User talk:DGG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Current time: 10:40,   October   5   (UTC)

add new sections at the bottom, not the top                                        ARCHIVES

Barnstars, Awards, etc.


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

basic rules about professors[edit]

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

Admin review[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI - user warnings[edit]

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

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

Library portal[edit]

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

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

Essay about Wikipedia[edit]

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

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

Bibliography of Encyclopedias[edit]

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

Rising above the mediocre[edit]

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

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

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

Milking the bull[edit]

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

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

Quick question: Outlines[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Library resources box[edit]

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

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

category intersects[edit]

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

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

category intersection[edit]

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

Quick question[edit]

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

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

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

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

Current projects 7-3[edit]

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

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

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines[edit]

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

SIgns of promotionalism[edit]

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

Local interest topics again[edit]

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

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

Edit description[edit]

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

Deletion of EDP Energias do Brasil[edit]

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

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

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


G'day DGG,

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

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

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

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

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

Quality of new articles[edit]

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

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


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

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

Just to let you know[edit]

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

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

notability check[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Your comment[edit]

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

Rick DePiro[edit]

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

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

Library holdings[edit]

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

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

WP: Exhibitions[edit]

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

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

Thank you[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

Just a note[edit]

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

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

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

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

Help with something?[edit]

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

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

Questionable notability page for WikiProject:Women Artists[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

Possibly of interest[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Self/vanity publishing[edit]

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

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


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

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

Detecting copyvio[edit]

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

Draft:David E. Sellers[edit]

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

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

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

:I interpret this as follows:

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

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

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

New York Public Library for the Performing Arts[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

General advice, repeated here so it will be visible:

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

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

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

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

Eyes needed please[edit]

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

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

Talk:The Scientific World Journal[edit]

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

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

Several ongoing discussions could use your input[edit]

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


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

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


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

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

Induction to the 2015 Arbitration Committee[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

A beer for you![edit]

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

Two professors[edit]

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

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

RM Hogg[edit]

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

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

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Of possible interest[edit]

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

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

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

Clarification Requested on Copy and Paste Articles[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Abandoned AfC drafts[edit]

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

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


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

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

Notable Alumni[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Book is Overdue![edit]

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

Wikia licensing[edit]

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

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

Kirkus is no longer an RS?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Draft A demand for action[edit]

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

combined <ref> for multiple citations[edit]

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

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

David M. Cote[edit]

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

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

Weigh in on an AfD?[edit]

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

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

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

Center for Internet Research[edit]

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

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

Speedy Delete[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HaitiCROWD help[edit]

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

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

Please review new article[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

William Lawrence Saunders[edit]

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

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

Randy Gage[edit]

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

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

A page you deleted was recreated[edit]

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

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

Harrassment RfC[edit]

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

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

Article indexed for deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Restoring a deleted article debate[edit]

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

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

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

Melany Barnes[edit]

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

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

In need of advice[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

your edit of Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art[edit]

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Haiti[edit]

Flag of Haiti.svg

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion contested: Pluralsight[edit]

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

Speedy deletion declined: Paytm[edit]

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

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

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

Chitra group of institutions[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Afrocrowd Inspire[edit]

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

Flag on TalkLocal- what should I know[edit]

Hi David,

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

note: result was no-cosensus


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

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

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

Questionable sources?[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

I have been doing it this way ever since I joined 8 years ago. I try to keep it to 200K. My principle is to retain material which is still of current interest or importance, even if the discussion was older. It's a little longer than my desirable size now, but I intend to remedy that: some of the AfC material is now of subsidiary interest. I have been told many times how useful the material here is--though I have a considerably larger amount of responses I think worth saving in my thematic archives (listed at the top of the page), people here as everywhere tend to just read what is in front of them. A query box,as you suggest, might be a good idea. I've thought about it for a while, but perhaps it is time I implemented it--thanks for the code to start out with.
more fundamentally, but not something I personally have any skill in dealing with, the problem of an interface suitable both for ordinary computers and hand-held devices is formidable. The Foundation seems to be making limited slow progress for articles, but talk space will be a harder problem. I admit I do have a bias, as I never use my iphone unless compelled to by circumstances, and I've always used the largest available screens on the desktop, with as much memory as I can afford or as fits in the computer. What might help as workaround for handheld devices is if someone could figure out some optional way to display just the table of contents, and link it to the text sections. As I've said, I'm no expert, but it should't be beyond the reach of javascript and css. Did adding this message crash your browser when you used the add new section tab? DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@User:RHaworth, since you have chosen to criticize the habits of other editors, let me criticize some of your own habits, if I may. You use a rather bizarre, in my opinion, method of archiving your talk page. The result is that when one looks to see statistics on your talkpage, under ‘’’Edit history’’ one sees a misleading picture of activity. Surely in over 10 years on Wikipedia you have had more than
  • Total number of edits 308
  • Total number of distinct authors 92
on your talkpage? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Correct. I have had slightly more than that 308 edits to my user_talk page. But why are you quoting the stats for my user page? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
to be honest, I am way behind; I am following my method from years ago when I was a little less busy here, and I know I need to change. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Blackall and Yaraka Branch Railways[edit]

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

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

Deleted article post-protect[edit]

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

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

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

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

A new reference tool[edit]

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

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

Hey DGG,

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


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

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

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


Can we remove this article from drafts?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

New entry for Lois de Menil[edit]


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

Thank you for taking the time to review this piece.

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

Hello DGG,

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

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

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

AfD Andrew West[edit]

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

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

Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter[edit]

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

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

Time Nani[edit]

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

In search of your opinion[edit]

Hello DGG,

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

You can find the discussion here:

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

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

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

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

Deletion review for Julie Ziglar Norman[edit]

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

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

Nebraska Coast Connection[edit]

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

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

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

The place to make the argument is at the AFD

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

Some ideas[edit]

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

Joseph Ciminera[edit]

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

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

About Saygin Yalcin page[edit]

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

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


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

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

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


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

Concessions and forts of Italy in China[edit]

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

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

Proposed deletion of Review journal[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

This is odd[edit]

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

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

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

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

Book articles[edit]

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

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


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

A rough draft of the deletion criteria could read:

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

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

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

Carlo Monticelli[edit]

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

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

Brooke de Lench[edit]

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

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

Questions re: notability and publisher[edit]

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

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

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

As for the articles, Put them in as a section of publications.
Prime Concepts Group is not a publisher at all. It's a Marketing Service. The publications are not books, but pamphlets under 100 pages in length. I changed the headings accordingly. The only two books in the usual sense are the ones by Wiley.
Who has published the translations? DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you give me an example of putting the articles in as a section of publications? What would the title of that section be? And, I can't access the text that was there before. Is there any way to access that?
I have the publisher information. Would it be good to add them? TriJenn (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
please add it to the talk page and I will take a look. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I added many of the international publishers. Please see if this is okay. Also, I can't access the text that was there before labeled viewpoints. This referenced the third party publications that published his ideas about the world. 1. do you have that text (old viewpoints secion) you could share with me? 2. Can you share an example of how I could use that as a "section of publications?" Thanks!TriJenn (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Referencing systems[edit]

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

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


Appears to be a spam account creating promotional plugs for various companies[26]. Thought you might have an interest in it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Tagged, and will look at it further. Articles like this always produce the dilemma whether to rewrite or to remove. Two years ago, I almost always opted to remove is possible, but now I'm a little more cynical and a good deal less patient. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Kitcatt Nohr speedy deletion[edit]

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

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

(talk page watcher) @JansVanGild: I found the page at User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes (please, always give a link when you refer to a page - makes it much easier for anyone interested in what you have to say. Thanks) It is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, so it only reflects the views of one editor. Your best bet is to find several reliable third-party sources, other than those based on press releases, which have substantial coverage of your topic, and create an article citing them. PamD 10:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Actully, I agree with almost all of that essay, but this is one of the few points that do not seem right to me: a great many notable organizations have totally trivial subsidiaries. It would make much more sense to say that being a parent of a notable organization might well be an indivcation of importance (though it might well lead to a merge--sometimes with the parent name being the title-- , not a separate article.) I also disagree with "Has received coverage of any kind in possibly reliable sources"--it depends on the independence and substantiality of the coverage, and whatthe coverage says. Ditto for the ghits criterion. Sowhy, any comments? DGG ( talk ) 13:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Marion Rice Denishawn[edit]

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

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

Ota Fine Arts[edit]

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


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

Thanks for the edits DGG. If you have a minute, could you explain your thought process behind removing the content that you did? I'm trying to gain a better grasp of what does and doesn't make for a good article. Also, I'm interested in updating the Operations section with the recent news that Assurant Employee Benefits and Assurant Health are up for sale. Could you review what I have here? Thanks again!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
the basic concept is that WP is written for the readers. It does not contain not the material an organization wishes people to know about it, or the information a prospective customer or client or investor might want, or the internal affairs an employee or regulator might want. The place for all these is on the organization's website, annual report, and other self0written publicity. Rather, it contains the information that a general reader might want to know about the organization. The name of the ceo is important general information; the names of other executives & the board of directors is not, except for the largest and most famous companies. (as your comment on the talk page notes, it changes frequently, which is yet another reason for not including it) The list of contributions to local charities is just good-will and PR, not encyclopedic information, though information about the sponsorship of major professional sports teams and the like might be of general interest. I removed both of those sections, as I always do. A list of lines of business is general information; details about specific products are not, except for the most famous products (the list here is in somewhat excessive detail--it might be summarized well enough by saying the various division offer all the usual insurance products, but I did not reduce it. . On the other hand, we do include the corporate history, because without this it's not possible to make sense of what the organization actually is. We do include major public controversies and court cases of public interest, but not in excessive detail, nor do we include routine consumer complaints. I kept that section, but removed some details, such as the names of the plaintiffs. I also removed information from which one might conclude the judgment was compromised at $20 million instead of $37 million--what's given is primary information, and we don't make such deductions, but need specific statements.
Information that needs to be added is some information about the history of the company after the 2010 lawsuit. The proposed sale of one division of the company is not information. If it is sold, that would be. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply and explanation. Regarding the list of products offered, I can see your point. In the spirit of collaboration, how about we solicit the input of WP:Finance? Perhaps there are folks who have worked on other insurance Wikipedia articles and/or company pages. They might also be subject matter experts on other ways to distinguish and present the information. Thanks again for your time and feedback. Regarding the company's history post-2010, I'll look into relevant references.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey DGG, I wanted to circle back with you about your involvement on Assurant. I know you're quite busy, but I didn't want to leave you out of the loop moving forward in case you still had some outstanding thoughts on improving the article. Your time and opinion is always valued.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Village Capital[edit]

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

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

Aditya Birla Finance Limited[edit]

Hi, Curious to know the reason for deleting Aditya Birla Finance Ltd Page. You have redirected it to its Group Page i.e. Aditya Birla Financial Services Group. Here check this both the URLs: & — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunalshahv (talkcontribs) 17:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As the article said, "Aditya Birla Finance is a part of Aditya Birla Financial Services Group". I considered the articles on ABF do be a mere advertisement, and recommended that it be deleted altogether. Another editor made the merge to prevent the deletion. I still think there is no need at all for even the redirect for this small division, but I'm willing to let that stand, and not start the necessary community discussion on whether it should instead be deleted. At the very most, I do not see any reason at all why we need articles on both. It might be useful to list in the main article the various divisions that make up the company.
I see you have also written articles on other divisions of the company. I will meed to take a look at them to see if they should be merged and redirected also. Since these firms are almost the only topic on which you have worked here, I assume that it is quite possible that you are in some way connected with the company. If so, I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organization as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use, [27] Section 4, "Paid contributions without disclosure.
. I've placed the relevant warning on your user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Response to afd[edit]

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

we'll see what others think. I've been getting increasingly skeptical about"First ___ to do something" as a criterion of notability except for truly historical contexts, and I;ve always been dubious about notability based on "Frequently appeared in ____." DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok so we've had a couple other comments but I am really interested in your opinion about the coverage and articles I linked to on the talkpage. I want to understand what you think is inadequate in my interp so I can adjust my approach going forward. I try to write about things I "know" will be kept so I'm trying to see just how much I "know". Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

AfD discussion that may interest you[edit]

Since I know you often like to follow thorny AfD list issues dealing with intersections, I thought you might find of interest AfD/ List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you do a favour for someone?[edit]

See User_talk:Dodger67#Hello. I'm trying to persuade Dodger to have another crack at RfA. We all know it's a horrible process at the best of times and Dodger67 didn't have the best of times. I thought that if you could possibly support a renom it might encourage them. No pressure, obviously, but please do chip in over there. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm taking a look
I can't ask for more than that. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Dweller, I've looked at his record and I think he is ready and would like to co-nominate--especially considering my role in the RfA1. I will comment there. The noms need to be synchronized, so email me when ready. I'll write my statement in the meanwhile. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That is splendid. I'll draft something, email it to you and you can post it when ready? --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Impact factors[edit]

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

This would be really useful for me, if I'm understanding it correctly. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
"Really useful" is exactly my goal.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)



Just wanted to say thank you for your words of support over at my RfA. They mean a great deal to me, coming from you; I hope I shall do you proud. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cem Ersoy[edit]

Hi DGG. Although this appears to be a notable professor, and he is cited a lot, I am having trouble finding much written about him. Maybe you can do better. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

still not done--reminder DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A good reason for deletion[edit]

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

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

You are apparently referring to my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canine Companions for Independence (2nd nomination)
if you mean others have used this wording before me, that's very possible, but I've been using it for many years, and I'm not consciously copying anyone.
If you mean it's not a valid reason:
WP:CSD is limited to the reasons specified; any reason the community accepts is good at AfD. See [[WP:Deletion policy]#Reasons for Deletion]], point 14." Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"
It is obviously a good reason for AfD, since it can even justify speedy G11; it's a restatement of "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." from WP:CSD#G11. Similarly the essay WP:TNT has been used repeatedly by others as an argument for many deletions. Whether any particular article in question is actually that bad, is of course subject to a community decision: at AfD if at AfD, at Deletion Review if it was done at speedy. In this case, it is indeed possible that the decision may be against my proposal.
a related deletion rationale I often give is that "an article that is only borderline notable and is also promotional should be deleted ." That only works at AfD, and only if the consensus agrees with it.
WP:CSD is limited to the reasons specified; any reason the community accepts is good at AfD. See [[WP:Deletion policy]#Reasons for Deletion]], point 14." Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for your help[edit]

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

working on it -- answer later today. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi again David, I see you to-do list is long, but just a reminder about the banner on my page... Chrs, S --User:Harnad 12:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
U:Harnad: Stevan, here's the situation. Most biographical articles in WP, including academic bios, tend to be written by PR staff, and are excessive in praise of their subject. But your bio is one of the academic bios that is too modest to the point of being inadequate: it doesn't give a full basic sequence of positions, and it needs more detail, especially about the cognitive science aspects, along with more links to related articles and a list of major publications in that field. I've always meant to expand it, but it would get me started if you could suggest on the article talk page any good third party published descriptions of your key work. (In the last few years we've tightened the rules a good deal, and since you are the subject, you are supposed to put the suggested material on the article talk page; I or someone else will then add it. We've also adopted a more standardized approach to academic bios--I will make the appropriate adjustments.)
As for the tags: The primary sources tag tho now justified can be removed--there are too many links to your talks and statements, which does not take the place of a listing of major works, justified objectively by some factor such as most-cited. I think I know which ones to remove, & I'll remove the tag. The connected contributor tag will have to remain--you are the major contributor, and it's our standard notice. It doesn't imply bias, just an alert to possibly watch for bias. If I removed it, someone else would put it back. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Page deletetion[edit]


I have recently created a new page for an engineering department. The page was deleted very fast without any suggestions. Please guide me through the creation process. The page that was deleted was still new and it was not containing any advertising. I was going to edit it and add new information. I was surprised how fast it was deleted. Should I send you the article for reviewing? your guide and help is highly appreciated.

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

Very few individual academic departments are notable. That's not my personal decision, but the consistent practice of the community. For practical purposes, without going into the rather elaborate Wikipedia jargon, the requirement is world-famous. The basic requirement for inclusion of any organization is coreferences providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Very few academic departments can meet this requirement. In addition, a requirement for an article on an academic department (or any organization) is that the article be non-promotional--that it be directed towards what readers of an encycopedia might want to know, not what the organization might want to tell them.
Your department does not meet either part of the requirement. But the primary reason for deletion was not advertising, but rather that it gave no indication whatsoever that it might possibly be important in any sense, let alone world famous. I should have specified that as the reason, and I apologize for any confusion. It was for good measure, very difficult to understand. The title didn't even say what university it was in. The text was written in English that would need to be almost completely rewritten, even if it had been famous. There were no references except to its own site.
I also removed your edit inserting a direct link to your department in place of its name at the university article. We do not include such links. We linkonly to the main university web site. The reader can generally find the web pages of individual departments from there. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

G13 deletions[edit]

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

Calliopejen1, apparently the older ones are at the front of the list. What I'm going to do first at the rate of about 100/day is to scan from there looking for academics and others of special interest. I find it convenient when doing that to also list for G13 the ones I am sure wont make it to get them off the list. And probably to accept any that might reasonably pass AfD without stopping to improve them further.
We also needto check for the article already existing--which, when identified, needs to be looked at quickly to see whether it is a case of someone having written a reasonably good article and angry at the foolish decline putting it into mainspace anyway, or the equally common case of a spammer deciding to ignore the correct decline & putting it into mainspace. The identification could & should be done by a bot--the checking can't be. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I've generally found that the ones with the old-style prefix (Wikipedia talk...) are better because they have been postponed numerous times already. That's pretty much my workflow too. I agree that it could be helpful to have bots identify where AFC drafts duplicate mainspace articles.... Maybe I'll post somewhere seeking the help of someone more competent than I am to code one! Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Art Jewelry Forum[edit]

Hello, I am working on a pet project to help digitize information about the field of metalsmithing+jewelry. I started with making a page for Art jewelry forum (AJF), and have a list of artists that I would like to make pages for as well. The AJF page has been nominated for deletion because it is questioned if the organization is "notable". I am reaching out to you because I saw that you edited some pages that relate to studio craft, and thought you may have an informed opinion (unlike the mathematician who nominated the page for deletion) about whether or not it is a "notable organization". If you have an opinion, one way or another, please way in on the articles for deletion discussion (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There tends to be a prejudice against the unfamiliar. For anything without a lot of fans,WP can be surprisingly conservative. For the individual people, keep track of the basics at WP:CREATIVE: substantial critical work, work in major museums, reviews of books they may have written. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(the article was kept at AfD) DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


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

For my first 2 years here, I helped establish the principle that every institution of higher education is to be considered notable; ever since then, for the following 6 years, I have successfully defended it. It is almost never even challenged, which is more than I can say for most of our guidelines. (there are sometimes exceptions for unaccredited institutions whose real existence is not all that clear, but that doesn't apply here) DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why you did that, but congrats for setting a policy-in-practice! I have withdrawn the AfD (in word only at the AfD - I don't know how to formally do that) If you like, I would be interested in hearing your rationale - not to argue, just to learn. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The argument I made is that if one searches carefully enough, especially for potentially notable alumni, it is possible to meet the GNG for high schools and colleges most of the time, depending on the usual argument over whether sources are sufficiently substantial, etc. It would also be possible to show this for elementary schools a good deal of the time. The results in practice depended on how hard they are argued and searched for more than anything about the school itself, and have an equal amount of error in each direction. Every last one of them was at the time argued, and we therefore spent a good deal of effort at AfD, without getting any more precise results than if we accepted all the high schools and rejected the elementary schools. (Most of the discussions were for high schools; it is accepted as being all the more true for colleges.) As a compromise, it was accepted that high schools and up were notable, but primary schools would not ordinarily be notable. We therefore avoided about 10 afds a day without adversely affecting the encyclopedia. Everyone, thse arguing in both directions, realised things were better that way.
As contributing factors for the acceptance of the result, was the general view that they were appropriate for the encyclopedia considering the interests of our writers and readers; that there was limited opportunity for spam; & that they were good articles for young beginners. It's essentially the same argument by which settled geographic places are notable, but not necessarily unsettled geographic features. Both of them have proven very stable compromises.
They rely on the notion of presumed notability as a concession to those who thing the GNG the main factor. I do not, personally think it ought to be, and I have supported every effort to set a demarcation line based on something intrinsic to the subject. There are stable similar compromises for many types of athletics, for popular music, for astronomical objects, for academics, for scientific journals, for government officials , for some types of local institutions, for national vs subnational associations, etc. I don't agree with the demarcation lines in some of them, but I support all of the compromises. I consider the GNG to reflect the bias of the internet, and that if we really worked at finding sources we could make nonsense out of it.
The entire rationale for a notability standard at all is a little shaky, as compared to most of our other rules. The original rationale is so we look like what people expect an encyclopedia to look like. This was extremely important in the beginning , when people already had an expectation based on the print encyclopedias they knew, and it was necessary to establish ourselves as a serious project. The better reason is that lowering the bar too far leads us to become an advertising medium. It is much easier to control what we have an article on, than to control the content of articles. If we are more or less inclusive, we're still an encycopedia ; if we accept advertising as articles, there's little point in existing, because the internet does as well by itself. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to write all that, that all makes sense. The only argument I would have, is the "limited opportunity for spam" thing. A good chunk of COI stuff I deal with (I won't hazard a guess on the percentage, but it is not insignificant) is raw academic boosterism - maybe the state of higher ed today would call for an examination of the assumption? I do hear you on cutting down on un-necessary AfDs - there is great value to that. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I've said it all before :). As for promotionalism: I was thinking primarily of high schools, where the sort of promotionalism in their articles is usually trivial to remove, and goes as soon as someone notices it. Colleges are much more of a problem.especially because so few of us even occasionally try to clean them up (except that there are now consistent efforts to remove non-notable alumni) Almost every US college & university article on WP is written by PR staff, except the few written by over-enthusiastic alumni. The alumni are worse: just like all fans, they don't give up. The PR staff are usually local PR staff, who are generally incompetent as compared to the people who work in industry. They follow a standard pattern, which is remarkably similar to the one-page descriptions in college guides. I don't know if there are people training them, or whether they copy each other.
I hadn't seen the boosterism essay you linked to--thanks!. I think I'll add to it. I also added a little to WP:College and university article guidelines.
I've decided to check some of the university FAs, to make sure we aren't specifying well-written but promotional articles as examples. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of COIN[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Atsme📞📧 02:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

comment I did. Obviously, I'recused myself from the arbcom case, if it should be accepted. At this point, I have one piece of advice, Atsme -- be careful about the possibility for a WP:Boomerang. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I can assure you, I don't want to be at ARBCOM anymore than you do but I wasn't given much choice. When an editor's work is criticized and attacked in a flurry of unwarranted reverts and deletes with the goal being to make the article unstable so it will be delisted or deleted as what happened at Racz, Griffin and 3 times with AVDUCK, it starts to wear thin. I'm not some young aspiring writer who hopes to accomplish something in life, Doug David. I'm a retired writer who already has and I've published and written enough articles, and worked with enough copy editors over the years to know unwarranted criticism when I see it. I have no problem collaborating with GF editors who want to create, expand or improve an article but based on the comments I was reading at Racz that certainly wasn't the goal; it was to delist or delete, and I don't consider that GF. It is what it is. Atsme📞📧 08:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm David, not Doug. DGG ( talk ) 11:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I sincerely apologize, David. Atsme📞📧 14:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

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


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

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

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

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

Seeking advice regarding recent articles about food studies[edit]

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

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

Thanks for noticing this; I had already noticed some but not all of the articles. Brian Wansink holds the John Dyson Endowed Chair at Cornell University, and therefore meets WP:PROF. Someone has written an rather promotional bio in which his various projects are already mentioned; I'm editing it a little to remove some of the promotionalism; it's worth the trouble, because he is highly notable. I've listed the three articles for deletion; I don't think they even merit redirects, tho that's a possible option. All the drafts have been declined, and I listed one for speedy as promotional, along with an article on one of his books. I'm checking for other articles. It's a foolish but frequent promotional technique to try to write too many articles on closely related subjects--it generally attracts attention.
My approach to situations like this is to work on the articles. A complementary approach, which would certainly be appropriate, is to ask for a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI, but I leave that to others so as to have more time to work on content. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comment on promotional editing[edit]

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

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

Rebecca Masterton[edit]

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

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

Help finding a way to recover notable content after a page blank via redirect[edit]

DGG, I was hoping you could help me save the notable content of an old, niche car technical page. I think I have a workable strategy but I would be interested in your input. The page in question ([link to previous version]) was created in 2006 and has largely been unchanged since 2009. Recently there was a consensus of 4 editors on the WikiProject Automobiles to merge the content into the more general "leaf spring" page though two editors said it should be deleted. However the editor making the changes, one of the two who said delete it, blanked the page via redirect WP:D-R. Very little of the content was retained, critically none of the core content. The external links to the page are now basically useless in terms of finding the lost content. That editor (who I will note is working in good faith) has refused to consider saving the article content. By 2015 Wiki standards the page does need to be cleaned up. I think myself and a few other interested editors never got around to it because the page was stable. The article is certainly notable. External automotive journalists (Edmund's amount others) have cited the article. While the current citations need to be cleaned up, in the last few days I've found quite a few more that can be used to address concerns of WP:RS and what appears to be WP:OR.

The solution I have proposed, and I would be interested in your opinion as a neutral 3rd party, is one that could work for other cases similar to mine. For efficiency reasons the editors on the WikiProject page do not put notices on the article talk page nor notify active editors. This means concerned editors may only be aware of a change after the consensus discussions are closed and action has been taken. In cases where an editor objects I propose that the blanking or other significant changes are reverted for 30 days. During that time interested editors can fix issues with the content in question. Editors who may have an opinion but were not aware of the WikiProject discussions can weigh in. After that time a new consensus discussion can occur. Worst case we end up in the same place 30 days later. Does this seem like a reasonable compromise to you? Springee (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Our mechanism for discussing these is at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. This can get the attention of editors outside the project. No project as final authority if there is a general consensus otherwise.
In addition, every revision in the history of the page before the redirect remains on Wikipedia, at [28]. The material can be cited using the link to the earlier version, of which the latest revision is [29]. As long as the redirect is not deleted, the material will be there. To protect it against being removed from the internet entirely if the redirect should be deleted, archive that page somewhere. See Wikipedia:Using WebCite and Help:Using the Wayback Machine.
That said, I am not sure the material is suitable for wikipedia. Such detail normally belongs on Wikia, and any verion of the page can be moved to there. They use a compatible license to ours. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will look into Wikia. Can a redirect from the old page go to Wikia or is it OK to have a simple redirect page providing say two links, one to the main Corvette page here and one to the Wikia page? This would require the redirect page to not automatically redirect. How do we decide what level of detail is too detailed for Wikipedia? I know some of the math articles I've looked up over the years are very esoteric. Springee (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You can copy the page into a suitable wiki on Wikia. We do not redirect to Wikia, or use it as a reference, since there is no check that any information there is reliable. In some cases it can be used as an external link--see WP:EL. Whether something is too detailed does tend to vary by subject. It is decided by the consensus of editors at a discussion. All I can do is advise you that I doubt this degree of detail will be accepted here, but you can certainly try. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana State University Press[edit]

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

A University Press is normally in effect and structure a separate organization, not a department of a university. at least that's certainly true of the one I know best, Princeton. (see paragraph 3 of [30]). Even when it isn't , consider that for major universities we make separate articles for each athletic team... See for example the LSU navigation box.
I've merged lots of branch campuses at universities where we have little information. I've opposed most articles for academic departments.
I don't oppose doing this for corporations also when there is sufficient information, something to say other than this is the branch that operates in X country, and its President is Y. For example, see the navigation box for IBM, where we go into similar detail. Or slightly less so, at Honeywell. or Ford. or JPMorgan Chase. (I see some appropriate articles there for major entities have not yet been written, but they should be.) These are all firms where there are extensive NPOV sources. But consider Mahindra Automotive and Farm Equipment Sectors. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but in this case the article was made up entirely of primary/weak sourcing. We would never let that fly on a company page. CorporateM (Talk) 17:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Afc etc[edit]

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

I typically say: "In order to get an article, you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. If you can not find them, an article will not be possible at this time. When you become well-known enough for there to be such references, then it will make sense to try again. " The key word to avoid harshness is When. Almost everyone understands, except some paid editors. For those who do not, I sometimes go to MfD.
And it's crucial to say this as a short personal message, not as part of the boilerplate. People rarely read long boilerplate. I often modify the templated message after it is placed, removing almost all of the surrounding text. I sometimes remove the color also, so it doesn't look like a template. Here's an example I've given up on trying to get the people who program this to improve the messages. Even the custom message template still has too much unnecessary verbiage, DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I wi ll get there today or tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Valamigo, I commented. Sorry for the delay. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Writing articles about academics[edit]

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

forthcoming, probably tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I will get there, probably Saturday. In the meantime, look at Chad Orzel, which I deprodded. A full article in Contemporary Authors is proof of notability -- and that article usually lists books review also)It's available online as part of Gale's Literature Resource Center, available thru most public libraries DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, the only problem is I don't often edit from a library (unlike yourself, I imagine, since you are a librarian). But I'll keep that in mind the next time I stop by a library. Everymorning talk 02:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Most large city libraries have it available to library card holders remotely. You only have to visit once, to get a card. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Any word on when that advice is coming? It's been about 3 weeks now. Everymorning (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Texas Commission on the Arts[edit]

Write an article for Texas Commission on the Arts [31], and write it in a way so that people will be impressed and be willing to donate huge sums of money to us. Also write articles about all our employees, improve articles of our employees such as Polly Sowell, and make it a stand out agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texas Commission on the Arts (talkcontribs) 21:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The only acceptable way to get an article about your organization written is to make a new account under some name, but not the name of your organization, declare on the user page that you have a conflict of interest with the organization, and then use the WP:Article Wizard, where you can request someone write an article. If anyone cares to, they will. We do not make articles just because someone tells us to, but your Commission might be a suitable topic.
However, we are an encycopedia, not a publisher of press releases. No experienced editor here would " write it in a way so that people will be impressed and be willing to donate huge sums of money to us"--any article written that way is very quickly deleted. . Nor will anyone "also write articles about all our employees, improve articles of our employees". Articles written that way are deleted almost as rapidly.
The individual you mention might be notable, not by serving on the commission, but head of a Texas state department. The chairman would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? Delete article? Are you here to build Wikipedia or destroy it? I found you from Categories: Wikipedia administrators, meaning you are getting paid by Wikipedia to build it, while you are sitting on you ass and doing nothing. And yes serving on the commission makes someone notable, a lot more notable than you. As for Polly Sowell, she was Vice Chairman of the Texas Republican Party in 1972! Tell someone else to do the job if you are too old and lazy for it. I don't want to have to report you. But if you attempt to vandalize any of our employees's article including Polly Sowell, or related articles I will report you and delete all your edits. I'll be keeping an eye on you, so be careful!--Texas Commission on the Arts (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

one quick point before my full answer: Chairmen of US State political parties are notable, not vice chairman. FWIW, anyone who has ever served in a state or national legislature is considered notable. Presidents of major organizations are often but not always notable; officers below that level only rarely.
I recommend that you start out by reading our article on Wikipedia, as you seem to be totally confused about the purpose and structure of the encycopedia. I am a volunteer, like essentially everyone here , whether or not an administrator. As an administrator, and I have been one for many years, I have power to delete articles after a consensus at a community discussion, or delete them immediately if it is obvious they will never meet the standards. I delete advertising and promotionalism, and so do all administrators who encounter it. I delete articles about people with no claim to importance, as do all administrators. In all, I've deleted about thirty thousand. I can block people from contributing, as one of my colleagues has just blocked you, because only individuals may edit and you may not have a corporate user name. When I give you advice about what will or will not get deleted, I tell you what is usually done here in similar cases; I'm not perfect, but the results show that I'm about 95% accurate. I am indeed trying to help you, to help you to use your efforts appropriately. There is no point trying to write an article that will not be accepted.
Let me make it perfectly plain--
  1. You have no right to tell anyone to make an article, though you may ask.
  2. You have no right to have an article about your organization, or any of its members, though it is not impossible that there can be one if it meets our rules
  3. You have no right to insist that an article on your organization have the content you desire, especially if it the promotional content you unwisely asked for
  4. You have no right to insist we consider notable those whom you consider notable.
  5. You have no right to threaten anyone. People who do this are generally banned; I'm not going to do it myself, but some other administrator probably will.
  6. If you are banned for violating any of this, all future articles you may make under any name will be removed as soon as identified.
  7. If you hire someone to write the article for you, and they do not declare the fact of their financial conflict of interest according to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to the paid contributions without disclosure it is very likely that the article and any other article they write will be deleted when it is recognized. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Ping, hopefully you haven't forgotten about this section. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I meant what I said. I wa suggesting a merge at Nash. Perion was closed as keep,and that's ok with me. I don't think Baldwin notable, but not worth an AfD2. When you notify me, it would help if you did it a little earlier in the AfD case than these last two. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I know and I was going to but I wasn't expecting it to be closed as soon as that. Simply out of curiosity, do you think a consensus/discussion will be needed for that merge? (to quote Dr. Seuss "I meant what I said and I said what I meant, an elephant is reliable 100%!") Also, in that case, these AfDs here may interest you. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation[edit]

I think we could perhaps revert Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation back to before the SPAs Kianpark and Kdic1130 added loads of stuff to it. Note that "Kianpark" = KDIC International Affairs Team, as they have said, and "Kdic" is the acronym of the company. Since you're the last established contributor to it, what do you think? —George8211 / T 09:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I will get there today or tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
A blanket revert is not practical, as there have been appropriat edits since then. Instead, I have begun removing the eworst of the material. I will consolidate the history section in a few days. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Interlude (interactive video)[edit]

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

What you did is perfectly legitimate--if the article is in the end acceptable. I've done it sometimes--the only real reason I go thru the RfC acceptance process is to get the articles in the right category & added to the statistics. The real problem is that PR people do this rather frequently, without improving the article. I have learned for some types of articles before deleting a G13, to see if by any chance the article is in mainspace, and if so, whether it's acceptable. Sometimes it is, and it is the reviewer who was in error, and rather than argue it, the person just bypassed them. Considering the quality of some reviews, I can well understand them.
The fundamental principle to understanding WP procedures is that there is no underlying principle or system. There are multiple ways to do anything, some of them devised by programmers wanting to display their cleverness or take care of every unlikely contingency they could think of. Not all of them had actual editing experience.
As for the article, it's not my field, but it looks fine to me. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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

A kitten for you![edit]


For all the abuse you are getting at AfD.

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

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


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

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

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

the basic rule is very simple--it is very highly preferred that you not write about your relative's company at all. If you wish to do it nonetheless, you are not actually prohibited, but our experience is that people closely related to the subject will find it very difficult to judge the importance and the appropriate material to include. It will put the burden on the relatively small number of experienced editors interested in such companies and people to either guide you step by step or --what is often faster-- to rewrite it for you.
The way of working on the articles is by resubmitting the AfC--not every time you make a change, but when you think you have gotten it right. Don't paste it here--it's just confusing.
I gave you advice already on your user talk page: " Reduce the awards to the most important ones--and removing grants, which we do not include, say what are his most cited paper sand give the statistics from Google Scholar or elsewhere, link the article properly to the articles for the schools, and remove the links within the article to things for which we do not have articles.And find some external references to his work. Then resubmit."
You have not indicated which of the papers are important, or given ay citation statistics. You have not specified which particular substances he has actually worked or been primarily responsible for--tho that can be shown indirectly by specifying the key papers). You have not added material or references from outside his own web site. You did trim down the awards (I note that the original included fellowship offers he declined,as well as those he accepted. I've never seen anyone include these on a CV or article before!).
When ready, resubmit at afc. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD for you[edit]

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

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

Trade2tradewell deletion(s)[edit]

I was considering starting a COI action vis-a-vis Nadine Burke Harris and noticed that you'd been the last one on the talkpage of the article creator, Trade2tradewell, concerning the deletion of what looks like another bio. Is there anything I should know before I proceed? — Brianhe (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated Harris for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadine Burke Harris Promotional bio, tho probably meets the GNG, unless one considers the NYorker article as the fruit of PR. The first article by Trade2tradewell that I noticed was GAMCO Investors, which was nowhere near as promotional when he wrote it back in 2006 as it subsequently became. I spotted that one because I was doing a check on investment firm articles in general for promotionalism and non=notability--I do such subject-oriented scans from time to time in various susceptible fields. There is an obvious concentration upon a specific field, but I rather doubt in amounts to COI--there is no reason to suspect paid editing that I can see. (I thought it fair to ping him here if we're going to talk about him) DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Lots of IPs, rotating IPv6 addresses and probably two named accounts; opened SPI here. I suspect involvement of a family member based on one of the usernames & IP geolocation. - Brianhe (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

It might help me if you could specify the articles involved. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying.; response forthcoming. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I consider it a little too much like a press release, and this will inevitably affect people's attitude towards it. Possibly there might be a little advocacy in some of the other articles also. The last thread is now at [32] DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I belong to a (dying?) minority of editors who like to work on articles that are not yet developed. Unfortunately it appears that my edits only serve to bring those articles to the attention of editors whose mission is to nominate articles for deletion. I have been asked before to provide examples of this phenomenon and thought : Condo Owners Association (Ontario) can be mentioned as one because no one paid attention to it until I started to work on it.
I am worried that my sad conclusion is also shared by others, which means few editors will be working on improving wp:stubs around here. Thanks btw for finding the 2014 thread - I am unable to locate the 2012 one tiles Useless stubs because the Edits by user tool is broken (another sigh...) Ottawahitech (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

For those interested, I moved the discussion of this particular point to Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk#Deletion_of_articles_referred_to_in_questions_here. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I have a dual mission here: One is to try to keep everything suitable for an encycopedia. The other to to remove promotionalism. Lately, due to the flood of promotional articles, the second has become more important--even critical. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia.
There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. It will take years, but work on them as I see them.
Normally I send a long standing article to AfD rather than to speedy unless it's utterly outrageous--t will not be deleted unless the consensus agrees with me. I accept the consensus there as the guide in establishing standards. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

AFD with local/regional focus[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Rivers Multimedia Film Festival Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair[edit]

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

I deleted it as an attack page. Clear BLP violation. Despite graver accusations, the actual conviction was over rather minor crimes, with the verdict being only a fine and a reprimand. Nothing else about him is potentially notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Please at least restore it to my last version. Mine was not and the subject is notable. He was a flag offier and I had considerably less details about the court martial to avoid that sort of thing. It was the later additions that I wanted to check on. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Let me think. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This is the most I had [[33]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. I undeleted everything and left it as you have it. I am going to take it to BLPPN and ask if there should be revision deletion. or deletion of the entire article. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok I think it will pass the deletion but maybe recreation with only the material it has now would be the better option. He defintely passes the notability factors as a Flag Officer. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
see BLPN here I'm not going to involve myself further. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
though I did comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Allen Sinclair DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National Society of Leadership and Success (3rd nomination)[edit]

Interested in your thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

commented thee. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The donation of poop, and AfDs[edit]

I belatedly draw your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination). (As this has finished, I hope that my message will not be decried as "canvassing".)

There's a curious leitmotif of poop. Here, in more or less chronological ordure:

  1. "Who gives a shit?" (What the shit might be about is not totally clear. The biographee? "Gerontology Research Group" "fancruft"?)
  2. "Just because you 'don't give a shit' doesn't mean no one else does."
  3. "Last of all, it is disappointing to read that members of the [world's oldest person] group in this encyclopedia are stereotyped as 'fancruft' or pinned in a corner with remarks as 'who gives a shit?'" (They are?)
  4. "The fact that one other user in this discussion 'doesn't give a shit' about anything else is irrelevant."

My tentative inference: If you want to persuade in an AfD, better to avoid the first mention of "shit". (Though I wonder what Tyler Vigen would say.)

Actually my favorite argument in this AfD for the biographee's notability is that she was "one of the very few women to have held the title of 'oldest woman' in the world and not also 'oldest person'". Uhh.... -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have so far avoided this area. I may change my mind if I reach 120. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, hello: I notice that the AfD has been reopened (or its premature close was reverted). This has nothing to do with me. As far as I can remember, I'd previously avoided this area myself. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Everymorning's talk page.
Message added 02:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Everymorning (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


I think you deleted my page LAVI. It was deleted before I even knew it had a speedy deletion nomination tag (from User:Olowe2011). I had no opportunity to contest the deletion and now the page is gone. I was told to contact you to retrieve the deleted material for future reference and improvements. Please advise. — comment added by JewishEducation (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JewishEducation (talkcontribs) 17:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

you will find my response further down,with the other requests for Sept. 27

AfDs again[edit]

These are probably going to be relisted soon so if you want to comment, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almathera Systems, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Mohsin Nawab Rizvi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engin Limited, Association of American Baseball Research (I know it's sport but it's also an organization, so I'm not sure how comfortable this one's for you), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jondab-e-asadi, Association of Friends of India and South Asia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVC Communications, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compton and Woodhouse, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter C. Brinckerhoff, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Simrock, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Law. These are not going to be immediately relisted but they may also interest you, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Harlan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlackMotor Corporation. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

see my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Mohsin Nawab Rizvi for my current thinking about this problem--I am not actually satisfied with any of the possible solutions. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A belated note...[edit]

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

Deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

deletion of Anuradha Bhattacharyya[edit]

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

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

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

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

Dear DGG ( talk ), I found a recent mention of Anuradha Bhattacharyya as a prominent poet in the newspaper. It seems that she was attending a Poets' Meet. There is a photo also showing her sitting among many notable poets. She is sitting second from left. I am pasting the URL here:

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

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

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


As always, feel free to comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramtron International, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spondylitis Association of America, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SurveyShare, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canarc Resource Corp., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDV Solutions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Asael, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbe & Sohn,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SchoolTipline, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMN Healthcare, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aukfa Industrial Co., LTD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automated Systems Holdings Limited, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph F. Cada, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Al-Bazi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armstrong Audio, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Payal Chawla and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Philippine Orthodontists. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you can also take a look at Bonnie Bracey which could use better improvement and I added the best I found from my searches here, here, here, here, here and here but the article needs better. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Restaurant & Bar Design Awards[edit]

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

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

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

About Speedy deletion tag on Michael Tischler[edit]

Dear DGG, Thanks for the reasons you spotted out. I have removed the seemingly promotional lines. The information contained is factual. Please re-check the article for consideration. If there's any more promotional stuff, I'll be glad to clear them as well. ThanksNtiele (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

the entire article is promotional in intent, and would be in my opinion impossible to write as a npovarticle that shows notability. "Tischler incorporates cutting-edge treatment procedures into his dental practice." "He brings dental implant, bone grafting, and gum surgery experience to his dental practice in addition to prosthetic and cosmetic makeover dental procedures." DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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

if you mean Alan Purwin, I should have used just G11, which I still consider valid. If you mean Keifer Phill, I agree U17 as notability is an issue that needs discussion, as does whether U17 is a credible assertion of significance. I am as susceptible as anyone to the tendency to over-delete after lookign at too many NPs in a row, which is why I never do it single handed. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Gosh, did I turn down two of yours in a row? Erk. I did mean Purwin. I'll take another look when I'm feeling better - not doing anything serious with a headache. I may have been mistaken. --Dweller (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Guy's, King's & St Thomas's Dental Institute[edit]

Just questioning your rejection of a duplicate-speedy. So far as I can see Guy's, King's & St Thomas's Dental Institute is the same thing as King's College London School of Medicine: the latter article opens by calling itself "Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medical Education" and it mentions how the United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals was merged into it in 1998.

List of dental schools in the United Kingdom describes the Guy's, King's & St Thomas's Dental Institute as the "Result of a merger with King's College London and United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals in 1998. Known as GKT School of Medicine until 2005." - GKT School of Medicine redirects to King's College London School of Medicine.

So far as I can tell, "Guy's, King's & St Thomas's Dental Institute" was just the first redlink at List of dental schools in the United Kingdom, and User:AndreeaMi appears to have clicked the first two redlinks and written articles there, with a spam ref to at the bottom of each. They contested the speedy with an argument of "but Wikipedia said it didn't have an article" rather than explaining how the subject was distinct. --McGeddon (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

not quite: the dental Institute is a split from the former United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Tony Robbins?[edit]

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

I agree he's notable. I used a tag not for that, but for promotional: consider sections 4 & 8.1 , the see-also section, and considerable parts of 2, 5, the lead paragraph, and the infobox. The sources in the book section are unreliable or deceptively listed: he was no.1 on the NYT self-help list, which is much less prestigious than the main list. The list in that section of notable people he wrote about is name dropping. And look at the edit history, where almost all the material added ( as distinct from technical edits and attempts to remove the promotionalism) is by obvious spas. When there is this much promotionalism it is better to delete and start over. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the reply. Someone else has removed the tag. I actually wouldn't mind stubbing the article, leaving a brief description of what Robbins does and maybe a list of books. Zagalejo^^^ 16:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

SNIA Long-term Retention Technical Workgroup[edit]


You have A7-deleted my page about the SNIA Long-term Retention Technical Workgroup ( I would like to review the previously existing version of my article and edit with the relevant information. Can you please send me the text from the version I originally submitted?

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


I'd like you to take a look at this. Flawless (almost) right down to the neat links. Posted to the Wikipedia in one single edit, the first of a 'new' user. But there's something about those sources...--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's nice and neat, that's because he has had practice: previous tries include AJ Joshi (deleted at AfD), and A.J. Joshi. This is one of the clients of the WP:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody sockfarm. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
and those neat links are almost entirely to totally unusable sources. that's characteristic of the farm, though of course not just of them. We're still trying to find out who the controlling figure is, and how far back they go. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I've also just blocked User talk:Clintric but although I have read all the Orangemoody pages linked above I'm not sre what lists to add this too. It seems there is only provision for check user blocks. Clintric is an obvious duck so I haven't added it to SPI anywhere.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

International Project Management Association[edit]

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

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

Your input requested[edit]

A while back you mentioned the National Book Award was a prominent exception to WP:ORGAWARDS in that even being nominated was considered noteworthy. I'm working on the page on Gail Godwin, who has chaired the fiction panel of the award committee and has authored four books that were considered for the award. Her books being involved in these awards is a prominent aspect of many independent biographies on her.

Her assistant told me that being nominated was trivial (the publisher just submits a nomination), and what was significant was her books being finalists. The Los Angeles Times just says her books were nominated, whereas the National Book Awards website itself does say they were finalist.[34][35][36] NPR also says finalist, but then the Dictionary of Literary Biographies says nominated at the top, then says finalist when describing individual books. USA Today says nominated.

I was wondering if you had any contextual knowledge about this particular award or input on the conflict between sources. I am leaning towards using the National Book Award website as a primary source that is most likely to be accurate, given that secondary sources eliminate weight concerns. It's a minor issue, but given that awards are a frequent COI concern, I want to get it right. CorporateM (Talk) 15:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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

I'm Happy to be Fat is currently up for deletion[edit]

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2008. --Iamozy (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Boxer Wachler (2nd nomination) Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Article Cleanup - Removing Notices from Page[edit]

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

I haven't looked for a whileThe COI notice will stay on as long as you have been the main contributor. I hadn't looked for a while, and I've also added a POV tag based on the inclusion of the self published books and the viewpoints section, which in the edit history you justify by comparing it to another article, one on someone more notable, but with similar problems. If you want those sections removed, ask me. As for notability, other people have challenged it; I defended it, but it might not pass AfD nowadays, that people are using the argument that borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 12:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. When you remove the Viewpoints section, you remove much of the notable press - Inc., Success, Chicago Tribune, Forbes, and more. Why wouldn't a thought leader have a Viewpoints section? His thoughts/viewpoints are what he is known for. As for the books published by Prime Concepts Group, these are not self published. Prime Concepts Group published them. He is not an owner of that company. And, they are real books, not brochures (as you had referred to them previously). TriJenn (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Primce Concepts Group is not a publisher, but a marketing concern. I'll check the other material. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What is this edit [37]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears you are editing an old version of the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I did not make that edit deliberately; it is apparently a side effect of another edit I made, and I will fix it if someone hasn;t gotten there before me. Thanks for letting me know. DGG ( talk ) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC) . DGG ( talk ) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted, but this content has been lost. You may want to reintroduce it under a new topic at WP:COIN or something. — Brianhe (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

SNIA Long-term Retention Technical Workgroup[edit]

Hi DGG For my own reference, can you please send me the page you rejected about the SNIA Long-term Retention Technical Workgroup? (

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

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

Dr. Wachler[edit]

David, I send you a couple of emails to your .edu If you have a moment to check, it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. JJ Jjacksoneverst (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog bias editing[edit]

David, you are a respected editor. Regarding the Dr. Wachler discussion, I would appreciate if you would look at my talk page with Jytdog and also please look at Jytdog's talk page. Jytdog has been criticized in the past for biased editing by others. I believe there is now evidence of the same occuring regarding the deletion discussion of Dr. Wachler's article. Thank you very kindly in advance. JJ Jjacksoneverst (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have already given my opinion of the article in question at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Boxer Wachler (2nd nomination)]], where I said that he might well be notable, but the article is so promotional that it must be deleted and started over. Every experienced editor but 1has also said to delete; and except for that one editor, everyone arguing for keep is a single purpose account. I'm also aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bennydarko, where DocJames added you as a possible sockpuppet. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
As the only experienced editor (so far) who voted keep at the AFD in question, I want to ask: what makes the article promotional in its current state? It's only 4 sentences long. Everymorning (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You anticipated me; I was about to ask you to review your opinions. See the earlier versions (or , for that matter, the material the ed. I was replying to posted on your talk p.) The remaining nonpromotional material does not show notability DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Lex Veldhuis[edit]

Can you please restore this article plus talk page or userfy it and I'll work on it. This is a notable poker player $600,000 in earnings and is a sponsored professional of Team PokerStars. I will add some sources [38], [39], and [40]. Those are just a few sources he has received significant coverage in. Valoem talk contrib 18:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have moved it to Draft:Lex Veldhuis. The talk p. was blank except for the form notice that it was a blp. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Singapore Government Online[edit]

Hi DGG, you removed the spam tag and say it's not so promotional. That's okay, maybe I need a better tagging for the article, it has zero reference, excepts the reference to itself, which I learned from other articles is in general problematic. Thanks for your advise! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

the two tags on the article are the right ones: the one questioning notability ,and the one asking for better references. The citation needed tags are also correct. If the article is not improved after a while, the proper course is to first check for sources yourself, then, only if not found, nominate for deletion at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Douglas al-Bazi wrt to BLP DS[edit]

I hate to sound like I'm canvassing, but I really feel that removing failed verification templates from a BLP and claiming the sources are fine (and misleading another user in the process) are BLP DS items. I've got an ANI on the user (which has comment without action) but since User:Slakr posted the sanction notices therein, I brought this up to Slakr on his talk, with specific evidence of the removal being contrary to the actual source content, and still haven't gotten action there either. All I'm asking for is eyes on at least part of an ongoing problem which has been verified by three other editors on ANI. MSJapan (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If the article is not kept, all this will be moot. I see EMG has entered into discussion at the usertalk page you mention. One of the side effects of being on arb com is that it's unwise to get involved in things that might potentially come there. In any case, I've never worked at DS. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
OK; I was merely trying to find an uninvolved and experienced admin, and you do seem to have a good idea when it comes to BLP. Also, while the substance of the edits might be moot in a deleted article, it's the editing behavior behind it that I feel needs to be addressed. I'm really trying to avoid ArbCom, because it just pushes resolution out further. While engagement has occurred, no admission of fault has happened; in fact, just the opposite seems to have happened, which in fact points to EMG not having read the sources he added, which is sort of my whole point. MSJapan (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, avoid arbcom. Before I joined arb com, I always advised people to avoid going there; now I know more about it, I would emphasise this advice even more strongly. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Speedy Deletion of TECOM Group[edit]

Hi, I have reinstated the article and amended it to be more neutral. Please let me know if you still feel its marketing orientated. Thanks T Tobias mills (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Tobias mills, try submitting it to WP:AFC, but without the list of the board of directors , without the list of officials of the company (include only the CEO), & with third party refs more substantial than mere notices. Furthermore, there is no information on that page of encyclopedic significance thta is not already on the page for the parent company; I'm going to make a direct to Dubai Holdings, and protect it. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking at your contribution, there's one other thing I must ask you to do: Please check WP:COIa and also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DGG Thanks for your message, i just saw this and wanted to respond. I am gathering more information regarding TECOM Group which i was going to put up but wanted to create the page first. How do i do this now? I will definately read the links you have sent through and appreciate the time to respond with the information. Thanks again.

Tobias mills (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Tobias mills, The way to do it is to use WP:AFC, and the best way to access that is through the WP:Article Wizard. But, since you have predominently edited articles pertaining to this group of companies it's reasonable to think you have a conflict of interest. Therefore, before you do that you MUST disclose any conflict of interest on your user page or user talk page,as explained above.
Considering that Tecom is a subsidiary of Dubai holdings, and the article on them is merely an outline, it might make sense to add information to that article. If you have a conflict of interest, you do that by proposing material you would like to add on the article's talk page, and adding a line reading {{request edit}} . Rememeber that in any case you need references from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


Why was my question about David Menkin removed???? I never got an answer on anything. Please reply :) --ACase0000 (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

not sure what happened, but you asked
I found some maybe refs: 1, 2 Tell me what you think. :) --ACase0000 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)--
and I answered:
what is the full link for that amazon link? Amazon is not usually an acceptable reference. And the first link shows what he did, but doesnt prove improtance any more thna does IMdB. But list those refs at the AfD so others can consider them. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank for answering. :) I meant for the Amazon link /david-menkin .

I am sorry for any trouble. :) --ACase0000 (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

TOBA Inc. Speedy Deletion[edit]

Hello, I have amended the TOBA Inc. page to include more substantial information regarding the company from a wider variety of sources. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article.Kmaybronco (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list[edit]

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi DGG, the blocked sock editor on AdSparx - did I miss that it was an Orangemoody account? Widefox; talk 03:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

it is not totally clear at this point what is or is not orangemoody. I (and some others) have for some time thought there were more than one individual, who may or may or may not not have been coordinated. Since the complaints from defrauded users have only started coming in this year, but the know-how for making deceptively good-looking but fundamentally unsound articles would have needed considerable WP experience, my guess is that it's an ordinary editing ring that got a bright idea for how to encourage business, and that we are nowhere near finding the source of this. (Let alone the possibility that there may now be imitators).
As long as we maintain the principle of anonymity, we cannot stop sockpuppets and deceptive editing. What we can do is what we should have been doing from the very beginning, which is looking much more critically at articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I was a bit slow (having not followed Orangemoody), but yes, luckily I left a message on BiH's talk...drum roll...the (only major) other editor of AdSparx was User:Arr4 - a blocked sock of Orangemoody. Maybe Orangemoody picked up the same customer? However, the "coincidence" may be worth checking (07:55, 3 July 2015 User account Orangemoody was created) BiH (presumably Bosnian in Herzegovina) has 20k edits, created 2005-09-03. Widefox; talk 04:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
yes, this is exactly the way in which we work backwards to find additional instances. I'm following it up. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
A tip landed on my talk (some may consider it an OUTING). BiH has minor edited Joel Comm. One wouldn't expect anything else, but there's a sockfarm clustered around that article. As he appears to be notable, any linking to that person may just be due to fan activity. (time goes by...) That caveat/caution aside, BiH created Morgan James Publishing. User:Riathamus000 (allegedly COI on Joel Comm) edited within days (yes to insert their COI, but later to promote the publishing house). How would that account know it's been created so soon? coordination? Needs more checking. Widefox; talk 12:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Comm, and adjacent afds. I'm always glad to look at an article, but to follow up on editor connections, the place to go is SPI, where they can be kept track of in a centralized manner. The recognition of connection depends not just on edit histories, but edit mannerisms, and it really helps to keep them in one place. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Circle speedy decline[edit]

Hey DGG. I just declined your speedy on Circle (company). If you still feel there is a notability question for this company, then no prejudice to sending the article to AFD for discussions. Cheers and happy editing! -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle (company) DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC) (no-consensus at afd)

Peter H. Lin[edit]

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

citations are 500, 270, 170, 150 ... , so he's notable, even allowing for the very high citation rate in this area. Even tho its an autobiography, what it needs is rewriting. Once upon a time, I would unhesitatingly rewrite all articles like this, but in the last year or so the number that need doing has escalated to the point where I only do it if it is in my area of interest, it is easy to do, and the article is not hopelessly corrupt otherwise. This articles is a summary of his outrageously self-praising website even by the abyssmal standards for such websites, , but not close enough to be a copyvio. It's not even a competent summary, because it leaves out some of the actual encyclopedic information, such as the dates of his positions, and makes no attempt to select the most important among the publications.
As we have now learned we need to do, I checked some of the refs. That he was clinical advisor to the bill is referenced to the Senator's web site, but isn't stated there. Some of the rest are also ambiguous. It's implied he developed EKOS--he did not, a/c the references--he merely uses it. And a Reuters article referred to in this connection is not an article, but a press release on their site.
For an analogous case, by a known paid editor, see John Wesson Ashford, where I just removed the minor and stuff and unproven claims to be first in something. He , too, has very high citations.
I am holding off going further until I can decide what I want to do in such cases. I don't want to punish notable people for being naive enough to write their own article or use a paid editor, but I equally don't see why they should get priority for rewriting before all the even more notable people whom we are missing. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking paid editing more than autobio, given the contributors' names (and didn't look into notability myself, as I have no time right now). You're right that it's not egregiously promotional. I removed some of the minor awards. If only those paid editors could get it through their heads that it is far more effective to write a really encyclopedic, neutral article... --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
It might be a group of editors. Look at the main editors and the other articles they have edited. All related.
  • John.freeman.2010 (talk · contribs) created 9/8/2015 (also see their talk page about an article that was speedied)
  • Also note that JeremyKai4077 and John.freeman.2010 have also the exact same user page.
Possibly some paid editing? At the least this group has a very narrow focus. Ravensfire (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I have previously encountered obvious but undeclared paid editing devoted to a particular medical specialty, and to other groups of individuals, or companies in the same field, where I assume it was a PR company specializing in the field or working for a trade association. I have frequently encountered it for people in the same or related company, where it has sometimes not been an outside PR firm, but the employer: sometimes in-house PR staff, but sometimes a department manager or the like acting on his own initiative.
Experience has unfortunately shown that most (but not all) people with experience in PR cannot be taught to write a proper article, because they are so completely oriented to writing advertisements or quasi-adevertisements that they honestly cannot see the difference between that an a proper encycopedia article. Declared paid editors here whom I trust have told me they need to turn down most clients, because the clients even if notable will not accept a NPOV article. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


Can you take a look at Shelbourne Development Group pease.Particularly the history. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelbourne Development Group. I see you tried to fix it in 2011, but by our current standards, it isn't worth fixing. Undoubtedly paid editing, but as its an old SPA, there's nothing to track further. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's another: 8x8. Clearly too good to be true due to the perfectly formatted refs. I came across it while building up a case for SPI because many of these users have edited each others articles or voted on each others AfDs. Perhaps I should block them anyway without SPI, but I don't want to abuse the use of y tools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There's only a little I would fix. I would be quite happy if all paid editing reached this standard. Take a look at some of its competitors, Genband, which is considerably inferior, and Bridgewater Systems which is particularly awful. I do not think there is one person writing these for the industry (as there is in some areas, some as specialist paid eds, some as PR staff of a trade organization), or that they are puppets in the usual sense. (btw one of the ip Genband eds. identified themselves as a company rep in the article history, Feb 21, 2014. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


Please also see #Paid editing above. Please see User:BiH, in particular the dozens of declarations of paid editing through Upwork. This seems to fulfill the requirement for declaring COI/Paid advocacy but it's possible that of these articles some may still need to be deleted (I haven't checked yet - maybe you have already). I will shortly be lodging an SPI but although I'm not actually sure the accounts are connected the coincidence is high and there are several Single Purpose Accounts that would otherwise not have known about the articles at AfD. So I will be starting the SPI with BiH as the master account. As always, whatever our ToU and COI rules are, I'm extremely saddened that people exploit the millions of voluntary hours creating this encyclopedia to make money out of it in any shape or form whatever.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW: I have blocked BiH, but I do wish it to be understood that this is not because of my opinion concerning paid eediting, but due to the number of their creations that have already been deleted or are currently under deletion discussion. If you believe that the block was undue, please do not hesitate to revert it based on this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not realise that BiH is banned as well. If this is the case, all his articles can be deleted without any further ado. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My block of BiH was perfectly legitimate - it was following a consensus at ANI. Things happen so fast I couldn't remmber what I was doing yesterday. Still not sure about him bein banned though.

The SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiH, Editor was also subject to a previous investigation which if I understand correctly, proved inconclusive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the ban either. I will not delete declared paid articles except under our usual criteria. This is especially true if an individual turns out to have been an undeclared editor trying to reform. At this point, if someone did that, we might find ourselves in a situation requiring us to delete all their future declared work regardless of merit, and this would be insanely counter-productive. Even automatically deleting their earlier undeclared work once they declared themselves would discourage any incentive to reform.
I have been working on deleting some the articles individually over the last few weeks; I will check tomorrow if any need additional comments, or perhaps ought to be kept. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Bear in mind per this which I discovered, that BiH has no scruples about plagiarism either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, the SPI didn't find any socks for BiH, but the other 8 accounts on the SPI were all related and have been blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your useful comments[edit]

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

User:MusicAngels: please understand that the problem with the poetry articles was not only copyright violations but also that they were biased, prejudicial, subjective, redundant, and based on long-disputed scholarship. Even if you fixed the copyright you would have a swarm of scholars descending on you. Stick to your own knitting, whatever that knitting is. 01:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC) (talk)
MusicAnimal, alll yoiu had to do to prevent the deletion as copyvio was to add attribution, which would have been easy enough.Dennis Brown gave you good detailed advice on how to fix it Personally, I would not have deleted by G12, but I think that everything considered, Nyttend acted reasonably. I would personally have thought it poor judgement right (though not prohibited) for him to have removed it immediately, but you were given time to fix it. WP is full of rules, but most are not actually observed to the full rigor in which they are stated (Even copyright , one of our most rigorous, has-- as you have seen -- some disputed aspects. But they are there, and if a dispute should arise, or someone feel neglected, people sometimes invoke them. The only safe way to work is to write so that someone trying to pick apart an article has nothing to grab hold of. Anything organized like WP will never be altogether consistent, or even always fair.
As general advice, it would be immensely more useful to work on criticism sections for each of the authors. Then summary articles by period could be written using and linking to that material. You need to work on small discrete articles for quite a while, before attempting something like this. Even if you know how to do a systematic survey in the ordinary academic Real World, WP is -- some say different, but I say peculiar.
With respect to the comments from 128.: At this stage in the development of WP, articles on serious humanities subjects that are really properly written and sourced are a minority. The great majority of our articles on these topics are also using out of date subjective material. To do it right, we'd need a few dozen more editors with at least an advanced undergraduate understanding of the topics & of humanities research & writing techniques, and access to the print and online resources of a decent research library. The material added did use current literary criticism also. I have not read it in detail, but I saw no gross signs of being biased or prejudicial. The complaint in the discussion that it covered only WEurope & NAmerica is in my opinion absurd--trying to cover all cultures in a single article on a topic like this is a really major task which was, reasonably enough, not being attempted. All that was needed was to adjust the title or add a line of explanation. There's no way to handle these topics without some redundancy, but if there is too much it can be fixed by editing. If there were errors they could have been corrected, and if better sources were needed, they could have been added. I should add that there is no one correct interpretation of literature, no one way to evaluate the work of an author, nor will anything ever be definitive, nor in most cases is there even at one time a true scholarly consensus. It's not quite like, say, molecular biology. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@User:DGG: The "biased and prejudicial" aspect of the essay was that it arrived fully formed out of the head of an uneducated person, leaving uneducated editors to chip away at it. The act of "chipping away" was deemed disruptive by me and several other because we are IPs. In short, the bias and prejudice of MusicAngels was creating an article selfishly without input or organic growth. I and many others got frustrated because any editing was met with bullying by User:MusicAngels. When you look at his talk page you see some residue there. He had to be slapped down about not bullying IPs over and over again. Every edit I made he reverted and said I had to justify it. How was he justified in creating an entire article out of his field and then have it be the default? Insane. (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
DGG; This is the same IP-hopping editor who I reported above as blocked on multiple accounts in his range account at his institution. If you need the other range accounts he is using for IP-hopping I can provide them along with the blocks already made. MusicAngels (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
DGG: and what we see here is MusicAngels attacking me because I am "IP hopping" (out of my control) rather than actually seeing the substance of my critique. If Wikipedia policy is that IP editors are not second-class citizens (and if I am so easily identifiable) then perhaps MusicAngels should listen rather than seeking to ban me. There was no consensus on the poetry pages because they arrived fully formed without consensus. 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC) (talk)
Hi DGG: Thanks for getting back. Only two very technical issues to bring up if you can glance at them. First, the IP-editor here has been identified for IP-hopping and trolling by multiple editors/administrators now and has been blocked multiple times as in this one [41]. You are apparently the ninth editor that he has been trolling/hopping and he appears to be taking advantage of a large institutional range of IP-addresses available at his institution. The second technical issue at hand is that I was quite serious about needing to edit the individual pages for WP:CWW and WP:Content forking to mention the G12 issue and requirements for the "shadow-bibliography" issue (that is, current requirements to exclude Wikipedia article references in the Bibliography section of articles system-wide throughout Wikipedia, but include the Wikipedia article references on the Talk page or dummy edits). Since I am meticulous about checking and verifying references in Bibliographies and have spent a great deal of time cleaning up dead links and restoring bad ones, then this is an important issue. If the deleted articles were mislabeled as G12 (as you suggest in your comments above), then the deleted pages should be at least re-labeled on the admin-only data base as to your stated preference and reason. If they are G12, then WP:CWW and WP:Content forking need some editing and additions to cover the G12 issue which is currently not mentioned on those two pages. If you need some of the other IP-hopping addresses for the IP-account above, then let me know here and I will try to get them listed for you. MusicAngels (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The G12 deletion in such cases can be applied, but usually the problem is corrected after a warning. As I said, I personally would not have applied G12 in this case, but the action was within the range of administrative discretion, and therefore I cannot say it was mislabeled. As I said above "Anything organized like WP will never be altogether consistent, or even always fair." The actually best way of dealing with the WP references is very simple: to remove the duplicated text and link the name. If you did think it necessary to include the text, in addition to the techniques listed in WP:CWW, there is also available a rather complicated technique, used often in history and geography articles, but relevant here also: WP:Summary style. I don't think anyone mentioned that possibility in the discussion--I am going to add a link to it on WP:CWW
There is no need to edit anything to say not to use WP articles as references--it's part of the Verifiability policy page--see WP:CIRCULAR DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that was my understand as well. This is the template that I had already prepared on my Talk page for insertion in the article, but I took one day off last week and the article was deleted without prior notice of closing. I think User:Fogettaboutit was also in agreement with you on this. This is the template as prepared on my Talk page and I was just going to fill in the names already listed in the Lead section of the poetry article. If you are saying that this will work then I am in full agreement with you and User:Fogettaboutit:

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

At a different level, I have to say that using these copies was not necessarily a good idea in a general article. Too much of them dealt with the biography, and the reader of a general article would want to see about the literature. They would know enough to go to the article about the author for the bios. It would have been, as I just said, the actually best way of dealing with the WP references to remove the duplicated text and link the name. That people didnt like the article affected the action. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
In stating that, you do realize that your suggestion is very close to the WP:TNT option if all of those biographical subsections are deleted. Since this is effectively equal to the solution previously put on the table by Drv participants, then I would like to offer to do the WP:TNT from the inside-out myself for the article. If you could restore the article as a Draft article under a new name "Draft:Poetry in the 21st century", then I will remove all of the biography subsections used in their entirety. This will effectively leave only the lead section and the outline structure for the rest to be then rewritten. This was only a "C"-class article anyway, and I would like to move forward with the option you are offering of straightforwardly removing all the WP:CWW biography material used and then rewriting/redrafting it along with WikiProjects as a Draft article. Also, I would mark the Talk page to inform other editors not to apply any WP:Content forking in the new article. MusicAngels (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Advanced Center for Korean Studies[edit]

I noticed you removed a speedy tag from this article. I don't usually knowingly override another admin, but I've still deleted it. This article has has now been nominated for deletion and deleted three times, it's first-person spam and a copyright violation. You can obviously restore if you disagree with both those claims, and I won't wheel if you do, but I have to say that I can't for the life of me see why you simply reverted a valid speedy tag by a GF editor. I've also posted a warning on the article creator's page regarding a likely WP:COI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the tone of the above. I can see, looking at other postings, that you were probably just trying to save the article, but to me the copyright violation and first person spam would need a rewrite in the editor's own words from scratch, rather than just some patching up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

Cunard is taking the same approach I would have taken 6 years ago. I then argued that the most important thing is to have acceptable content, and how it got there is secondary. I still think that the ideal way of looking at it, if it were not for the current epidemic of paid editing (and the realization that it was there before, also, but we paid insufficient attention to it.) You & I have been assuming a deterrent effect. Cunard has challenged that assumption, and I can't prove him wrong. As you said, its "possibly deny us", but just possibly. Based on some discussions, perhaps what it's most likely to do is discourage pd eds. from giving money-back guarantees, but they will still be able to show portfolios of whatever of their work has not been deleted, including that done before they were detected.
Frankly, I am no longer willing to challenge on the grounds of having been started as paid editing any article that he will rewrite and take responsibility for; I started thinking in the course of the discussion that I am not sure my renoms of those two articles was justified.
G5 has never covered articles started before someone is blocked, or articles with substantial contributions by others. I can see permitting it retrospectively, but the sort of thing we're discussing would require removing the " substantial edits by others" part. I'm not sure I would support that.
G11 of course should be more consistently applied, but I am not sure what wording would make it stronger, as every article on an organization or its product will have some promotional effect., We could add something about "promotional intent", but this is hard to really prove.
I don't see what you propose to do with G13 to make it stronger. I still have my list of 500 or sos articles that shouldn't have been deleted but were because the contributor gave up after improper reviewing.
What we need to concentrate on I think is the notability standard for organizations. Even here, it's hard to think of how to reword it so it doesnt remove the clearly notable--our emphasis on the GNG prevents any rational work on this area. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
There is already an extra-strict WP:NSOFT-essay, where three coverage-bursts are needed (not just three publishers). If the details of WP:NCORP-guideline are tweaked, so that three coverage-bursts (not just three published sources) are needed, that might ease some of the not-startup-type burden, since most startups only have one product, they get a coverage burst for their first funding round, a coverage-burst when their beta-product actually ships... and then have to wait around for that third coverage-burst (usually a second successful round of series B funding) prior to getting a dedicated wikipedia-article. In the case of Circle, they got their first burst in Oct&Nov'13, their second burst in Mar&May'14, and their third burst in Sep'14, plus their biggest burst yet in Apr&May of 2015. But if the WP:NCORP-guideline standards were shifted to require three bursts of coverage, spaced several months apart, then Circle (company) would have been a redlink (or more likely a WP:NOTEWORTHY mention under Bitcoin#companies methinks) for all of 2013 and most of 2014. Because they had a famous serial-entrepreneur founder, and got plenty of money early on, it would only have taken them a year of operation to get a wikipedia page... but that is still 12 months of WP:FAILN under the three-coverage-burst-test, used by WP:NSOFT-essay already. (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


Here are some other AfDs if you wish: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadrant Park, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baghochi Mahaz, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John David Bland, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systech It Solutions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatsan at44, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XE Mobile, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People on the March, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemberga brunn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thierry Laborde, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadrunner Publications, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Blandin Tarleton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edvinas Navickas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Biderman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small Cell Forum, Angela Reign (this one is a singer but also an actress and it seems like an obvious delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Ozborn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Perez (CEO, HH Global Americas), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoverHound, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel-Philippe de Sudres] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahir Hashmi Adeeb. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

IP page creation[edit]

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

IP page creation, sense #2[edit]

These are the rough cite-counts for Draft:Danko Nikolić (AfD) versus Draft:T._Nerat_Veziroğlu versus Draft:Brian_Boxer_Wachler.

        D.Nikolić       N.Veziroğlu     B.Boxer-Wachler
        669     2007    389     2002    219     2007
        329     2009    333     2008    203     2003
        307     2008    315     2008    137     2003
        211     2008    305     2005    109     2008
        159     1998    262     2005     96     1995
        115     2007    217     2007     87     2004
         68     2010    188     2009     74     2006
         64     2011    180     2004     60     2002
         62     2009    168     2008     56     1998
         61     2006    142     1996     56     2007
         60     2008    128     2005     55     1999
         55     2007    111     2001     53     2005
         50     1995     97     2006     52     2000
         43     2011     95     1965     44     2002

Not really related to Kudpung's query, but couldn't resist re-using that section title.  :-)     Since you have a degree in biology, do you have time to put together neurobiologist-slash-philosopher-of-mind Danko Nikolić, as suggested at AfD for practopoiesis/etc? (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There is the unfortunate difficulty that I have not yet been able to really figure out what practopoiesis is. I probably could do it anyway but I have learned never to promise to do an article on anything. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure I'll elide some crucial aspect, but in a nutshell it is a proposal of a semi-concrete mechanism (not concrete at the level of molecular biology... but not as abstract as a purely logical-philosophical argument either... mayhap concrete enough that one could actually program a computer simulation of the proposed mechanism is perhaps about the right level-of-abstraction), which is put forth to explain various kinds of cognitive-science-related-tasks: in particular, it attempts to unify the idea of learning ("slow" practopoiesis-learning), with the idea of recall-of-memory ("fast" practopoiesis-'learning'), among other things. See the k-lines quasi-concrete proposal from the 1960s, which was a tad more abstract (math and computer science proposer versus neurology and psychology proposer), but had similar unified-mechanism-goals. So the concept, is at the intersection of biology-in-the-form-of-neurobiology, philosophy-of-mind, and computational-cognitive-science (or maybe artificial intelligence). Hard to pigeonhole, in other words, because even if we did understand it as deeply as User:Dankonikolic and User:DaveApter, it is an inherently interdisciplinary type of idea.
  Most of the work that is cited for Nikolić is not for being the inventor of practopoiesis, but for neural synchrony and such, but User:Dankonikolic says these two things are not-very-related areas, so it might not even make sense to side-merge to a BLP-article. Maybe we can convince User:DaveApter to help write the Draft:Danko Nikolić BLP-article, and further elucidate why practopoiesis ought to be merged into downward causation? The comment by User:Dankonikolic at AfD specifically said that neither practopoiesis nor downward causation were closely related to neural synchrony... but did not say further, whether it would be proper to upmerge the practopoiesis stuff into downward causation. Is the 1974 concept, of "downward causation", identical to the 2013-ish concept of "practopoiesis"? What is the distinction, that caused the new name? (Also, what about ideasthesia?) Why not put both of downward causation && practopoiesis into some purely-about-philosophy article, like Supervenience#Biological_properties? Honest questions, to which I don't know the answers.  ;-) (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
the best I can make out is that the theory is saying consciousness is not directly our awareness of things, but rather at a higher level, our being aware that we have awareness about things. I wouldn't really want to comment until I'd actually read the full sources, and seen his examples. Perhaps something like: A monkey knows how to eat a banana; we know that we know how to eat a banana. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I have provided answers to the questions posed by I'll try also to contribute to the questions discussed here. Practopoiesis is sort of related to K-line. It tells us, in a way, what machinery would one need in order to implement a K-line. Practopoiesis is not describing a distinction between "awareness only" and "awareness about awareness". Here is a HOT theory about that problem: Higher-order theories of consciousness. Practopoiesis is more like explaining the engine behind implementing any form of awareness, that of a monkey and that of humans. In a way, practopoiesis deals with more fundamental problems than either of those theories (K-line or HOT). It is about the adaptive principles we need to explain the mental from the physiological/physical in general. So, I would say that got it in the nutshell. One more comment regarding the other topics of my research. It happens so that I do different research projects for different reasons. Some research projects are more on the side of 'paying the bills' while others are more 'for the soul'. I hope that this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankonikolic (talkcontribs) 11:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I am having a long conversation on my usertalk with Danko, about where to merge practopoiesis -- which I can now spell without cut-n-paste so that is an improvement on my part.  :-)     Also, appreciate your help DGG with the Nerat draft, thanks. Somebody from Istanbul has also been making small tweaks to the Nerat draft, which might be a family-member (before U.Miami professorship Nerat worked in the family construction business there). DGG, can you welcome our new contributor, and figure out if they are the topic of the BLP-article (I asked Harry Braun to email Nerat so this is the most likely scenario), or kinfolk thereof, or just by sheer coincidence a disinterested beginning editor who is helping with AfC? If you are busy with GMOs or whatever I can do that welcome-to-wikipedia-have-you-read-the-ToU-yet-thanks-for-your-help stuff, just ping my usertalk. Thanks, (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability for bib databases[edit]

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

  • Honestly? Nope, no idea. For the most important databases (like PubMed or the Arts and Humanities Citation Index) sources can be found without too much trouble. For the smaller ones, it's difficult. We have more database articles like this, none of them sufficiently sourced (just dependent sources for non-controversial info). In the present case, things are even more difficult, because "polymer library" is not an unambigous search term and gives many hits, but nothing really about this database. The links in the article don't help in establishing notability (the last one - STN - even seems to be a false positive as this library is not listed in the list of sources). Perhaps somebody from the Chemistry project would know of some sources? Curious what David will have to say about this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll add the refs I have at hand. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Old Arbcom case[edit]

Hello, I am just wondering if Talk:Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush still needs to be around? Near as I can tell, it's linked to from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others which seems to be closed now. Avicennasis @ 23:49, 11 Tishrei 5776 / 23:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

it has been removed. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Talk:Success Academy Charter Schools.
Message added 00:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Orlando Eye Institute[edit]

Hi DGG, thanks for your message. However, I am still not sure I understand why the article was deleted. If the extended quote by one of the partners was problematic, then it could have been removed. And if there was other content that came across as too promotional, it too could have been removed. But the sources used to create the article really did not satisfy WP:GNG? I figured content about the two partners and the business itself added up to enough content to justify an article. Parbhu's career seemed impressive in particular, not to mention covered by multiple reliable sources. I was really hoping to get more feedback about the article itself before being deleted. I have promoted COI articles to GA status multiple times, and I feel I wrote this article using the same standards. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I was quite clear: the 2-physician medical group is simply not notable, and no matter how well you write it, it will still not be notable. I doubt you will find an article on a similarly sized group in WP, but if you do, I will certainly try to delete it. Nor are the principals notable as researchers; I'm quite sure we have no articles relying on WP:PROF for people with just 4 peer-reviewed papers, none of them highly cited. As there is no likelihood of notability, there's no way any advice from me will help you make a sustainable article. The part I cited was one of several--there was similar material in several places throughout the article. I'm sure you can judge more objectively when you don't have a conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
DGG, will you please kindly do me a favor? I would like to have a copy of the article (I was unable to save a copy before it was deleted). Is there any chance I could get a copy to save offline and for future reference, or possibly a draft space? I realize this is an inconvenience but I would appreciate the assistance. If could be emailed to me or you are welcome to save the text at User:Another Believer/Sandbox, if that is an option. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I will email you a copy. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I really do appreciate that. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Do let me know if you need me to send a message to you with my email address. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
sorry for the delay. I just now sent it. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


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

Sierra Vista[edit]

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

It rarely hurts to ask the closer, but I generally do not recommend taking a non-consensus close to Deletion Review, and , at Deletion Review, I rarely vote to overturn one unless it is truly perverse. .Just wait a few months and nominate again. But in any case the argument would be that publications serving the San Joaquin Valley are local not likely to have readers outside the valley; publications serving the State of California are regional, being of interest to neighboring states also; A major SF or LA paper read nationally is national. The Oakland Tribune is arguably more than local, and it is certainly outside the Valley, but Tribune Business News is not the Tribune. If one is going to get technical about wording, the rule is that at least one non-local source is needed, which implies that one source is not always enough. In practice, the result of mall decisions depends on how hard they are argued. W
More generally, the majority disputed afd decisions hinge on the exact interpretation of the sourcing rule, and in most such cases a decent argument can be made in either direction. That's why I support going by objective criteria. In the case of malls, size. We have failed several times to get consensus on a general rule. If we did, and it were > 1 million sq ft≈100,000 sq metres, this would be deleted with no argument; if it were 500,000 sq ft it would be kept with no argument. In either case the effort debating it could be used for more important purposes. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think sqft is the proper metric (assuming WP:42 is not enough of a metric already). Malls in the Boston area will be low-sqft, and that goes triple for malls in Hong Kong. By constrast, malls in Dallas or Minnesota (e.g. the Mall of America for a 'famous' example) will naturally have far more sqft, because real estate is cheaper and the dense-packed-mall-layouts are not necessary.
  Something like average-visitors-per-week ... or maybe peak-weekly-visitors-during-the-year to account for the seasonal nature of malls i.e. december 25th ... would be a better metric than sqft, and similarly, annual revenues is a good proxy for visitor-count slash mall-importance. Physically large does not equate well with wiki-notability, but number of people involved (or as a proxy number of dollars changing hands) does a better job methinks. If we do this, I recommend the visitor-count or dollar-count cutoff be low enough that at least one mall per tiny-city-of-population-10k is theoretically able to get a wikipedia article dedicated to the mall -- in the USA there are about 600 such tiny-cities, according to the KGB.[42] Or, actually that brings up another idea, see below. (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

proposal: Businesses of Greater Clovis, California[edit]

  Or... now that I think of it... we could just use *that* as the threshold: every city with a population of 10k+ people, such as Charlotte Amalie would be permitted by the hypothetical WP:NSHOPPING wiki-notability guideline to have a safe-from-AfD article called Businesses in Charlotte Amalie. Such a 'listicle' would obviously include the 'major' malls (with WP:UNDUE being calculated based on sqft or visitor-count or most pragmatically revenues-per-annum since that latter figure is often available -- or simply in the usual wiki-fashion by the amount of ink spilled in wiki-reliable sources), as well as other major employers like hospitals/schools/banks, notable tourist traps, oft-reviewed restaurants, and such.
  Obviously, these business-in-XYZ-summary-articles will be a goldmine for linkspam, so if we go thataway, I would suggest beginning with a Businesses in CityName, CountryName guideline that sets a temporary initial threshold of 100k+ population minimum for the associated metro area; we even have an on-wiki list of such areas, and for the USA the total as of ~2008 was roughly 267 such medium-cities of 100k+ people (total of 295 as of July 2014 data). Borderline-notable mall articles and such, could be merged inot the business-of-XYZ articles, with exceptions for Mall of America and other not-borderline-exceptions. This temporary approach would cover about 90% of the states and territories in the USA... California where the Sierra Vista Mall is located tops the list with ~70 cities of 100k+ population in 2014:
  • 2or3: IA MN SC WI KY NE NM
  • zero: AS DE GM ME NI VI VT WV WY
  Later, if that 100k+plan worked out, we could expand the threshold to include the additional ~~300 tiny-cities in the USA with 10k+ people through 99k people. Most of the states and territories exxcluded by the 100k+ rule, would be included by the 10k+ rule, including Charlotte Amalie, U.S. Virgin Islands which is the capitol and has 18k population nowadays.
  If the scheme *does* work, it could be a good recruiting tool for the type of editor naturally-interested in shopping and tourist attractions (plus editors WP:COI-interested in the retail industry and microeconomics), as I mentioned at the AfD for the mall. Furthermore, this scheme could also be a good way to help decide borderline-notability-questions about startups and such with WP:PRESERVE in mind... rather than a binary question of bangkeep or bangdelete, we would (almost always since I'm proposing a geography-based scheme) have the additional option of merging Circle_(company) into the Businesses in Greater Boston article that was a spinoff from Boston#Economy.
  And in fact, wikipedia already has Greater_Boston#Major_companies as a spinoff-list from Boston#Economy. So my proposal is that we expand that to be a spinoff-article that gives some details about the companies mentioned, then do the same Businesses of Greater CityName thing with 300 or 600 more cities, based on a population threshold of 100k+ or 10k+ respectively. Both thresholds would permit bangmerging Sierra Vista Mall into a broader Businesses of Greater Clovis, California article ... which at population 102k people just makes the upper threshold.
  Anyways, food for thought here mostly. Ping User:Czar, User:Brianhe, User:Widefox, User:Kudpung, and User:CorporateM, who may have comments about this crazy proposal.  ;-)     p.s. Not sure if DGG wants to host a big discussion, here on User:DGG talkspace, please let me know if you'd rather see this taken elsewhere DGG. (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
All I can see is the COI hell that would inevitably result from these sorts of lists (many more anons adding their businesses than caring about an esoteric guideline). More concretely, I don't think a NSHOPPING guideline would ever pass consensus—especially since I think (or hope?) we're moving in the other direction (away from content-specific guidelines) post-OrangeMoody. I'd also say that these types of articles are closer to directories in function (what Wikipedia is not). If any such article was necessary, it would need to extend naturally (in summary style) from the city/town article's "Businesses" section. czar 15:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I submit to you that we are already in the COI hell of which you speak.  :-)     Orangemoody was a symptom: the only way even wiki-notable companies like Countly can get their articles approved, is by spending months and months learning all the wiki-policies, or by hiring some kind of wiki-consultant for cold hard cash. Because the COI-handling-facilities are so borked, we are quickly tilting the wiki-culture towards forcing honest disclosed-COI-editors into retirement, which will leave only the dishonest undisclosed bad apples. Agree about avoiding WP:NOTDIR, and agree about extending the Clovis, California#Economy section in summary-style, but disagree that WP:NOTEWORTHY is that hard even for a reasonably tiny business to surmount. The idea here is that the Businesses in Greater Clovis articles will become a place where
  • #1) we can put 'quasi-local' organizations like the Sierra Vista Mall, that will be better-watched by the anti-COI-hawks than a dedicated Sierra Vista Mall article possibly could, and
  • #2) we can also upmerge borderline-wiki-notable startups like Countly into Businesses of Greater Istanbul (or Greater Long since they have relocated to London nowadays), rather than let them molder in AfC as potential victims.
  • There is even the possibility that #3) companies who clearly pass WP:GNG, such as Circle_(company) and the other bitcoin startups, could be down-merged into a paragraph of the appropriate city.
I'm not arguing this idea is a panacea of bliss, there will still be plenty of COI-encumbered clueless wiki-beginners (not all of them IP-anons dern it! ;-) but I think it is a better way to manage things than the hardline approach to handling COI, which I will unfairly mischaracterize as ban-'em-all-and-let-the-great-jimbo-sort-out-the-wiki-bodies. See my argument at the AfD, that the mall-article (and the businesses-of-xyz even more so) could be #4) a recruiting-tool... this is an expansion on that, which will also double as a way to mitigate the COI-encumbrance-problem, by putting all the COI-eggs into one basket, as it were. Whether it is a better idea, than what we are quickly moving towards, remains to be seen, but I do agree it is different from what we are quickly moving towards. (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOT business listing COI magnet, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Suggest AfC or some other place is better location for discussing new articles (no idea why I'm pinged). Widefox; talk 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no way of preventing promotionalism in an encycopedia that permits anonymous editing. There is no way of preventing undisclosed COI editing either, for the same reason. We have been able to detect those we have, because they've not understood editing here well enough to avoid detection--and because all edits on borderline notable subjects of certain types clearly merit investigation. If we lower the standard of notability, it will be all the easier for them.
We are not in great need of people who will write on local subjects; we are not in need of people who will write on barely notable subjects. We are in need of people who can write on the clearly notable subjects that not enough people have been interested in, and the obvious area properly receiving current attention here is our continuing gender bias. But what we need even more are people who can rewrite the existing promotional editing on the clearly notable subjects. Almost all articles on major corporations and nonprofit organizations need complete rewriting. They've been contaminated by PR from various sources: the PR people who have written many of the articles, the volunteers who write like PR editors because they think that's what we want here, and the inevitably PR writing based on the RW sources being PR in the first place.
It's unfortunate that a few honest paid editors have gotten undue suspicion. But, quite frankly, I would very strongly support eliminating all paid editing whatsoever. Their fundamental mission is not really compatible with a NPOV encycopedia.
However, the proposition that we write as volunteers basic factual articles on all clearly notable organizations is a reasonable idea. If we do it, we shouldstart at the top, not see how far we can go to the bottom. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Well expressed. The only substitute for the editorial supervision that Wikipedia of necessity lacks is to depend on high quality sources that do have editorial supervision that insists on fact checking, a skeptical attitude toward press releases, and disclosure of COIs. The most reliable of sources are characterized by strict insistence on declaring C.O.I.s, and even the appearance of C.O.I.s, and the use of press releases as no more than sources of questions to ask. The more time spent working on articles written from a source-rich environment (the truly notable), the better our instincts become for working in less information-rich environments. This should be the starting point for pulling out the effects of systemic bias by developing skepticism toward hand-outs and coi claims. (The NYT public editor has just written a piece on two Times published book reviews in which the reviewers assigned had undisclosed COIs).
Wikipedia needs properly sourced articles on corporations—for completeness; the same reason Wikipedia needs any article. But not so much that non-NPOV, poorly sourced articles need be allowed. Wikipedia has accessibility, reliability, and completeness to offer. Completeness is getting out ahead of reliability—this is a perversion of our goals. While it may be admirable to strive for completeness (an impossible goal), reliability back-stopped by adequate cites to WP:RS is existential. —Neonorange (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Edward Boyd Barrett may intrigue you[edit]

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

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

Wachler Draft MFD[edit]

Hi, with respect to your MFD nomination of Draft:Brian Boxer Wachler, which it seems you withdrew, I tried to close it but it was un-closed by another user. Apparently I did it wrong. See my own talk page and that of User:Mmyers1976. Would you mind closing the discussion as withdrawn yourself? Everymorning (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that you did get it right; frankly, I run into difficulties myself half the time when I try to close something manually. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Frederick Trump[edit]

Hi DGG. When you have a few minutes could you take a look at Frederick Trump and share your thoughts on the talk page. I have some concerns about his notability, but I seem to be in the minority. Maybe I am wrong. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Commented there. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Danish foreign ministers[edit]

When you moved the page, you created a redirect to itself. List of Foreign Ministers of Denmark also redirects to nowhere now. You deleted the original version of List of Danish foreign ministers that had content. Not sure what is going on here. Bgwhite (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

fixed; thanks for letting me know. Probably what happened is the db-move template wasn't initially removed, so it got moved twice. It's OK now. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


I think you deleted my page LAVI. It was deleted before I even knew it had a speedy deletion nomination tag (from User:Olowe2011). I had no opportunity to contest the deletion and now the page is gone. I was told to contact you to retrieve the deleted material for future reference and improvements. Please advise. — comment added by JewishEducation (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

JewishEducation, there were no references except for its own publications. I will email you the contents, but first you must activate your WP email account from your user preferences page. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yap Kwong Weng[edit]

Dear DGG,

I have been issued a notice of speedy deletion for the article "Yap Kwong Weng", as well as a warning that I will be barred from wikipedia for advertising. I have checked that the article that I have uploaded is factual based on sources online. May I know how I can rectify the situation?

Thank you. Best Regards, Wikiwak991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwak991 (talkcontribs) 06:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It's no better than the article that was deleted in 1993: no notable public positions, references that are mere notices, and multiple quotations like "ap states that his goal is to "raise awareness of the principles of dignity, that will at the very least, give the youths of Cambodia a chance at leading a life of dignity" [74] With this conviction, Yap has actively engaged the youth population and brought the Global Dignity work into Cambodia." sourced only to himself, which is pure advertising. I fixed the attempt to pretend that a TedX talk was a TED talk. I also not that this is the only article you have written, so I wonder about WP:Conflict of Interest. I also wonder if you are the same individual who submitted the previous article, Augustine koh24 and who participated in the discussion at AfD under various other names, none of whom had edited before; it was also their only article, or if you perhaps are working or employed by the subject, in which case see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 12:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
ipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite_list&oldid=683131604 -->

Article Nominated for Deletion - Yap Kwong Weng[edit]

Dear DGG, I am the author of the article, "Yap Kwong Weng". I have contested the two tags on the article. I have explained that this individual is notable because of the contributions he has made to the non-profit sector in South East Asia, as well as to the corporate side, especially in Myanmar. All information in the article are factual and verifiable with references. The article was intended to be biographical. If there are any promotional materials in it, (perhaps wordings), please flag them out so that I can make the necessary changes.

I believe that this individual is notable enough for a public encyclopaedia and would like to request for the speedy deletion tags to be removed.

Your advice on this matter and how to rectify it is very much appreciated.

Thank you very much, Best Regards, Wikiwak991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwak991 (talkcontribs) 13:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, I just read your reply to my previous post. I have noted the information. I was also not aware of the article in 1993 and did not contribute to any previous article concerning this individual. My previous contributions, which you have mentioned, was for an album by a band that I thought had a notable musician/arranger (Phillip Lassiter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwak991 (talkcontribs) 14:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Wireless philosophy[edit]

Please nominate Wireless Philosophy for deletion. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Pirhayati, I assume that you are saying that instead of the speedy delete thatI have already done, that it be undeleted and sent to AfD for a community discussion. Considering that wit was nominated for deletion by a editor who has since been banned as part of ring of disruptive editors, I'm undeleting it, and will consider later about whether it should go to AfD. I think it might hold up if you could find a really good reference providing substantial coverage from a third-party independent reliable source, preferably a formal magazine or similar publication. DGG ( talk ) 13:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of MicroAssist Article[edit]

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


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

Nova Science Publishers[edit]

Dear DGG

since you are, it seems, an experienced Wikipedia editor perhaps you could look into this Nova article. It suggest that it is the real object of an editorial war, raging now since many years. You know, in Spain, many people publish with Nova, and recently I came across a pretty serious series of articles and also an interactive website at Granada University, which puts an entirely new light on this it seems contested issue. Whatever the merits of the critique - which may or may not exist - it is important to emphasize that in the name of Wikipedia neutrality and reliance on credible sources, the content of articles ranking Nova in the context of other publishers cannot be overlooked. The articles by Nicolas Robinson Garcia, who relies solely on the results of the Thomson-Reuters Book Citation Index, are easily available and were mentioned by me in the rewriting of the main article on academic publishing. Since the Granada team publishes in leading scientometric journals, the issue is pretty serious, since the Wiki article suggests that Nova is a bottom quality publisher, while the Granada results, based on the Thomson-Reuters Index, suggest that they are among the top 20 global publishers. Also the Geranada interactive website with the Thomson Reuters data, mentioned in the academic publishing article, is a major innovation. Since Wikipedia is at the forefront of neutrality, and quality, please see to it that neutrality is being kept. Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Top in what sense? Analyzing the article you rely on, she showed that Nova was the 4th largest in terms of books published, but 5th in terms of book chapters published; for some reason she combined the two into a figure for books+book chapters, which makes no sense to me, and the result is 5th. In terms of raw numbers of citation to the items, she counted 14th out of 20th for the books, 2nd for the chapters, and 10th for the irrational (books+chapters). The much more important figure is citations/item, and Nova is lowest of the 20 for books, next to lowest for chapters, and 16th for the combination. The standard deviation is in all cases low, showing that few books deviate much from the average. She then finds the only field where Nova is significant even in numbers of books is the social sciences. Citation figures do not necessarily show importance for books as a whole from a publisher any more than do they for journals, but they are a rough guide. The detailed figures for citations/book for individual fields are not in this paper; they are likely to e important because the social sciences on the average have a lower citation density than the sciences. Taking this into account in the interpretation, the paper shows what I have always personally thought, that Nova is a low quality book publisher in the sciences, and a medium-to-low quality publisher in the social sciences. My colleagues who look only at the sciences conclude it's low quality overall, while I would say it is a little better than that in the sciences sciences, but not above medium. If you know of any studies to the contrary, I would like to hear of them.
Overall, the WP article is correct in its evaluation. The number of items, which is the figure you are using, is not a useful indicator, but merely the first step in deriving useful indicators. I will copy a version of this to the discussion page.
There's a more important general point: Anyone who uses WP as the definitive view on anything is mis-using it. I would definitely say that relatively little in WP is at the "forefront of neutrality and quality. All that we even hope for is to make it a reasonably reliable initial summary. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think DGG has come with a more balanced and sensible approach to this passionately debated matter than many other contributions on this talk page. Taking the latest Granada study - available on Researchgate in a pre-publication version, Nicolas Robinson Garcia lists hundreds of Thomson Reuters Book Citation data, and also the average citation rates a book publisher achieves. I quote his contribution in my proposal. If you put his data in an afternoon's work into an EXCEL table and rank the publishers - or at least the 150 most prolific ones - via the EXCEL programme, it comes out that

(details copied to Sept. archive p. )

Nova's average citation rate (the indicator best resembling the Impact Factor of scholarly journals) is 0.25; it exactly shares this with Wiley-Blackwell; Chandos; Utah State University Press; InTech. A very famous publisher, like Palgrave Macmillan, achieves 0,29; while Nova's average citation rate is ahead of publishers like University of Chicago Press, Fordham University Press, et cetera. Your contribution, dear DGG, could lead to a more balanced debate here on the pages of Wikipedia talk. Thank you Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not possible to make a valid comparison of the citation rate of books and of journal articles. Looking at the data you give for anomalies, examining the BCI master publications list, I see that only 6 books are listed from Anderson, and they are in fact published not by them, but by a division of Elsevier (Anderson was a regional US law book publisher Elsevier took over in 2002). I also see only 17 from University of Chicago Press. I doubt any useful numbera can be obtained from BCI, unless used within very careful limitations. Neither of my usual libraries (Princeton & NYPL) carry Book Citation Index, but I will find one that does; I am rather curious how it works & what counts as a citation. In the meantime, can you send me send me a link to the report you mention & a link to anything she's published with field-specific data. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

JumpLike23's stuff[edit]

David, you have made at least three pretty terrible deletion nominations of JumpLike23's stuff. You need to knock it off, you are right on the borderline of actionable harassment here. Not that AN/I would actually take action against a sitting Arb, in all likelihood — your compass is broken with this user, however, and I am letting you know this in no uncertain terms. Back off. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I respect your judgement, so I rechecked one of them: See my comment today at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Johnson (activist) for an explanation of why I consider some of these articles less than appropriate. I recognize the good faith in making them, and the importance of covering this area, but making articles on the basis of who merely ought to be considered notable is not encyclopedic. The Congressional Record is not a RS for notability. I will look at the others and see if I want to re-evaluate them. DGG ( talk ) 13:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)