User talk:DGG/Archive 137 Jun. 2018

ARCHIVES

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

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

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

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

Do not add comments here; this is an archive of earlier comments

Obits..

Do you think an obituary in reputable newspapers like Telegraph et al is an auto-indicator of encyclopedic notability, in the event no other significant covg. about the subject could be discovered?~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winged Blades of Godric - That would depend on the newspaper's obituary policy. Some newspapers, including the Washington Post, which is considered a newspaper of record, have a policy that they will publish a true news obituary for any long-term resident of the area of the newspaper. (A long paid death notice that reads like an obituary is a different matter, but your question has to do with true obituaries under the byline of one of the obituary staff reporters.) Therefore a news obituary in the Washington Post is not in itself an indicator of encyclopedic notability. Other newspapers have mileage that may vary. Does that fail to answer your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the New York Times it is a clear determinant of notability at least for 1896+. I'm told this is true for the London Times also. I am insufficiently familiar with the Telegraph. The distinctions Robert McC gives above about paid obits is important to keep in mind in all cases. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO a full obituary in a broadsheet paper (UK: Times, FT, Observer, Telegraph, Grauniad) is normally a non-trivial reliable independent source, so counts towards WP:GNG. Paid obits, not so much. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the distinction is that the NYT and the Times are so reliable as to be sufficient by themselves without needing other sources. As for the others, as I said, I'm not familiar enough to know if they fall in this category. And for the US, a local paper regardless of format is I think usually not reliable for notability, and I think there is no clear level above that where a clear division can be drawn. To some extent I judge by the nature of the obit. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes. Yes for Obits published by universities. It probably depends on the author. The obit should make a claim of notability if it is being used as a claim of notability. Newspapers obits are paid, so take with salt. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, replying to User:SmokeyJoe and following up to my comment and that of DGG: There may be three types of death reports in a newspaper, and one should be mindful of the distinctions. The first is a news obituary, which is written by a reporter, and is not paid for. Different newspapers have different policies on who qualifies for these. A news obituary in The Times or the NYT is an indication of notability. A news obituary, written by the obit writer, in the Washington Post is not necessarily an indication of notability. The second is a conventional paid death notice, normally placed by the undertaker. These are no indication of notability. The third is a hybrid, a paid death story, written like an obituary, but paid for by family. These can be mistaken for news obituaries, but they are not, and are not indications of notability. True obits are not paid for; they are written by staff, and they may or may not indicate notability; but true obits and hybrids can be confused, and require careful reading. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, I agree. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Räfven

Please revisit the discussion; was that rationale indeed meant for this article? Sam Sailor 13:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems an unambiguous copyvio, without the necessary declaration. How do you think it should be handled?. I don't even see any reason to know that the person mentioned there as giving permission owns the copyright, or whether they copied it from elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 13:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copivio in Räfven? It's a mere stub with a few bulleted lists embedded, and has none of the usual signs of copivio. Virtually unchanged since its creation in 2009 (Special:Diff/308489025/843885096). Where do you see an unambiguous copyvio? Earwig's CV Detector reports 0%. What person are you talking about? ~~Talk:Räfven does not exist~~ Talk:Räfven has just been created, User talk:Rasmusblanck~enwiki mentions nothing, he has only this article to his contribs, and there's nothing in the history that looks anything like copyvio. Are we talking about the same article? Sam Sailor 13:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC) (amended, Talk:Räfven now created Sam Sailor 14:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

oops. my error entirely-- I had just done an explanation of the contested speedy at Floris Vissner, and it applied to that. I obvious need to go back to sleep. will reply when I wake up . DGG ( talk ) 15:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified. . My apologies to everyone. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit of Arts_et_Métiers_ParisTech

Hello DGG, I could not get the reason behind your last modification of Arts_et_Métiers_ParisTech. I might be missing something but nothing seemed to be wrong with this content. Maxicar (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maxicar, I went to the article to remove the name of someone else whose article I deleted, since the rule is to remove names of alumni unless they are notable in the sense of having a WP article, or when it is immediately obvious from what is said on the list that they would certainly be qualified for one. When I do this, I try to clean upt other redlinks also. Jonathan Benassaya is cofounder of Deezer. a company that has an article, but it is not such a major company that it is obvious that his position would justify an article; checking the fr WP article on him, I continue to think it not obvious. But the way to proceed is to write the article, add the name back, and see if the article gets deleted.

Roland Vardanega is different. He was listed a little confusingly as "intermediate CEO of PSA Peugeot Citroën"; this is a sufficiently important company that its CEO would obviously get an article, but I wa unsure of the meaning of "intermediate president", whether it meant a president of one division or a president during one of the changes of ownership. Checking the enWP article on the company, he isn't mentioned. So the removal is justified, but , checking now the enWP article again, I see it mentions none of the earlier executives and it certainly ought to--one of them even has a picture and a quote in the article without a statement of his role anywhere. Checking the frWP article on him, he certainly should have an article. So I'm restoring it, and will myself translate/rewrite at least a stub of the frWP article to have one here. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Ali Banat you deleted

Hi DGG, Ali Banat was a Muslim Australian humanitarian, philanthropist, charity worker, social activist and former businessman. He is inspiration for many youngsters and as well as for cancer patients. People know him, I'm giving you the link of a video of him. Gifted with Cancer - Ali Banat He is dead and there is no such need for advertisement for him. Please let world know who was Ali Banat! If you think the article isn't perfect, let people contribute...

Farid99911. I do think it needed to be deleted for the reason specified--as very highly promotional, and no real indication of significance or possible notability . But I made an error. I deleted it without giving another administrator the chance to review it. I am permitted to do so--we call it single-handed deletion. But I have always said that it is not a good idea to use this ability except in really extreme situations, so I am instead going to restore it--but restore it as a draft, where it would have some chance of being improved into an acceptable article. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it is now at Draft:Ali Banat DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MOS:BIO listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:MOS:BIO. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:MOS:BIO redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Michael Heupel

Could you take a look at Draft:Michael Heupel. You marked it as under review a while ago. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, same deal with Draft:Homotrema Rubrum -- RoySmith (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need your expertise....

Will you take a look at Chaste Christopher Inegbedion - so far, zero input at AfD after 4 days. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Wall Ventures

Hi DGG,

If you pull Fifth Wall Ventures to Draft, I can add about 20 more sources with developments since the article was written. I can take care of this tomorrow or Thursday. As per COI, I can't do this extensive update directly while it's in mainspace.

Let me know if this is acceptable.

FYI, I completed my update of Draft: Ale Resnik and have been awaiting review by Jytdog, since they're the one who pulled it to draft, and also did some of their own editing. BC1278 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

@BC1278: for 5th wall, I can not withdraw the afd and move it, because another editor has already commented delete. The best way to proceed is to add the references at the afd discussion , or to the article talk page &mention it at the discussion.

For Resnik, there is no need to have the same person review the article. In fact, it's better and fairer if it's random, tho it can take a week or two. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comments (as I am the del !voter) and it is fairer to wait your turn in the AFC queue. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Where exactly are you suggesting I place the request for Draft: Ale Resnik, now that I completed the contemplated update of the article in draft? Not sure of the proposed logistics. I am awaiting Jytdog because he made the move to Draft as a means to allow me to directly edit prior to AfD vote. He was not the reviewer of the original article and my understanding was that after the updates were completed, he would move it back to mainspace, where you or anyone could propose AfD again if you wished. This article, of course, already went through AfC and a previous AfD review.BC1278 (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

being discussed on the talk p. for the draft--it is a somewhat different situation. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft still "under review"

DGG, are you aware you marked Draft:Homotrema Rubrum under review back in mid-May? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done: found the correct name, and accepted, as Homotrema rubra, but it needs additional work. Of course, all biological species are considered notable at WP. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DGG

I appreciate your having accepted "Proposed 'Liberty' Amendment to the United States Constitution". It is refreshing to see that the article is valued and appreciated. User:Gregory Watson Gregory Watson (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

China Illustrata

Hi DGG,

thank you very much for your intervention with regard to China Illustrata. As you may have understood it was not really the plan to bring the draft in the sandbox of the student into the Draft or main namespace so soon. But now that it has happened it does not work out too bad after all. I agree with you that the article is of an acceptable level already (especially when you keep in mind that it is made by a student, who did this for the first time in her life). I hope to find time soon to enhance it still a bit, when Noémie herself does not do so (as is quite often the case with students, in my experience).

For us it is not always easy to keep "all the frogs in the wheelbarrow", as you call it in English, I believe, when working with a group of students. And it is really important that the students find a warm welcoming environment on Wikipedia.

I will "cc" @Romaine: about this subject. He does often coach students at Maastricht University (and elsewhere), and I'm sure he will be glad to see that there is again a willing and positive effort done to get a good result.

Thanks again for your help. Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Bos, {{U| Romaine}: Our practices about drafts in general are quite unsettled at this time--I think everyone involved knows the system is confusing, over-complicated, cumbersome, much too slow, and unsatisfactory in almost every respect. It is effective neither at getting usable material into mainspace, nor keeping unacceptable material out of Wikipedia. Everyone centrally involved has a different idea of how to fix it, and some of them are trying out their ideas at cross purposes.

The only guaranteed safe way at present for a student to proceed at this point is to do the development outside Wikipedia. Personally, I think we should be able to do better: one of the basic concepts of Wikipedia is that it should itself be a place for people to develop articles. I hope to be able to make better suggestions in a few weeks. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notifications for Fifth Wall Ventures

Hi,

Last night, after completing a thorough update of Fifth Wall at a sandbox here: User:BC1278/sandbox/Fifth_Wall and adding the individual proposed changes to Talk, I decided to write a note on Talk pinging all contributors to the article of the AfD and update, with a string of @, then notes to their Talk page. I expected there would be several but upon looking at View History, there was only one, the original reviewer who had also expanded the article. So I modified to note to only notify that user, since they were the only one to have contributed directly to the article.

Dom from Paris objected to User: Jytdog that this was canvassing, and as discussed at the user's page, User_talk:Lake_Ontario_Wind#Article_Deletion_discussion, User: Jytdog agrees this was canvassing. Perhaps you agree, too. I don't know. I wish there had been 5 editors to notify, to show how I would have handled it, but there were not.

I explain the above only to provide context for a question/request, since it seems wise to get feedback in advance. I believe WP: Finance and WP: Private Equity should be notified of the AfD, as it relates to these projects. And perhaps WP: Business. But I am loathe to do anything without raising it for feedback first. So that is what I am doing now.

BTW, the original Fifth Wall reviewer was a member of WP: Finance, has been a member of Wikipedia since 2006, and noted on their user page about 15 articles they created or expanded. This is why I thought they would be an appropriate independent reviewer in the first place. I had asked several experienced editors in that project to look at the draft. However recently, since WP: PAID was updated, and Jytdog raised some concerns about this practice, I posted a question at COIN if it was OK to ask subject matter experts in appropriate Wiki projects to do independent reviews of new articles (something I had done just a few times), and the editors who weighed in said all new articles should go through AfC, so that's what I'll do.BC1278 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Wikiprojects are groups of all WPedians interested in a topic, and are not restricted to those expert in the topic. They have no independent authority, and have only as much autonomy as the community as a whole is willing to give them. To what extent they can set standards in their area depends upon the extent to which the community as a whole through its actions at afd supports them. This varies by project. A few specialized projects -- some small, some large -- have great respect in the community, but even they can lose that respect if the rest of us decide not to follow their lead.

Experienced editors likewise. In particular standards change, and in the field of articles about business, the standards have changed to the extent that the change is shown not just by practice but a far-reaching change in the basic relevant guideline, NCORP, and its wide acceptance at AfD. In any particular field, there are sometimes a few currently dominant editors, but they can lose their dominance quickly if their views no longer find acceptance. And among those most active, there will usually be some who try to maintain the current status, and some who seek to change it.

I show different sides in different situations, and try to keep them apart: when making a decision I strictly follow the current consensus; when giving others advice, I try to give the safest advice possible; when arguing for my views, I often try to lead the community a little. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nextdoor

DGG, I respect the view your expressed at Nextdoor very much and in the normal course of events, that's ideal. There's a proposal, an independent editor reviews it and says yes or no or asks me to make changes. Maybe there is some discussion or an RfC. It's all pretty straightforward. All I tell people who hire me is that I will try to get them a fair article, stay strictly within WP policy and act ethically above all else. I turn down maybe 4 out of 5 people who ask for help because their requests seem invalid to me. I'm independent - no one can hoist an assignment on me. I come up with my own article language for a proposal, based on what I think is fair and allowable under WP policy, and only have clients do a review for accuracy.

For Nextdoor, I am only hoping for fairness and NPOV from editors who take the time to review all the relevant sources. I am not committed to any particular position on language. An editor asked me to pare down the original proposed language, so cut it in half. Another editor proposed their own version in the original discussion. I made small suggestions to improve it, but nothing happened. The editor did not follow through, even just to publish their own language verbatim. In this most recent discussion at Talk:Nextdoor#RfC_about_possible_NPOV_issue_in_Nextdoor a re-listing of the proposal Jytdog suggested, two editors asked for changes to the first sentence, so I did it. I am not locked in to a POV at all. I search for secondary sources extensively and try to summarize them fairly and encyclopedically. If I fall short, it's because I didn't do a good enough job with my source summary, not because a client is pressuring me to do something.

That said, this is not a normal situation. The article and Talk discussion for Nextdoor has been under attack by editors who have been explicit or implicit they are using Wikipedia to damage the company. In short, we have had a sock puppet who vandalized the article and made threats external to Wikipedia, personal attacks, both veiled and unveiled threats to damage the company's reputation through Wikipedia, an undisclosed COI SPI agenda-editor inserting vandalism, and someone aligning their editing with plaintiff's attorney civil lawsuit.

Last week, an editor who made extreme statements in Talk, and major POV edits to the article, was revealed to be sock puppet and was blocked indefinitely. User:Edward_Mordake, sock of User:The_Quixotic_Potato
That same editor sent a very threatening e-mail to the CEO of Nextdoor heralding a "PR Disaster for Nextdoor" on Wikipedia based on changes they had made to the article. There were professional threats against me and demands on Nextdoor. This matter had to be handled privately in ArbCom because of confidentiality, but the material is in than hands of User: BU Rob13, who also removed user vandalism from the article. The letter was over the top and it's reasonable to worry this user might reappear as another sock.
Another editor participating here, The Gnome, previously made a more subtle threat about PR problems for Nextdoor because I had raised issues: "Are you certain that all these public and quite loud discussions about Nextdoor's entrails, and all the pond stirring, are viewed positively by your employers?" Talk:Nextdoor#CEO This remark came after a specific matter in question had been decided contrary the editor's position. Talk:Nextdoor/Archive_1#RfC_on_Founder_section
Since 2014, years before I became involved last month, inflammatory language quoting a lawyer suing the CEO was repeatedly re-inserted by the user Chisme. The editor tried to convince others at Talk:Nextdoor#CEO to go along with their position, and failing to do so, just keep adding it back after it was deleted. e.g. dif, dif, dif. This language benefited the plaintiff's lawyer in influencing a civil lawsuit.
That same user, Chisme, during an RfC that I initiated to resolve this same matter with finality, made personal attacks against me, including: Talk:Nextdoor/Archive_1#RfC_on_Founder_section ("How much is Nextdoor paying you to white-wash this Wikipedia article? How much would Nextdoor pay me not to write an article about Nirav Tolia?")
At the same time, this editor has removed routine updates about the company with RS. See e.g. dif
Domdeparis restored vandalism, sharpening it to include an accusation of possible illegal conduct by Nextdoor, without any RS. Nextdoor#Denial_of_service_to_sex_offenders_and_members_of_their_households His justification is that I had been the one to remove the original vandalism, which is true. I stated I had a COI in the notes for the edit and, notified the SPI editor directly. I am loathe to ever directly edit articles where I have a COI, except in rare cases where I see clear cut vandalism. In this, an SPI editor, in their one and only edit on Wikipedia on April 12, 2018, with their Ft. Lauderdale IP address revealed, inserted a "Controversy" sub-section sourced only to a same-day, April 12, 2018 blog post and self-published letter from an obscure Florida advocacy website for sex offenders. dif Their complaint is that household members of sex offenders are prevented from having Nextdoor accounts. As I understand Wikipedia, a self-published blog post on a local sex offender's advocacy website has the same RS weight of tweet or Facebook post. Editors who review COI requests have told me repeatedly not to bother them with removing vandalism similar to this - just to do it myself. I also checked that the complaint by the sex offender group had not been written about by any RS. I reminded Domdeparis of all this and but he has declined to delete his restored and "improved" controversy section (he added a citation to the Nextdoor website and to a law review case note that is not about and does not mention Nextdoor.)

I am concerned because of everything above that a normal discussion of the current proposals among neutral Wikipedia editors has not and may not occur, without special steps. Several ordinary Wikipedia editors weighed in during the original discussion of this proposed change.Talk:Nextdoor#Proposed_new_language_for_Racial_profiling_section. But they are not likely to re-appear for back-and-forth of what has to-date sometimes been a pretty toxic discussion. Perhaps with a mediator they will return. But I have to keep a close eye out for sock puppets, severe POV problems, undisclosed COI and vandalism because of problems stretching back several years. Ultimately, this article should probably get protected for awhile.

Thanks. -BC1278 (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

You should read this WP:VANDTYPES and try and learn the difference between edits that you do not agree with and vandalism. Your defense that you were removing vandalism is not what one would expect from an experienced editor. And suggests that you may be trying to game the system by hiding behind policy to justify your COI edits. What you did itself is actually defined as vandalism in VANDTYPES. And is classed as WP:GAMETYPE #4 in the list of ways to game the system. I am having trouble with WP:AGF here. I am not 100% sure as to whether this should stay or not but the fact that the advocate for this company is so adamant that it shouldn't suggests that maybe it is of importance. The suggestion by the association that policy of denying access to sex offenders could be illegal is far reaching. I have found literally dozens of RS sources that mention this supreme court decision and that have remarks like "such as Facebook Twitter and other sites". Nextdoor is a social media site and would be affected by any action taken. I will keep poking around to find a RS that specifically mentions Nextdoor...this is something that I wouldn't have done if you had made the request to remove it and had let other editors do it. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now that I made a misjudgment in removing that content, and I will only say that I consciously thought about whether anyone would possibly object and couldn't foresee it. Whereas I could foresee a reviewing editor saying I was wasting their time with something this obvious, since that happens to me from time to time. I prepared a redraft with several proposals and it would been no trouble for me to just add this one for discussion on the Talk page. I already suggested to domdeparis that he could add the Nextdoor policy on sex offenders and their households not having accounts if he deemed that relevant to the article. There is a RS for that. My point in raising the matter at all is just to mention that the original edit came from yet another agenda editor, and its restoration seems weird to me without anything like RS. We're just supposed to be summarizing secondary sources. My larger point is that the history of this article, such as external emails by a sock describing their own actions on the article as creating PR disaster for Nextdoor, makes it clear that this is not a typical article where neutral editors are just trying to make a good article. People with all sorts of agendas and conflicts have been editing. I'm just the only one to have declared a COI. I have heard about situations like this, but personally never experienced anything like it on Wikipedia.BC1278 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Any mistakes in judgment are my own, as the company has only asked the article be fair. They're leaving it to me to decide how to best accomplish that.-BC1278 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Fair tends to mean, "a fair statement of my POV". Our rule is neutral, as judged by those with no stake in the matter, not a negotiated compromise between NPOV and a subject's position. I appreciate the difficulties our policy must present for you, which is one of the reasons we should consider abolishing paid editing. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:CMG_Worldwide

Search for "CMG Worldwide" yields 21 articles.

Should some of the contents of Draft:CMG Worldwide be included in Personality rights#United States,
with a {{anchor|CMG-Worldwide}}, and CMG Worldwide and Mark Roesler both pointing to Personality rights#CMG-Worldwide ?

I started to try to clean up Bettie Page ‎and encountered this situation, also see : Talk:Bettie Page.

Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“Draft: Charles Rudolf Legéndy” (I now rewrote the “neuroscience” section)

Dear DGG —

I would very much like you to revisit my “Legéndy” draft, if at all possible!

Somehow the draft landed on the desk of Bradv, but I think he is somewhat disrespectful. He is not paying it much attention - whereas it is clear that you have gone into in-depth detail. (Bradv wrote a rejection letter, saying “please cite your sources” and “please see ‘references for beginners’” - and then when I sent him three third-party references from the Draft, he apparently lost interest.)

I now rewrote the “neuroscience” section - now it has just an introductory paragraph and then two paragraphs, each devoted to one of the two neuroscience items supported by third-party references. OAKS222 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any reviewer may review any article--people generally select articles to review at random or in sequence as submitted; some, like myself, tend to look for one in my areas of interest. Nobody may monopolize reviewingan AfC, just as nobody may monopolize an article. However, I will however take another look at this. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look over something?

Hi DGG - I have a bit of a favor to ask. Recently one of our instructors (Chronophoto) created an article on someone that she had worked with as a co-editor in the past. (We've instructed her to disclose the COI on the article's talk page.) This article was created on her own time, so to speak, so the article wasn't made as part of a Wiki Ed assignment. The article in question is Cáel M. Keegan and the instructor has been open to the idea of incubating the article if it doesn't pass AfD. FWIW, there's some limited argument to be made for notability via some secondary sourcing I've found, one of which names him as a significant contributor to the field of trans studies. There's a book coming out in October and if it gains the coverage that I think it may, that should help push it into more firm notability territory, so if it's incubated that could help establish notability then. I'll probably recommend AfC for the instructor if it's incubated, as this could help smooth over any lingering COI or notability concerns.

I was wondering if you could go and look over the AfD and just make sure that everything is running OK. AfD isn't really an easy place for even seasoned editors to get used to and she's feeling overwhelmed, to say the least. For example, she's concerned about the tag that the nominator added to the article that there may have been canvassing done, as she has denied knowing this person or asking anyone to come and argue for or against the article. (I did add some sourcing to the article but haven't argued for or against deletion due to my ties to the instructor.) Basically I just want someone uninvolved to sort of look over the AfD and keep an eye on it. (ReaderofthePack, formerly Tokyogirl79) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have commentented at the AfD. And I will email you. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anna Jane Jackson

Hello DGG, Draft:Anna Jane Jackson was recreated soon after you deleted it. Could you please delete and SALT. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done,and I gave the contrib a final warning. If re-created in any variant, pls let me know. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted my Article

hi dgg, i have not made a single article on advertising any brand or company, then please give me proper reason why you deleted my article named as """Net-Affiliate marketing""" otherwise please undo the deletion, it is my first article and i have given my seven days on this article to gathering reference and all other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimi Thacker (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was entirely an advertisement for a particular marketing technique patented by __ __, the founder of ___ ," with references entirely to material posted on their website. Disguising it as a general article didn't help, because the editor who nominated it and I actually read it and looked at the references. Nor did trying to put in a "criticism" section, when the section ended with "due to it's unique and new business model, it has been acquitted of all the allegations from other network marketing companies." DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup you are correct by third person point of it's seems to be advertising kind of act, this was my first article, i will try to improve this article again and i will first submit it to you for checking and then only i will post it to an article section, thanks for the information.

David Suhor

Hello. As you are the person who - very precisely one year ago - initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Suhor, I was thinking you may want to have a look at the still-unreviewed new version of the article. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Avi Yemini article WP:G11 tag

Hi DDG,
In my opinion, the G11 tag you added here did not meet those criteria. In particular, I disagree that the article is promotional of any organisation or individual. If you disagree, please let me know.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What it's promoting is himself, and the details about various talks shows it. But the community will decide what to do with the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and clarification. If you seek to G11 the article again, please go ahead and do it. I am arguably WP:INVOLVED here and must not oppose it. Pete AU --Shirt58 (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message from OAKS222 (Re: "Draft: Charles Rudolf Legéndy")

Dear DGG —
Thank you very much for revisiting the “Legéndy” draft.
Legéndy’s citation figures are not impressive; the more impressive part is the quality of the citing authors. The 1964 brain capacity paper only had 52 citations, but those include Malsburg, Buzsáki, and Hebb, who had some “best sellers” with 1,518, 3,720, and 27,843 citations, respectively. Similarly, the 1985 Poisson surprise paper has just 399 citations (although that is respectable for a “methods paper”), but the citing papers include one with 2,645 citations (Abeles) and one with 1,016 citations (Schall). In the helicon work, the 1961 paper has only 172 the direct citations (and the citing papers some 300-600 citations), but here the later industrial application to computer chip manufacturing is more important than the academic response. OAKS222 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to justify an article by quality of citing offers strikes me as the sort of stretching of the criteria associated with COI editing. We do not omit giving the highest citation figures ieven if they are not impressive: we're writing NPOV articles, not trying to make a CV look as strong as possible. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - clear - sorry! But I just couldn't resist. Hebb's comment is made to carry more weight by the fact that his book has 27,843 citations ... OAKS222 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability evaluation

What's your take on Srinivas Subbarao? Thanks,~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

borderline. But a modest article, no puffery or promotion. I'd let it be. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a redirect

- revert of redirect for List of accolades received by Phantom Thread, and notice to me after reverting #redirect. I’m of the mind that a list of accolades for a single movie is puffery/promotional and would be subject to WP:NOT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS - there are 2 other articles listing accolades and a project for film awards - I pinged you at my TP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update - there are several List of accolades received by.... articles, one of which, List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film), was promoted to FA. I guess that pretty much answers the question. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beck questions

Hi DGG. Thanks for the feedback provided in the draft review. I have to admit I'm a bit confused, however. After asking for more extensive feedback at the Articles for Creation help desk I received generic pointers that in all honesty I had already gone over, both before creating the draft and with you after reviewing the first version. I know you must be working long hours to deal with the large amount of current submissions; if it were possible to discuss individual sources, would you be willing to point me in the right direction, be it through one of your colleagues or yourself?

Thank you for your advice, JaneStrauss (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not done what I usgested on May 10, or what DESiegel suggested on May 14. We both said pretty much the same thing, and so would any experienced editor here. I'm not sure why you want more specifics. For example,we both dsaid tyo remove the references mainly about his company--it should be obvious what they are. I said to remove interviews with him. Remove them. DES said to remove press releases. Do that. DES told you that some major newpapers are usually OK--it should be obvious that most of the newspapers you cite are not major. You are being paid to write the article, not me, or him, and I can see no reason why any other responsible volunteer should want to do work for which you are being paid. I & others will sometimes do so for a real reason, such as when the subject is extremely important and not having it would be a serious gap in WP's coverage, but that is not true for the owner of a barely notable company. And I, but not many others, am sometimes willing to help Public relations people learn how to write WP articles, but I will only do that if it is clear the editor will in fact understand.

I can also advise you that I am not sure how much work is worth your putting into the article, for it is very likely to be listed for deletion in any case, because the notablity is in my opinion insignificant, andthe only viable article is the one on the company. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mina sadai

Hi , please wait she is a famous actress in iran why you want delete this article , you must help me no put remove this article you see find another language persian

Do not remove this article please Kurdistantolive (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In wikipedia find too many article same this for many artists Apparently no major roles in any film and stays in wikipedia , help me and do not remove

I wait your answer Kurdistantolive (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there are many articles on artists without signifcant film roles, and when all the references are PR. We need to upgrade or remove them, not add to them. ``

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

FYI user:StraussInTheHouse (formerly Dr Strauss) is rapidly nominating for prod and afd with unlikely wp:before 146.198.79.53 (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StraussinTheHouse is working faster than I usually advise, but I have reviewed every one of his nomination up to now in fields I can judge, and there are only a few that I have taken issue with. I encourage more need more people to do as he is doing--especially with paying attnetion to older articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for departments within universities?

If you have a moment, may I please trouble you for an opinion on where/how the notability bar is set for pages for individual departments within universities? I see "expected outcomes" suggests they are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field but I'm wondering how this is assessed: at NPP I came across this one for Texas Tech's philosophy department essentially made of a few thin sources (several campus student paper refs since added), two sentences of prose and a list of redlinks to people who mainly don't seem (at cursory review) to be notable. When I redirected (Texas Tech's main page already has a content fork for "academics" with plenty of room to expand), the page creator reverted saying "Please afd". So that I might have a better index on such things--does AfD seem appropriate to you or would you let it be?

An additional reason I wanted to ask you (beyond your particular expertise in universities) is that I share your concern for clogging up AfD with school matters when there's so much commercial promo to be dealt with, and the latter so much more detrimental to the encyclopedia--but then, this one felt like promo to me (and no doubt universities and departments, especially in the US, have strong economic incentives to seek opportunities for promotion.) So I wasn't sure.

Thanks much for any thoughts. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it seems I will find out at AfD! Though will of course continue to be very glad for your thoughts in whatever venue, especially as I think about how I should balance such entries with other AfD concerns going forward. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Possibly these pages are created in good faith by ex-students or academics, but universities are big business these days, so in my view articles like these could also be seen as a form of advertising. I agree that there may be bigger priorities on Wikipedia, but this author seems to be blatantly refusing to improve the article or prove notability. Sionk (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)2 The bar should be set pretty high on these, but for example the English department at Cambridge (with F.R. Leavis etc) has had almost as much written about it as the Wars of the Roses. Some departments have been very influential in the development of an entire subject area, but most deserve at best a section in the uni's article. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the appropriate standard to be world-famous within the discipline, either currently or historically. This could also be worded, as about the 5 or 10 best known in the discipline, on a world-wide basis. There is a possible narrower standard, famous enough for outsiders to know about it. There are in my opinion a few universities where some or even most of the departments do meet this qualification, and a few dozen others that will have one or two such departments. They are rarely a matter of general interest significant enough for an encyclopedia. Regardless of the possible promotional intent, the articles usually are indistinguishable from the department web pages, which are characteristically written to attract the interest of prospective graduate students. I don;t think the 1pm has much to do with the rise of big business influence--the academic world from its medieval origins to the present has been in large part dependent on reputation, because a department becomes famous by attracting students and faculty that will make it famous.

As is usual at WP, most of the departments that need articles do not have them, while most of the articles we do have are not appriate, I've always meant to work on the ones that are needed. I fully share Innisfree987's concern about clutter; WP fdoes need more coverage ofthe academic world, but this is best done thru a biographical approach, increased attention to particularly notable books, and the NPOV presentation of academic tendencies.

(As limitations, I can judge best for the US, and sometimes the UK, and I may not be aware of developments in the last 10 or 15 years.) To give an example of my standards, in library science there have been only two, both defunct: Chicago and Columbia. In ornithology, there's one US department more famous than any other: Cornell, both now and historically. In a very large & influential field like Physics, there might be over a dozen.

There are beginning to be a few truely reliable sources: institutional history by outside scholars. Student newspapers and alumni publications are never reliable for this, nor are isolated statements of excellence without context. In most cases, it has to go by documentation of the ranking and inference from the faculty and alumni. Because of the need to show influence, they will mostly be found in the oldest and most famous research universities. As a caveat, a single famous personality is not enough to make a department famous. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, indeed. A good test might be (for historical ones) whether sources talk of a "Fooish school" - see Vienna School for examples - apart from music, we have 4 articles on groups essentially based at university departments. Also Cambridge School (intellectual history) etc. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes quite--had a similar thought about the Chicago School being an unimpeachable claim of notability for those department, but wondered where we drew the line afterward (since by contrast we are quite liberal with secondary schools--appropriately, in my mind.) But unlike secondary schools, which if outside a public school system will have no place in the encyclopedia if deleted, departments can always be covered on their college's page until a content fork is truly required. So nothing is lost if one holds the line a bit more closely. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much DGG for these thoughts; very clarifying. True indeed about academia always running on reputation (and incentive to promote thus nothing new). I think this case just particularly smelled off to me because the original links were touting the master's program in particular, and in a field where a doctorate is the standard terminal degree, master's programs are typically less a source of intellectual capital than just ... regular capital.

Agree very much that scholarly institutional histories are the best means of validating significance; and conveniently also serve wiki-notability standard's other purpose, i.e. to identify not only the most important subjects but the ones for which we have sufficient independent sources to write something balanced and fully realized without resorting to original research. Perhaps if I run out things to write for fun (!), I'll dig into my collection of those materials. But yes meanwhile I think I'll carry on with biographies and sometimes books; I'm not sure how many academic departments I really feel excited enough about to want to work up a summary of their institutional history. Probably just the ones I like to imagine I've done in an alternate universe (so... just HistCon, really.)

Thanks again! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A German academic, Draft:Wolfgang Ernst (media theorist)

Another editor created a draft at Draft:Wolfgang Ernst (media theorist). I am reasonably sure that he is notable, but I am having difficulty proving it, in part because there are other notable people with the same name. I don't know how to find his h-index. He is a full professor at a German university. He is on the advisory board (but not the editor) of an academic journal.^[1] Google Scholar says a book of his has 375 citations.^[2] The problem is that I haven't found a reference that explicitly says Wolfgang Ernst is an important media theorist. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

even had you found an explicit reference like that, it is necessary to be very cautious about relying on such quotations, especially if they are inccidental mentions in a news article or the like--they're essentially boiler-plate, and tend tomean nothing more than "my esteemed collegue" does in a speech or posting. They only have meaning in context of a reason judgment from an authority.

A book having a large number of citations, however, is usually enough to show notability, but an equally important factor can be the publisher. Fulll professors are often notable, but it depends on the university. Not all German universities are first-rate research institutions.

And areas duch as "media theorist" are difficult to judge, as compared to the traditional disciplinws.

But he's very clearly notable: Humbolt Unviersity fo Berlin is one of the great universities of the world,and the booksare sufficient.

I should mention that the previous review of the draft is totally inapppropriate, for it used the GNG, which is not the appropriate criterion/

I accepted it. Thanks for calling it to my attention. DGG ( talk ) 12:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
^ http://mediatheoryjournal.org/editorial-team/advisory-board/wolfgang-ernst/ ^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=wolfgang+ernst+media+theory&btnG=

your opinion please...

I just drafted a very short essay on civility, User:Geo Swan/Pick one. If you have time, I'd appreciate your opinion. Your talk page readers are invited to comment too, at User talk:Geo Swan/Pick one.

I think you are a prime example of someone in the first quadrant, of User:Geo Swan/Pick one#Four quadrants

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redrafted OLX as request

Tried to follow all your recommendations. There had actually been a fair bit of updating by other editors since I wrote my draft, some of it with no sourcing or only primary sources. So I took care of that too. User:BC1278/sandbox/OLX-rev. -BC1278 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

[1] ttp://mediatheoryjournal.org/editorial-team/advisory-board/wolfgang-ernst/

[2] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=wolfgang+ernst+media+theory&btnG=

[1]

[2]