been deleted: [34] [35] [36]. Pcap ping 07:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Jones (politician)

Please reply to the points raised here. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I just now gave an extended argument for this at another AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Powers, an AfD where it is being argued that even though the unsuccessful candidate has sufficient RSs for notability, he is none the less not notable:

I think that the GNG is obsolete. It was adopted as a screening device long before G News archive and G Books had the wide-reaching coverage they do today, under the assumption that only the few very most notable things would have conveniently accessible sources. This is no longer the case, and we need to decide what will replace the GNG. The question then would be whether we wish to regard major party candidates as notable regardless of whether they are successful. My view is, as usual, that we should compromise: the candidates for the major offices are notable, and I would include certainly all national legislatures and all state or provincial chief executives. I would not include candidates for seats in state or provincial legislatures--here we should include only the winners--so for about 90% or more of the political offices we think confers notability, only the actually successful candidates would count--giving us only a ten percent expansion on coverage. I consider that a very conservative extension--I am not a radical inclusionist. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability drive

We are going to find at the election night that suddenly a couple of hundred people become notable, people will be coming to wiki and lookig for these people and will likely create them when they find them not there, its fall out from the blp wars, Jennings has gone already and I had the admin put it in my user space, and we likely are going to lose Jones as well so I put that in my user space for the time being, regards User_talk:Off2riorob/Graham_Jones_(politician) .. User:Off2riorob/Tammy_Jennings Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've commented above that we are going in the wrong direction here. The most useful thing you can do is to concentrate on getting sources. Recall that we do want to keep out campaign advertising. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting AfDs

Impulse Tracker and Scream Tracker. Basically, what do you when you have number of source say that X is an notable program of type Y, but there's no in-depth coverage in any secondary source? If Wikipedia really wants to be a tertiary source, then the coverage should not exceed that of secondary sources. On the other hand, it doesn't seem that unreasonable to rely on the primary source (the program's own documentation) to write most of the entry, and just use the secondary source to substantiate the claims of importance. Pcap ping 22:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The policy is WP:V, and what is considered a RS is a detail that need needs to be sensibly interpreted for different subject matter. There are cases where primary sources are sufficient, and the exact distinction between them is not always certain. I consider that in some web and computer related areas we the guidelines as stated are not appropriate, and we have appropriately been interpreting them flexibly. As for WP:N, it too is subject to interpretation. For a good while we have possibly been too permissive here, but we are in my opinion, currently seeing an over-reaction driven by a few determined editors. Personally I think this subject area is one where we should be as inclusive as practical, because we are in practice the best reference source for most of this. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Midwest Book Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hartmut Esslinger

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pelangi Kasih School

Would you explain to the editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pelangi Kasih School why we keep high schools? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I replied there, and I'll copy the argument here, for reference:

The rationale for keeping all high schools is that in practice we can find sufficient material to show about 95% of them notable by our usual guidelines, and it is not worth having elaborate and time-wasting debates like this to exclude the other 5%. Any established school will have some notable alumni; will have some athletic victories; will usually have won some academic competitions and placed either high or low in some academic standings; the decision to found a school will normally be discussed in news sources or in sources about the founding group or agency; the construction of the school will have been a major project, and also have resulted in public information; the appointment of the successive heads will have been newsworthy; the school will have been a place where some noteworthy things have happened. Any of these is enough for notability, and it is extremely rare that some of this cannot be found. When Wikipedia was started it was sometimes difficult to find such material with the limited research facilities most people here were able and willing to use, for it required research in local print libraries--and very few Wikipedians have proven willing to use libraries at all, or anything not freely and obviously available on the internet. But now with the growth of Gbooks and g news such material is in fact widely and freely available on the internet, and anyone who looks carefully will find it. The information is perhaps more readily available in some countries, like the US, than in others, but the basic principle remains, that the material will always be available. when ai first came here, I did not understand this, but I soon realised that the attempts to distinguish just which schools were below the bar for the thousands of them was a useless enterprise, when almost none of them really failed it. Any attempt to discriminate would make more errors than it corrected. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of what is important--we are not equipped to do this. All we can do is include information that might be of value to someone about those things which can reasonably be considered to be of some importance. why should a large nation not have thousands of notable schools? Notable is much less than famous. We are not an abridged encyclopedia.

In terms of accumulating rubbish, it actually works the other way round. By including basic information we encourage the addition of more. By including basic information about towns and villages and schools and other institutions and things and people we encourage people to improve them. Many more people will, in practice, be able and willing improve an existing Wikipedia article , than are able to properly start one. The continued existence of Wikipedia depends on the continued recruitment of new editors, and this will be primarily from students. Very few active editors remain for more than three =years--they very reasonably develop other interests--writing for Wikipedia is rarely a career. If we do not replace those who leave, we will die; if we merely replace them, we will be static. There is very little here that will not be greatly improved by wider participation--this focus of=n wide participation is the basic idea behind open editing, what made Wikipedia worth starting and makes it worth continuing. Working on local topics is the ideal way of getting started, and what we have always recommended to beginners. Wikipedia is not harmed by the inclusion of borderline topics: it is harmed by the inclusion of spam and prejudice and error. The way of preventing these is to have more people working here. and the way of working here effectively is to add good material. It is more valuable doing this than quibbling at Afd. In the time it has taken to have this discussion, we could each of us have started or improved at least one article for each of us. I will now return to doing that, and so should all of us. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for providing such a good summary for why we keep high schools. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well youre prepared to use your time to say it and I respect your right to say it but at the Indonesian project we beg to differ regardless - but hey thanks for the effort - wish we had you at the Indonesian project I couldnt even get one other ed interested in fixing the BLP issues :) - and I find some of the one liner non ref BLP's damned nuisance - If the school stub stays because of your non voting block of text well I wont hold it against you - it may be fine of the US project but I think its pointless at the Indonesian project whatever you say SatuSuro 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There are no national blocs here, or at least there are not supposed to be. The Indonesia project at enWP is not independent, and the same notability standards apply just as much there as in the US. Nobody is forcing you to spend your time writing these articles--you might do better to leave them be and do what we both agree is necessary, look for references for unreferenced BLPs. . Other Wikipedias may do as they please, of course--some have stricter rules about notability than this one, some have no guidelines at all about it. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Project based issues abound - and regardless of the universality aims - various cultural differences do affect projects and the sorts of edits they get - in the death project the undue is the amazing obsession of the US cemeteries - no where else on the wikipedia has such a corpus of unreferenced lists of cemeteries exist - as much as the aim of universailty is there - it doesnt happen - Oh and I have a very low opinion of the BLP mess from jimbo down - I am not going to sweat over whether someone comes in and deletes one liner bio stubs en masse from the Indonesian project - there are so few eds there - so youve done your bit and i respect that but the 'universality' of schools and N in my opinion is completely grabbing the horse by the wrong part of the anatomy - but hey good stirring words - and you spent your time doing it. As to what we do with our time - I think the great value of WP is that different people have quite different ideas what to do with it - and hey good work anyways! SatuSuro 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David F. Haight

An article that you have been involved in editing, David F. Haight, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David F. Haight. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I commented there. Most of the articles prodded as unsourced BLP do turn out to have sources and be about notable people, once the work is done on them; but not all of them do. this is one that does not. It is worth going carefully through the list, with the emphasis on carefully, as in your analysis at the Afd. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sympathy of Interest

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

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

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

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

In addition we need

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

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

David Goodman's Projects

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

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

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

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

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

Ikip 05:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You may have missed the response:

User:Ikip/Discussion_about_creation_of_possible_Wikiproject:New_Users_and_BLPs#Organize.21

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

Death Star

I noticed this edit [37] and was wondering if you could expand on it. Your edit summary was 860 Library holdings, look for reviews before deciding its not notable. perhaps try a merge but when I look at WP:BK nowhere does it mention library holdings as a reason to think that a book has sufficient notability... The guideline seems to indicate to me that fiction such as this in general does not pass Wikipedia's notability standards, so what am I missing? -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

right, it is not a formal justification, though it works a good deal of the time at AfD. More formally, libraries buy on the basis of reviews, so it indicates there will be reviews, and reviews are the usual secondary sources that prove books or other creative works notable. But as I said, I'd be inclined to merge. Per WP:BEFORE, we do not delete if we can merge. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I will try that going forward... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Single-source citation templates

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist)

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

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

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

James Kavanaugh

Thank you for the rewrite on James Kavanaugh. I have a lot of material I would like to add but I am just learning Wikipedia. I see that have rewritten it to keep it from being deleted. I can come up with some of the references needed but don't think my understanding of wikipedia will be up to speed. I am not even sure I am using your talk space correctly. If you would not mind starting a discussion about the article on my talk space I think I have mastered that and can provide references from my Father his brother to get the article out of the deletion category. I know there are many fans who are looking for information on James and it would be nice to have it all in one place. If you see my talk space there is a video 1 of six I would like to see referenced. realfakemarlene 20:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Realfakemarlene. You can see I tried adding it but my knowledge of Wikipedia is weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realfakemarlene (talk • contribs)

no one is now proposing to delete it, nor do I think that they will. comments on your talk p. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Joshua Jaames

I saw you note about looking for reviews prior to marking for Speedy. I did and came up with GHits adn GNEWS. Your message implies I missed something, can you point me to what I missed? ttonyb (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between speedy and AfD or prod. for speedy, any indication of notability is enough to pass, and writing multiple books is such an assertion. For AfD, the books have to be important enough to shown him actually notable. As for reviews, it's a good idea to try Google News Archive, not just with the name of the person, but the name of each individual title. I also usually try a check of worldCat, to see if any substantial number of libraries have them. Then if you do not find anything, nominate for AfD,saying where you looked. If you checked even a little, you are doing much better work than many people here, and therefore you need to say so to avoid the assumption that you didn't do any. . DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL

Scott's BLP crusade almost took in some collateral damage: Ernley Blackwell, who you deprodded, died in 1941. Fences&Windows 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

his prod was without reference to BLP, just as not-notable. Both he and others who are going through the bios are recommending for deletion on such ground, and it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if you check about it first, instead of going by the guess that the article is complete: if the notability had been no more than the article asserted, I would not have deprodded, but he was central not peripheral in the Casement affair and in many other things. There were a few articles in the current campaign where it turned out the person was dead, but that affects neither the need for sourcing nor the notability. . A project to check all BLPs once a year to see if any have died would not be a bad idea. It is not the unsourced BLPs that are most of the problems. They may have a somewhat higher rate of major problems than the sourced ones, but there are so many more sourced ones, bad in various ways, some fixable, some not. I have no objection to projects to remove junk, if done right. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter O. Price

Thanks for correcting me. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you 100%, David. I've tried for the past 3 years to fix up articles, and get nary a pat on the back or a barnstar, much less any help. The barbarians at the gate have taken over Wikipedia. They cry: Carthago delenda est! - get rid of 60,000 articles all at once, delete on sight! When others do the same, that is, ProD unreferenced articles, they get away with it, quoting Chairman Jimbo. But all I've gotten is grief over the past few days when I've been as sloppy a few times, as they have been for years. At least I've made some good test cases to show that I'm right. That's my only consolation around here. The proposed rules suck like dead bunnies. I was just testing them to prove that they won't work. I'm glad at least you and The-Pope have noticed. Thank you again! Bearian (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There are more of us than two.. But considering the hundred-fold greater ease of nominating for deletion as compared to sourcing, there needs to be many more. The first step towards solution to getting them is to make the people who want to delete article try to source them first. It's fine for people to concentrate on different things, but they must be aware of the general need for other sorts of work also: I concentrate of saving whenever possible, but I delete more than I rescue. and it isn't only the articles that have some sort of a source that need the rescue, or the deletion. (and of those I try to delete, about 10% could probably have been rescued--nobody here is free from mistakes. But at least people shouldn't court mistakes by closing their eyes when they work--at least not deliberately, the way arbcom seems to have praised them for doing. The logical consequence of their ruling is to delete all articles dealing with 1900 and later, for they all might possibly have an error affecting a living person.

The general solution is to attract more editors. We do not have enough people here to keep track of the articles we have on a timely basis. The way to get more is to do everything possible to encourage people to edit and to write articles. Anyone who in good faith comes to write an article should be encouraged to stay--and the best way is by experienced Wikipedians assisting them how to make their article acceptable if that is possible, or at least by politely and personally explaining just what is wrong and why working on another article might be better. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Note Tracker

Hello DGG, I would first like to thank you for your support in the discussion of a now-deleted page, of which I was the subject. The discussion has been about whether my inventions were notable. A device: the 'Note Tracker' was picked as an example, one which critics said they found little or no evidence for. Unfortunately, the considerable music press coverage and testimonials it received on launch date from around 1990 and as far as I know, only exist in hard-copy (which I have kept). Also, being long out of production for lack of funding, it has no web presence. I don't know if it was possible to cite hard-copy. However, the original creator of the article wisely concentrated on my currently available invention, the sonome, which does have web-presence, but has been called by toher names too. The article was in the process of improvement but ran out of time. I'm philosophical about the deletion - it's not for me to say whether my inventions are notable, or whether editors decide there's not enough evidence that they are. I have read your talk page and wish you success with your mission. Kind Regards, Peter Davies Pd1950 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There are occasional efforts by individual people here in various fields to try to clean up the articles in their areas by deleting a number of borderline or weakly supported articles. when this happens, it tends to overshoot the mark. Articles on computer software of this and several other types has been one of the ongoing efforts. It's not my specialty, and I cannot really marshall the sort of arguments I can do in areas I better understand. But even in them, what happens to an individual article has an inevitable degree of randomness--jury systems are not known for consistency. I hope you choose to stay involved here--your subject knowledge would be useful., as all subject knowledge is. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Australia–Kosovo relations

This article has been renominated for deletion by User:Libstar. Since you took the time to comment in the first discussion, you deserve to be notified of the situation. Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Food_and_Chemical_Toxicology

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

Question re: your response about Food and Chemical Toxicology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worldcat

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

That is WorldCat Identities. You can get there directly at [38]; but if the name is common, you then have to select from a list of possibilities, and select the right one. Try James Watson. You'll get [39] Size of type is proportional to relative number of books and libraries holding them. He's the 2nd entry in the list. [40]] To see the complete list, click the small arrows "more". The number of library holdings given here sometimes combines all editions, sometimes does not. There's a list of translated languages at the right.

But there's also an indirect way, Find any one book by the person--I often do that by searching for title. Searching "Molecular Biology of the Gene", take the first edition listed, and you should get [41] Scroll down to "Details", where you see "Find more information about": and select it. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept

Thank you.--Father Goose (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

G7 bot

I made a comment on the Bot approval page ... I originally only intended the bot to deal with article talkpages that had been created, then blanked and marked for G7 by Wildbot ... I have no issue if that was the only tasks for now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

nor I, but it's now expanded far beyond that point. I am very dubious about permitting bots to delete, for fear of just such expansions. (One thing though:, how many such that meet your original specifications are there, actually? ) DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that did a dozen a day for the first couple of days as an admin. I can't imagine how many more there were. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=WildBot&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia shows Deleted edits: 2,642 Live edits: 7,060 and the bot's been operating just over two weeks. The minimum number of edits would be two; one to create the message and one to ask for it to be deleted; if we call the average three then that's 800/16 days = 50/day.

DGG, could you please come back and comment again on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT#G7 "good faith" requirement; your experienced opinion was instrumental in shooting down a bad idea, I'd really like it applied again to the possible revisions of that idea. Josh Parris 10:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD

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

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

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

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

JBsupreme's edit summaries and more

There's another rehash of that issue and more on ANI, and a RfC/U was started as well Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JBsupreme. I'm notifying you since you complained about his use of edit summaries before, although I'm not sure what can be said about these issues that hasn't been said already. Pcap ping 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

so I see . But this time he has admitted the need of them. I don;t want to pile on about that. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Political candidates

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

David S. Barnes

This has been prodded. I have heard of his book, The great stink of Paris and the nineteenth-century struggle against filth q.v., but I'm not sure he passes WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

my error here, I scanned this and sort of thought I remembered hearing about the books also--but I saw he was just an Assistant Professor and decided not to look further. As I myself keep saying, one should always look further if there is any chance at all, at least in the basic free obvious places. WorldCat now includes book reviews (and articles) from all the MUSE and JSTOR journals & an increasing number of others, so it's now my first place to go for authors . I found (and added) so many reviews of both books that serve as secondary sources for notability, to demonstrate he is clearly notable as an author, and so many library holding and references in G Scholar that make it evident he is seen as an authority, thus passing WP:PROF also. This is quite unusual, for someone at this rank to be already notable, but it happens. I should follow my own advice. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Argument for Deletionism

I fully support the founding principle of Wikipedia that any subject is worth coverage if it is notable and verifiable. The ideal is to create a huge repository of knowledge on every subject under the sun, and then some. But I am concerned that the number of articles keeps growing and the number of active editors is not growing in proportion. There are too many stale articles for the editors to maintain, and the problem is getting worse. If this is the case, while the number of articles will grow inexorably the average quality will keep dropping. The credibility of the project will decline and constructive editors will turn away. The quality will drop further in a vicious cycle. The project may collapse under its own weight. Too many trivial or out-dated articles, and not enough constructive editors.

One solution is to ratchet up the inclusion rules. Not because minor topics are unworthy of articles, but because with available resources Wikipedia cannot ensure any reasonable level of quality for the minor topics, and consistent poor quality turns away both readers and editors. No article is better than a bad article. Thoughts? Is there a discussion somewhere on this subject? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here . . . I think the argument about whether or not "no article is better than a bad article" has been debated ad nauseum but you propose what looks like a novel solution to me, by raising the standards for inclusion. Where I think that idea falls short is that the standards we presently have are inconsistently applied. We only debate the merits of an article if it is nominated for deletion, and as the present debate on unreferenced BLPs shows, plenty of articles that some editors may feel should be deleted can sit for a long, long time. Notwithstanding the process for arriving at higher standards, I think they may cause such an AfD glut that it would scare away editors from all parts of the deletion/inclusion spectrum. I'm also not clear if you envision raising the notability standards, the citation standards, or some other measure that I can't think of at the moment.

Okay, DGG, you can have your talk page back now.  ;) --otherlleft 03:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @Aymatth - I disagree that no article is better than a bad article. There are thousands of very good articles on very minor subjects (obscure fossils, small villages, minor sporting teams, take your pick) where wikipedia has risen above the blandness that is the internet. It has taken nine years to get this far. The best Featured Articles did not spring up overnight, and have only really started appearing since 2006-2007. I'd say lack of articles turns away readers much much more - see the failures of citizendium, knol and other online pedias. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

@Aymath also: to extend a little what Cas has said:
I. — we tend to do better on the minor subjects--in my opinion because they are what the actual writers we mainly have can easily write about. and, since most people stay only a few years, the continuation let alone the growth of Wikipedia requires continually getting new editor, and working on minor subjects is the and way to start beginners.

II — On traditional important subjects, we can prove you wrong also by a random (literally) featured article: in 1976 The Raft of the Medusa was a redirect to this: [42] , where the total relevant contents was "Artist Théodore Géricault decided to make a painting based of the incident and contacted the writers in 1818. The painting first appeared in the Paris Salon in 1819 and was a sensation. It currently resides in the Louvre." It became a Featured article in Jan 2009: [43], and in the subsequent year, its been cleaned up a little further to [44]

III — But you know it perfectly well: on your talk page you say "I sometimes start an article or expand a stub, sometimes try to improve articles on subjects that seem to have potential but are poorly written, organized, referenced, not neutral etc". I think you may have since gotten disheartened by the size of the job, but remember there are quite a lot of us, and potential for getting many more. Do what you can do, and recruit others to join you.

IV— I joined probably with the same intention you did: to improve the deplorable quality of articles--with a focus on use of second-rate referencing and outdated information, on both large and small articles. But now I have to spend almost all my time here defending articles so they stay long enough that I or someone else can improve them. I am beginning to get very impatient about it, about those who actively obstruct people who try to help. It is bad enough when someone does not source an article, but to both not try to source it and to delete it so nobody else can source it is far worse. It's destructive. It's shortsighted. It says it helps, and it does the opposite. The way to improve the average quality is to take something and improve its quality, and let others do likewise, and, for those of us who can, if someone needs help doing it, help them, not blame them for doing it sub-optimally. We talk about "do no harm" -- we should start by doing no harm to the people who actually do the work here.

V — I've worked in education all my life, and I know that everyone starts off ignorant and unskilled, and most people grow a good deal from there--although, throughout history, not as much as the formally educated of their time hope. Wikipedia offers a way to accelerate that, and draw more people into the base of growing knowledge. We can either drive people off and kill off articles before they have a chance to grow, or we can choose Life, so that we may live, we, and those who come after us _{(Deuteronomy 30:19, my paraphrase.)} DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Not to use your talk page as a soap box DGG (delete it if you so wish), but Aymatth2's reasoning would have killed Wikipedia in its infancy, with its lack of faith in altruistic contributions and incremental improvement (WP:IMPERFECT). A great number of seasoned thinkers had written off Jimbo's vision precisely on these grounds, and a good dose of perceived naïvety, and the success of Wikipedia is indeed amazing. Soapboxing further, I originally came to Wikipedia to contribute with specialist content - much against my will I'm increasingly drawn into run-of-the-mill Smallville politics, bureaucratic argumentative reasoning, deplorable us-and-them mentality; and ahh, a frenzy sourcing articles on software, politicians, bands, books, idioms, concepts, (most unbeknownst to me) against tight deadlines. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I can but strongly agree with you. A thind that every editor should remember is that featured are 0.15& and good articles 0.1%[45]. The rest is of average, mediocre or dubious quality. Yet without them wikipedia wouldn't be able to exist. An example, I wrote about some battle in Afghanistan; the sources named some warlord. He had a two-line stub, that was sufficient to include in the article. Would I had needed to go through the sources it would have taken considerably more time. Without all that "junk" or "cruft", wikipedia would no longer be wikipedia, but a just a copycat of Britannica. Sorry for climbing on your soapbox and ranting.^walk victor falk ^talk 14:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive messages. I was feeling a bit downhearted when I wrote the above - just a mood. There is a huge number of good articles. I was thinking narrowly about biographies of living people, articles about current political subjects and to a lesser extent articles about places. These need constant attention to keep up to date and are often poorly sourced and subject to vandalism. Their numbers seem to be growing faster than the number of editors. But probably the great majority of articles once written will steadily improve, and do not really need much maintenance. Worth thinking about though, when starting an article: "is this useful as it is, and will it remain valid if nobody ever updates it?". Personally, I feel good when I am researching and adding content and see others improving what I have done. I get depressed when I look at the AfDs and debates. I should just stay away from them. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't stay away--just make a practice of looking at one a day and only one. (someone else recently said this on a talk p. , but worded differently.). I think every article needs maintenance -- its just that some get it automatically because of the great attention. The maintenance on many articles is however pretty rudimentary: someone will update a statistic, but not look for other things that need updating. Almost everything needs attention: there are no subjects that can be guaranteed to remain static. My estimate is different from yours: I'd guess that between 90 and 95% of articles do not get enough good attention. Fortunately, some topics will remain basically correct even if not up to date, and this includes the ones you mentioned as problems: articles on towns will have the basic geography right, though not further developments, and will still be useful. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080531043017AAOkk6G about people who do nothing further will still be correct. If a minor politician is elected to another office, the article is almost certain to be updated--and ditto if he is involved in a major crime. (There is one special class that is worth systematic updating: people charged or convicted of crimes.) Current political subjects in my opinion, are along with current popular music, the things that get the most attention--they need constant watching for NPOV, which is somewhat different question.

Fortunately, there is a solution -- in addition to the usual recipe of increased participation. The use of semantic data, as in infoboxes, permits automated updating searches and even automatic updates. For example, we could probably change all US population figures after the next census. The growing usual of standard identification numbers of many classes of subjects, such as published authors, will do so also. I think Wikipedia should gradually make the transition to structured writing. I think the easiest first step might be a program to expand infoboxes into sentences. This sort of thing is where I will need to learn a great deal, for I am not an expert. (There's another possibility--just as we automatically add ISBN numbers, we could add references to reviews, using google news or worldCat. There will be a problem though about permission to make such use of their data.) DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I always appreciate your sound advice. But one AfD a day? Here's the deal. I have a set of about 400 articles on my "to do" list, of which I usually start one or two a day, although I often get side-tracked into other sets of articles, and sometimes get sidetracked from the sidetracks as when Gbedu led naturally to Sakara Records and then to Zestafoni. Anyway, when that backlog is cleared, one a week. Any more than that could pose a mental health hazard. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(butting in) We-ell, see how your mood holds up. The mood in the trenches at AfD is miles removed from the collaborative atmosphere at many wikiprojects. I find I only do it in short runs before I need a break too, and then avoid it for months on end. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

one trick is to comment on ones where you have no personal interest of your own on the actual subject matter, as long as you can understand what the article is talking about. It also helps to look at the article and the deletion rationale independent of what anyone before one has said, and not go back to see what people think of your argument. Now, I do that a little, but mainly I do concentrate on the ones I care about, one way or another. The needed emotional attitude is to not get upset when a good article loses, because it will often happen--but I hope not quite as often as if I were not there. I find in helps perspective in that to try to compensate my inclination to keep what is keepable by making sure I find some that are not keepable and argue against them. I usually start out by looking at CAT:CSD, and delete a half-dozen that need it, to make sure I don't get too inclusionist. On the same principle, the reasonable deletionists try to improve some dubious articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the kind of balance I try for as well - don't get into a mindset of "must delete" or "must preserve" because each article should be considered independently according to its sources and relevant policy. Is there an easy way to check one's own AfD participation record to see trends?--otherlleft 14:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov

I was persuaded by your arguments on the AfD for this article, and I'm really bothered by the resulting deletion. Are you interested in pursuing a review of the decision to delete? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

wait a bit--I need to check something with someone. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI....

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

Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case

Hi DGG: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the serious COI discussions leading up to this ArbCom case you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Protocol

DGG - As you put me up to it, I have a NPP protocol question. As I began looking at new pages that had not been marked as patrolled, I keep coming across articles that have already been tagged by other editors with various clean-up templates but not marked as patrolled. I can assume this occurs because they find the article through means other than NPP. However, one could easily puruse new pages, add clean-up templates and NOT mark the page as patrolled. In your view, regardless of what templates are added to or the fate of the article, what criteria should reasonably apply to mark a page as patrolled? Is there a guideline or tutorial on this?, if there is, it has eluded me. Thanks, I'll monitor here.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: There was a discussion about a year ago regarding this issue. It appears that the consensus was never implemented.--otherlleft 23:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at 76.102.12.35's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Additional sources

Thank you for your interest in researching Scientology (James R. Lewis book). If you could suggest or provide any additional secondary sources, that would be most appreciated. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OUTCOMES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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