User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Thanks for the comments Davidwr. I'm struggling to understand the difference between our company and the company with the same name. They're article does not note any notable references? They're just merely listing their product set. My preference would be they did not exist on Wikipedia and then we wouldn't have to create an article. The fact is however, that rightly or wrongly people use Wikipedia as a primary source of information and they are finding that company and mistaking it for ours. Can I therefore contest the other companies article and claim that it does not benefit Wikipedia? It's a case of ticking boxes. We are a 4 year old company who work globally in a technology space where people don't wish to publicise the tools and technologies they use. People want to know who we are, but Wikipedia are dictating what people should and shouldn't know about in their attitude towards this.

Thanks again though, we're unlikely to change company name, and we do work in the same region, but we're also unlikely to gain any notable sources any time in the future so our route will most likely be to argue the other company should not be on Wikipedia as it doesn't benefit anything.

Mjpfx (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Key MS

Thank you for the notice of the school district redirects :)

I would like to claim GNG for Key MS too, because of the material related to the mold spore controversy around 2008. I am aware that middle schools are not presumed to be notable, which is why GNG comes into play. If GNG is satisfied then any subject can be notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Rereview of Walt Odets article?

Hiya again. Sorry to be bugging you - hoping that this is a quick question. Will you take a look at this article? Just want to make sure I was right to decline it, and that I declined it for the right reason. (If not, will you resubmit and accept?) Thanks. JSFarman (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a toughie. Your comment about inline citations was spot on, but only as it applies to the parts of the article that don't have them, such as the early life and (for the most part) the photography section.
The submission does over-rely on primary sources written by Odets, especially for quotes. As a general rule, if a secondary source didn't already quote or paraphrase the primary source, the Wikipedia article shouldn't do so either unless NOT having the quote would be clearly detrimental to the article.
You could have also said that the page devoted too much space to non-encyclopedic information about him, such as his early life. You could also have mentioned that part of the page seemed to serve no purpose other than to promote the person, such as mentioning where he currently practices or the extensive list of his works, recommending that only his well-known or awared-winning works be listed or, if there were less than a handful of those, that only his most-well-known 4 or 5 works be listed.
You could also have mentioned that some of the claims were not backed by the cited resource (e.g. that "Odets [personally] invented and manufactured the Thermacon heat shield") and that, for offline works, a snippet-quote should be used to make it clear that the cited source backs up the claim. You might have also recommend that the editor consider using Template:Cite web, Template:Cite journal, and related templates, as most of them have a "quote=" parameter for this very purpose.
I do understand that we were in a backlog drive and quantity is sometimes more important than quality. I want to thank you for taking the time to tackle a "tough" submission. I say "tough" because with all of the primary and offline sources and outright unsourced claims of possible notability, it's nearly impossible to tell if this person actually qualifies as notable enough for an article or not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I hope you don't mind if I direct the woman who created the article to this discussion. I think it would be helpful for her and she's put a ton of work into it.
AND thanks for the props on working on this one. I've been trying to go through the submissions in reverse order - partially because it's more of a challenge and partially because I know how it feels to have articles languish. BUT when I was trying to plow through the backlog I did a lot of recent submissions. (I even made it to an invisible barnstar!) Thank you! JSFarman (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
No problem pointing people here. It takes a lot more work and mental awareness to handle the older ones than the newer ones. I would guess that well over half of the "new incoming" is stuff are things are tests, stuff that would qualify as A7, or things which are extremely unlikely to be notable. For this reason, and because I've been too tired lately to give the good-but-not-quite-ready submissions the attention they deserve, I've been focusing on the new-incoming. It's very easy to say "decline (give obvious reason)" "decline (give obvious reason)" "skip this one" "skip this one" "oh, that one is ready, accept it" and so on with the new stuff. By the time it gets to the end, the only options I usually have are "think hard about it" or "skip it" and "skip it" isn't helpful. About the only "quick" things left to do for "old" submissions are to check to see if an article or similar submission exists and do a HISTMERGE if needed, and to a quick web search if I suspect a copyright violation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Online source

Template:Online source has been nominated for merging with Template:Press. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 22:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-44

10:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Abrantee Boateng

Hi David. I submitted the article for creation Abrantee Boateng on which you contributed a comment a few days ago. Do you have any advice on making the article suitable for creation ? I think your comment touched on the general status of the submission more than the content itself but I would love to hear any advice you might have. I tried my best to create an article fit for submission and creation but it looks like there is some work to do. Aside from personal knowledge I did use the results of my online research to help with the article so that is where the paraphrasing comes into play I guess. But as you can see I made sure to write my submission in a neutral way and to leave out any information I could not verify with a reference. Any advice you have will be much appreciated. I will leave the same message to user Anne Delong as she also contributed a comment. Thank you. K1a2k3 (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Note to self and to talk-page stalkers: Kla2k3 is referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abrantee Boateng. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sampsa (street artist) page

Hi Davidwr - thank you for the edits and useful advice re.:

Your 'submission declined' notice is still at the top of the page. I corrected the errors on the page and attempted to resubmit it for publication. Does the original 'submission declined' have to be removed before the page will be reconsidered? Clade Cote (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite: All "declined" templates remain until the page is accepted. This allows various AFC reviewers who look at the page over time to see why it was declined, who declined it, and why it was declined. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you re-submitted the page even though there was already a "pending" (brown-yellow) submission template on the page. Having more than one such template can result in delays, so I kept the oldest one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for the help, Davidwr, very much appreciated! Clade Cote (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback 16:20 4 November 2013

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels.
Message added 16:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback 03:21 5 November 2013

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Npcomp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.


Npcomp (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svgHello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Npcomp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. OpenPAT

Npcomp (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Mini backlog brownies

For the brownie ... Ode (album) and Isle of Man Pure Beer Act. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-45

13:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orly Lobel

Hi, your last commented was it might pass PROF. I'm not seeing it but PROF is a complex guideline so thought I'd check on your reasoning before adding yet another decline. Doesn't pass AUTHOR. Has a lot of PUFF and CV material. Didn't go through all the sources but suspect lots of trivial mentions. But have an open mind. --Green Cardamom (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It will take time to go back through it all. In the meantime, feel free to decline either as an advertisement/promotion or with a custom reason. In cases like these, I sometimes use a custom reason of "the sheer number of references which either do not provide significant coverage of the person, which are not independent of the person, or which are not reliable make it difficult to find those that might be. Please reduce the number of references you are using, even if it means trimming out "non-core" material. Alternatively, add an {{afc comment}} to this page listing a handful of references that, together, clearly demonstrate that this person is has received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of himself." I also put in appropriate wikilinks and pointers to things like WP:FIRST and WP:42 if necessary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


Sorry, my mistake. I was looking at the wrong website. I Googled it—without the space— and up popped information about Logos Quiz, where "Logos" is used in its biblical sense by a Catholic society in Kerala. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, sometimes even Wikipedia is λόγος to me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


Hey there,

I added more references for the Dolphin Parenting page I have been trying to create recently. I understand that too many referrences were just blogs, so I linked more crediible sources (a pbs interview of what Dolphin Parenting encapsulates, for example).

I believe this really is a notable subject that parents should be aware of, please help me get it published and thank you!


Whiteben (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Note to self and talk-page stalkers: He is referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dolphin Parenting. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I have copied the text above into the submission. You may get a faster response at the Articles for submission Help Desk. Go to your submission, find the beige box near the top, and click on the link titled "Click here to ask a new question at the help desk." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey davidwr, I am reaching out to you because I have not been able to receive a response or help from the Articles for submission Help Desk. I truly believe the hard work I have spent on my two pages: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dolphin Parenting and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amy Blankson makes them fit candidates for publication.

I've appreciated your inputs in the past, and it seems I need help getting this to move. Anything you could do would be a tremendous aid.

Thank you,


Whiteben (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@Whiteben: I see both submissions were reviewed in the last few hours by the same reviewer. It's been awhile since I've looked at these two submissions. I recommend going back to the AFC Help Desk or to the reviewer who just reviewed them for help. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks davidwr. Both were rejected. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amy Blankson because the biography criteria were not met. I disagree. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amy Blankson The first rule Wikipedia:BIO#Any_biography1- The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.- Amy received a golden choice award for her work. 2- The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Her and her collaboration with Shawn Achor, as well as the 8+ references from news sources around the world, make her biography page notable and worth publishing. The other page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dolphin Parenting, follows the guidelines for significant coverage, reliable sources, and indepedence from the subject. I am so perplexed, please let me know what I am missing! I simply don't understand how these two items couldn't be passed through to publication.

Thank you again and for all your time,

Whiteben (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You definitely need to be having this conversation with the person who most recently declined these submissions first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC Brownies

Please remember to susbt: {{WikiLove-brownie}}; Otherwise, the {{REVISIONUSER}} doesn't stick, changing every time someone edits the page... --Mdann52talk to me! 08:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

Articles for Creation Barnstar Hires.png
The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
Team Barnstar Hires.png

Congratulations, Davidwr! You're receiving the AfC Barnstar because you reviewed 213 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down.You are also receiving the Teamwork barnstar for re-reviewing over 25 reviews! We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! --Mdann52talk to me! 19:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Scopulariopsis brevicaulis

Yes, thanks. Microascus brevicaulis was described as the teleomorph of Scopulariopsis brevicaulis by Sean Abbott in 1998. Under the old rules, the name of the fungus takes the name of the sexual state. However, the latest change to the nomenclatural code allows for anamorph names to take priority over teleomorph names. Certain teleomorphs will be abandoned in favour of the anamorph name (e.g., Eupenicillium (for the terverticillate (Penicillia). At the moment, however, it isn't clear what will happen to Scopulariopsis and Microascus. I agree that it's probably best to use Microascus for the time being. I reattached the photo I had included in the taxbox and will do some editing on the student's work in the next week. Medmyco (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Brownie transparent.png Thanks for sorting out all the stuff with the Dirofilaria tenuis articles :) LukeSurl t c 10:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-46

08:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Doc Halo page

I appreciate your help with the Doc Halo page. I have added 2 more references and made some other changes to the page. I believe the article does meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines considering there are now 7 unique references to Doc Halo. What else can I do to resolve this issue? Thank you. 25.35 (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)25.35

Doc Halo page

I appreciate your help with the Doc Halo page. I have added 2 more references and made some other changes to the page. I believe the article does meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines considering there are now 7 unique references to Doc Halo. What else can I do to resolve this issue? Thank you. 25.35 (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)25.35


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
Message added 04:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 04:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And again. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

New article problem

Dear Davidwr,

I'm representing e-IRG secretary ( The e-Infrastructure Reflection Group was founded to define and recommend best practices for the pan-European electronic infrastructure efforts.

We want to create new article in Wikipedia concerning new European e-Infrastructure. There is some issue concerning copywright which we do not understand. We tried to create talk page ( but it was declined. We sent the comment concerning your doubts but we didn't receive response.

Could you please help us dispel doubts and finalize article publishing?

Thank you in advance for you assistance.

Regards, Marcin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlawenda (talkcontribs) 12:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, first off, the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/E-IRG starts off

In the above message you write that there was an unambiguous copyright infringement for the e-IRG new strategy publication.

If you ignore the contents of the pink box which were added to the page later, there is no "above message" so when I "declined" the page, I was really saying I had no idea what you were talking about. Since I had no idea what you were talking about, I could not give a meaningful response. I now realize you were probably talking about the entry in that page's deletion log that said 05:59, 2 October 2013 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/E-IRG (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of or something similar.
If you wish to use text that you have previously published on the Internet, you should read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The section Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online is probably the easiest way to do what you want to do.
By the way, if you are writing about a company, project, person, event, etc. in which you have a personal or professional interest, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before proceeding.
Whether or not you have a conflict of interest, you should read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If the organization you are writing about has not been written about by others already in a way that clearly demonstrates that other Wikipedia editors would agree that it passes Wikipedia's notability requirements, please don't waste time drafting an article. Either it will not be accepted, or if it is accepted, it will likely be nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for details).
@Jimfbleak:, your input would be appreciated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi David, so many problems with this. the following comments are addressed to Mlawenda
  • On the copyright issue, you need to show that the document was published as an explicitly public domain document earlier than the copied page. That's unlikely, so you would need to donate the copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. But in any case the copyrighted text is far too promotional to be useful for Wikipedia's purposes, so there would not be any point in your jumping through all the hoops that are required.
  • it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. The article is a string of opinions presented as fact. For example, the whole of the policy paper section is a string of opinions With the successful establishment... become an urgent issue, and an uncritical summary of the conclusions of your own report. Note, incidentally, that there shouldn't be any url links in text, only in References or an External links section. Don't invite people to download your documents, just provide the links in External links
  • it's all about what the organisation thinks, little about the E-IRG itself. From your text, I don't know where it is based, who is on it, how it's funded or what its budget is. Your article seemed intended as a promotional news page rather than an encyclopaedia article about the organisation. I would have deleted it even if there hadn't been a copyright issue.
  • You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. You could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-47

06:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons DR for PA historical markers

I just now saw your month-ago comment at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC regarding (05:34, 27 October 2013), and I believe that they're justified on fair use grounds. A big reason for the existence of hmdb appears to me to be that of helping people to find the signs in real life, and since the pages would be unable to do that without the images, the images are being used transformatively and don't infringe on copyright any more than our The Falling Man infringes on the copyright of File:The Falling Man.jpg. Of course, since we don't permit claims of fair use, I'm not suggesting that you were wrong in your comment or that we should undelete the recent images; I just hope that this is an accurate assessment of hmdb's purposes/goals/copyrights/etc. Nyttend (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As a rule, the Commons does not allow fair-use images. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC accepts

In addition to the two submissions I passed above, may I please have a barnstar for also approving Paul Clayton (actor), Rob Evans (rugby player born 1992), National Sports Center for the Disabled and Rainthorpe Hall? The earlier pass Isle of Man Pure Beer Act passed the Did You Know? process and is linked off the main page right now as I write this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This is in response to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 6#Special *UNofficial* 1-week mini-drive for ACCEPTING articles only - Monday until next Sunday. I don't mean "gimme a barnstar", I really mean "please could you review all of these submissions and provided you agree that all would be acceptable to pass the AFC criteria and are not appropriate to nominate for CSD, AfD or PROD, then may I be suitably awarded as a confirmation that my judgement was correct". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a handful of accepted articles today (or tomorrow, or Saturday, or Sunday, or Monday, or yesterday, or the day before yesterday). Barnstars will be handed at the end of the weeklong mini-drive. The quick brownies were for people who enjoy instant gratification. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What's going on?

Either I'm very unlucky and everyone else is super lucky OR everyone's playing a joke on me.

Because I wanted to post ONE article for like, a whole freakin' YEAR and no matter what I do it keeps getting rejected!

Every other single frickin' article related to mine has broken most, if not all, the rules in the book for making wikipedia articles. THEY get THEIR articles shown. And then I try to make an article abiding by every single rule to the very best of my ability... and:
I keep getting rejected for the rules I believe I am sufficiently following!

Sorry for acting like a toddler, i'm very upset at the moment...
If you could further explain to me everything I must do and how I must go about it, then please do so.

Explain everything to me as if I were very young, dumb it down and explain in ludicrous detail. Ugh... I can't get a single thing frickin' right about Wikipedia.

Maybe I am and other people aren't catching it too easily.

What the heck do I do????

it's freakin' angering

Again, sorry for being stupid.

gdkd gdk yretueteydhdghh ht th ht h h h h h h h

d d


ry rt fg


angry right now

bfdsb very yrwy

ferickin anfgry1@

3.0j hkm — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmbitiousFilmMaker (talkcontribs) 04:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Just letting you know I got your message. I'll need to sleep at least once in order to give this the attention it deserves. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Your question related to this article was answered on the AFC Help Desk on October 1. Here is a link to that discussion. I see that after that point, you added two references that show that the band that made this album has recorded four studio albums, but that I rejected the article again on October 8th saying that the album does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for its own article. First, thank you for adding those citations. However, this fact does nothing to show that the album qualifies for a stand-alone article. Please read WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums to get an idea of what albums are and are not suitable for Wikipedia articles. As a rule of thumb, unless the band is so famous (such as The Beatles that NOT having each and every album the artist created would be a gross omission, the album must qualify as being "notable" (see WP:GNG) on its own merits, not on the merits of the band's notability.
In short: If the album has not received significant coverage from media sources independent of its promoters, then there is nothing you, as a Wikipedia editor, can do to get the article accepted. If the album has received such coverage, then rewrite the article in a way that uses at least a couple of such references in a way that no reasonable Wikipedia editor would doubt that the album has met Wikipedia's notability criteria. The closest thing I can think of to a "dumbed down" explanation is Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, which is a simplified explanation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines related to notability, verifiability, and the need to use reliable sources. The super-short version is spelled out at the top of that page:
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

AFC Backlog Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive


Hello, Davidwr:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2300 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments on AFC

At Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/anil kumar awana MLC you have made the comment that state politicians are not necessarily notable. This seems at odds with the notability guideline at WP:POLITICIAN which says that members and former members of state legislatures are notable. Hack (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. Thank you for reminding me. I was probably thinking "how likely is it that a state- or similar-level lawmaker would meet WP:GNG, is it so likely that it can be presumed" and came to the conclusion that there are enough exceptions that the presumption would be weak. Obviously, long-standing Wikipedia consensus says otherwise.
In some United States states (e.g. Vermont and Wyoming), each legislator represents less than 10,000 people, making it significantly likely that the person will only have "local" media coverage plus "trivial" coverage of the person "just doing their job" in newspapers which report all legislative proceedings. By comparison, some cities in the United States have single-member city councils whose members represent many times this number, but because the councilmember generally does not receive significant non-local coverage, he generally fails WP:N. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-49

08:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)