User:DGG/2014 articles to check from usertalk

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Professor Michael Nimier
Dear DGG: When I found this page at first I assumed that this was a notable professor and started to look for sources. The first one I found was [THIS]. Does this make him more or less notable? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More so, but it will be rather tricky to write a proper article. As you will see, I've started rewriting, but this is one of the situations where it will be necessary to verify the degrees claimed, as no trust may be placed in their web site. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Straub
Dear DGG: I came across this old Afc submission, but I'm not having any luck figuring out if he's notable. Want to try? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * nor am I sure. Some of the various Swiss business schools and their faculty are difficult to judge. I think this needs a more general discussion, and I am trying to decide whether to send to MfD, or accept and send to AfD. It will get more attention at AfD, but doing it that way is a rather unusual route.  DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Paradigm shift from transformative to informative learning
I have some misgivings about this, but since you appear to accept that it's neither WP:OR (my deletion) nor a G12 copyright violation (1 May deletion by a different admin), I have, of course, restored. Cheers,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, thank you for your closing of the capitalisation debate. It's not the outcome I would have wanted, and the fifth pillar is looking increasingly irrelevant, but I think you handled the closure very well.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

William B. Helmreich
I think this scholar at CUNY (also known as William Helmreich) is notable, and should have an article. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * apparently yes,based on his books; was a draft started somewhere? If the page was deleted, I can't find it.  DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll start a draft this month in my sandbox. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Pur (brand)
I rarely disagree with you, but here is one. I deprodded the article. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll recheck it, to see if I want to take it to AfD .  DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/School-based family counseling
I've invoked WP:TNT at least once a month in the past year, but this is far from the worst I've seen. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Carbone Smolan Agency
Hello DGG. Finally, I have had the opportunity to return to my draft of Carbone Smolan Agency and edit and improve it. Thank you for placing it in the IMPROVEMENT section so I could do so without reentering all the footnotes. When the story was pulled in February some of the comments/critiques were that it used too many footnote references and "dropped" too many names.

I was also advised to remove some of the superfluous quotes from the principals of the firm and, in general, watch that I do not get too promotional. As I wrote earlier, I am a design journalist and write for a number of magazines including Communication Arts, a 55 year old publication based in Menlo Park, CA. I know these people but will not take compensation from them for doing this feature profile. I am ready to get back into the scrum and work with you and any editor to help me get this article suitable for publication on Wiki. I believe I have answered most of the concerns but I suspect more will be raised and I welcome them.

When you have time, would you review and give me your toughest critique. Please note: many of the references in the feature article are from design industry publications and from the American Institute of Graphic Design, the guild that guides our business. To those unfamiliar with those publications, they might seem obscure but all are well respected in the business of design and advertising. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Porterwritewiki (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)porterwritewikiPorterwritewiki (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In a few days.  DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

demonstrating Keith Dowman's notability
You wrote the following about the submitted article on Keith Dowman:
 * Comment: Actually, the listing of multiple works published by the subject is a reasonable indication that the subject might be notable. What is needed to establish it is evidence that the works are regarded as important. The key criterion applicable here is WP:AUTHOR DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

... which is great. Mr. Dowman is cited and footnoted constantly. For example, i just checked five random books on Tibetan Buddhism and all of them either/or both listed Dowman in their bibliography or footnoted him. Wikipedia itself cites Mr. Dowman over a 100 times. i don't know what to add to the article that isn't contrived to demonstrate that he is frequently cited and therefore notable. Please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drugpa kunley (talk • contribs) 08:30, 30 May 2014‎
 * Yes, but,, the way we do it is by references to published reviews of the book or to specific published statements about the importance of the book by recognized authorities. The article must stand on its own.  DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so for example, Natural Perfection: Longchengpa's Radical Dzogchen contains a glowing foreword by Namkhai Norbu, who is, as a retired well-published professor of Tibetology and as a 'master' recognized by Tibetan Buddhists authorities, one of the greatest living authorities on Dzogchen and Tibetan Buddhism in general. Wouldn't that by itself be enough? Or wouldn't the fact that Mr. Dowman has collaborated with Tarthang Tulku, also a highly regarded Tibetan Buddhist teacher (to name a couple) also be enough? Or the fact that he gives seminars with Claudio Naranjo, which i did not mention in the article because it didn't seem germane to a descriptive article on Mr. Dowman? The nature of writings scholarly books within spiritual disciplines with the specific aim of addressing practice rather than academic understanding is that, by definition, they don't tend to be reviewed by academics. Other than writing prefaces and forewords, notables like Namkhai Norbu, Tarthang Tulku or Claudio Naranjo do not tend to write book reviews or publish statements about the importance of books.
 * The first one is usable; if you have an exact reference, quote and pages. It's not definitive, because people tend to say nice things about their friends in forwards. The other two are helpful, but don't actually add much. "Collaborated with" can be true for a very junior colleague. I jointly published with my doctoral advisor, but that does not make me notable.
 * On a broader matter, the difficulty in getting suitable sourcing for people in many spiritual traditions is a very real one, and I think we do tend to be very flexible in such cases. Add what you can, and I will look at it.  DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

i have added what i could. Thank you so much for your help. Here is the link to the page...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Keith_Dowman Should i go ahead and resubmit the page, or can you check it first?

−
 * There's one more thing. It's our rule that every statement in the article must have a source. For the basic facts of his life, it can be his own website, but for the key aspects of notability, it should ideally be a third party source written by someone else. Some of this will not be possible in this case, but some of it is. Try to do as much as possible. If nothing is referenced, someone is fairly certain to object to the article. Then let me know, but it will be Monday until I can get to it DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Oren Laurent
Tried to request for undeletion but that was the wrong page. Could you undelete (and protect if necessary) solely for the purpose of redirecting to the subject's company, Banc De Binary, and of having the article and talk history available? I know this would be a controversial request if I were someone badly behaved, but I'm trying to keep up with all the rules. I emailed BDB and got a reply back and so have been describing myself as "possible COI" but I don't know that that helps any given the history described by Tokyo girl 79 about this request. I don't know that DRV would overturn a result simply for redirect and history. Okteriel (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If not, please say no, so I can decide where to turn. I suspect the article and talk histories will have data useful to improving the BDB article, as Black Kite has asked us. Okteriel (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Wink
Hi, I've added more information about the request deletion at Talk:Wink_Technologies. I believe it will address your concerns. Namely, the references that seemed to indicate notability do not support the content in the article. What prompted the deletion request was the reference in the "Significance" section - it does not even mention Wink. As I removed the reference and started to rework the section, I realized there wasn't a good replacement to demonstrate any significance at all.

I'd be happy to just fix the problems and update the article as I had originally planned. I just didn't want to go through the effort only for somebody to say "Hey, that doesn't look very notable anymore!" Please let me know how to proceed. Thanks, Wieldthespade (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Your input at the Michael Wines section of WP:BLPN would be appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Jubilee USA page deletion - Referred by User Hoary
Hi- I'm trying to re-establish the Jubilee USA Network wiki page which was deleted earlier this year. It's a legitimate organization currently getting a ton of news coverage. I wrote a few paragraphs here to get it started, but as I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, I don't know if I'm doing it right. The user Hoary told me to place show this to you as you were somebody who authorized the deletion. I really appreciate your time and help!

Here's what I've written: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewHanauer/Jubilee_USA

Thanks!AndrewHanauer (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi- Checking back in. Was the draft I wrote ok? Does it need work? If so, what? It is just a small segment, but I feel it is unbiased and accurate and only cites the org's website for things like internal structure and mission statement. After it gets up, I'm happy to keep working on it more. Thanks!AndrewHanauer (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

How's this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewHanauer/Jubilee_USA AndrewHanauer (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simin Meydani
Hi, DGG. I came across this professor. Maybe you'd like to check it out. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * notable. h = 60 at least, many articles with over 100 citations.--as you know, I do not use h by itself as a discriminating factor, but when field is taken into account, it does serve as a rough screen.  The reviewer has been consistently declining articles on academics as non-notable without checking the citations to their  work, which is of course the primary and usual basis for notability under WP:PROF, . But there are   problems, which prevent immediate acceptance. . The major one is that some of it is is a copypaste from their web site, and the rest reads as if it were, so it will   need rewriting.
 * "Senior scientist" is sometimes an ambiguous title, but in a good university, it often represents the equivalent to full professor, so it always indicates the need to check. (& she is that also).


 * However, it is already in WP, under a different form of the name Simin Nikbin Meydani. Unfortunately, it contains the same faults, including the copypaste mentioned above. I've taken care of it. My experience is that it almost always pays to check with a search inside WP before doing work on an article. The frequent and very understandable response to bad reviewing is to just rewrite it directly into mainspace ; unfortunately, people sometimes do just the same after rejection by good reviewing. When I started working on afcs, I checked every plausible submission good or bad  just in case an article was in mainspace, but I stopped for lack of time. It should really be built into the system as an obligatory first step.  The problem is that one cannot count on an exact match, so it's going to be very tricky to do it with an algorithm that would find all cases. People do better for situations where there is possible ambiguity, but where are the people to do the work?  DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

POV Mess
Hi DGG. At your convenience could you take a look at Persecution of traditional African religion. I think there is a strong argument for notability, but the wording of this article strikes me as terribly essayish/agenda oriented. I am seriously considering sending it to AfD but would like a second opinion before taking any action. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's of very low quality, but aside from the title (I might word it as "Interaction" not "Persecution", but that could be regarded as euphemism) I don't think that POV is the main problem, nor even the essay nature, but rather the superficial use of sources and the drawing of rather doubtful conclusion (perhaps Islam is more compatible than Christianity with African traditional religions, but it needs fuller evidence.) And the listing of 3 or 4 specific conflicts at the end greatly underplays the problem--that part is a good example of the way many WP articles are written by the addition or accumulation of random facts. I'm certainly willing to use afd to remove promotional junk so a better article can be written, but this is merely low level competence. Taking a wider look, many other general articles on the overall topic seem inadequate also, tho not as inadequate as this one. Taking things as a whole, our coverage or religion is perhaps our weakest area: the articles tend to be either inwardly focussed  for various small groups going into disproportionate and uncritical detail, or superficial and condescending general treatments.  Removing this article won't solve the problems.  DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the 2nd opinion. I just noticed that the article's creator also self reviewed his own article and gave it a B(!) rating. This is a mess. The only question in my mind right now is if it's fixable in its current form. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is--the overall organization is OK, and the books seem like suitable refs. The problem is that doing it right will take some actual work in a library.  DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph A. Petry
Hmmm... what's a "Clinical professor"? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In medicine, a clinical professor is someone who supervises the students in their education in the medical facilities, where most of the upperclass education takes place, but not a classroom teacher. In other fields it's analogous--someone supervising in a legal clinic or the like. In this case, presumably finance laboratories or practicums.  It is not in the least of the same implications of notability as a regular faculty position. It tends to be given to relatively important local practitioners. Most senior medical specialists will be at least Assistant Clinical Professors in one med school or another. For his individual notice the publication list: he actually includes what amounts to a course syllabus. No rational chance of passing afd. In mainspace, I'd consider it almost an A7.  DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, DGG, How about this one? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roshdi Rashed? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely Notable. Emeritus professor at two famous universities. Multiple major prizes at anational and international levels. Editor of a leading journal in his field; editor of major encyclopedia; Author or editor of several dozen academic books, some translated int o multiple languages--I see besides the expected French, English, and Arabic, also Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Persian, and Turkish. I moved it to mainspace.  Meets WP:AUTHOR, and several criteria of WP:PROF.  That this should have been not accepted initially is a little surprising, even for the lack of understanding of the humanities so prevalent at WP.  DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ali Riaz
Hi DGG - Not sure about this one... &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * just looking at library holdings, he's almost certainly notable at least as author. The article needs some extensive revisions, which I started. The revisions are enough to defer it for 6 months, & I'll get it fixed on the next round if it doesn't get fixed sooner.  DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Jews in Carthage
Hi DGG as a professional librarian and serious researcher what do you make of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jews in Carthage? Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Benefit of doubt
thank you for your comment at ANI and deleting the mess I created sir. It was not intentional. However, I want you to give me a benefit of that as regard the saction you suggested at ANI. I really have passions for this project. I don't want to lose my privilege to NPP (I should not be topic banned). That is the area where I had been very active sir, and am not doing bad in that area. At times when people tried to defend themselves out of fustrations they could say something very odd. That's responsible for such comment at the talk page. It was out of fustrations. Please do anything to help me. Give me a benefit of doubt sir, I promise to adhere strictly to all policies. Thanks. Wikicology (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you do improve, which is why iI did not suggest a block at this time. But until you do improve, you really should not be advising other editors, or approving their work.  DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Public art
Back in March, 2013, you added an essay-like tag to the public art article, and it is still there today. I was going through the cleanup category and came across that article and tag and at a quick glance I don't see major essay-like issues with the article. The inline references tag still is an issue, but when you get some time, can you take another look and decide if your tag still applies to the current form of the article, and possibly comment on the talk page of the article about what you feel the article needs to improve? Thanks. Neil916 (Talk) 19:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious?
I create the side-bar and don't work on the damn thing for 30 minutes when all of a sudden I'm marked for deletion for no reason other than the fact that I hadn't substantiated my content.

SO then just because I said I was doing this on behalf of a FRIEND that you delete my post. I have no clue how to write in code, or whatever it is that wikipedia uses so when I try to make a page it takes me a while. I take a break, eat some food, can't edit anymore. Some prick has marked me for deletion, as if he's doing God's work. I requested access to I could fulfill the content, and now I find that all my work has been deleted by the hands you of you.

I have administrative access to the site. I am running their content. I am in full disclosure knowledge of the activities of this company. And yet, because I only made the side bar and said I am making this for a friend that it deserves to get deleted.... I am confused, angry and irritated. I feel like someone just keyed my car while I've been shopping at the grocery store.

So what am I left with?

Nothing, but sand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holdawg (talk • contribs) 05:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I've restored it, and marked it as under construction. This will give you a day or two to finish--after that, you'll have to use AfC. Please make sure you have good sources for notability-- seeWP:CORP for the standards. Remember that what counts are documented accomplishments--noble intentions unfortunately don't count.  What is needed are  in-depth published independent  product review.  User reviews should not be included. the website lists "featured in" and give a number of media--these need to be true news stories, not advertisements or press releases or mentions. Good luck with it.   DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Howard B. Gist, Jr.
I hope that I didn't cause an edit conflict. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * no, but the ed. has been restoring some of the detailed material about his parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, which I removed once more. But I discovered hidden in the article what we do consider clear evidence for notability:  he was President of the State Bar Assn.  DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Organization for Understanding Cluster Headaches
I declined your request to speedily delete Organization for Understanding Cluster Headaches because it previously survived a deletion discussion. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * my apologies for missing that. My fault for not checking. I'll probably take it back to afd.  DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

GhostTunes
Hi there. You deleted a page for GhostTunes, which is like deleting the page for iTunes. It's an online music service. It's new, but it's legit, and I sourced articles from both LA Times and USA Today about the new service and its offerings. Tried to keep it factual and not press-releasy because that's not the intent. Just wanted a page up about it as a legit online music service company, in much the same way iTunes has a page. Please advise me on what we can do to restore the page and/or what I did in error. Thanks! FavreisGod (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * it may be legit, but it read a little as an advertisement for Gareth Brooks. I restored it, but it will need rewriting. I suggest it might be better not to have an album of his as the illustration. It would also be a very good idea not to give specific pricing information. I'd suggest you improve it quickly, because it is very likely to be challenged further. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Notable academic or not?
Can I have your opinion on this AfD if you don't mind? Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I need to consult on this one DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sylvie Collection
Hello. You recently deleted a page for Sylvie Collection, a known jewelry company, for G11 spam. I was hoping to get the content back so I can make the necessary edits. Do you have any suggestions? I would assume I shouldn't link to the Sylvie Collection website for the celebrities, but what else could be improved to avoid deletion? What specific areas sounded promotional? I made sure to link to known Jewelry industry sources as well as credible fashion sources like Women's Wear Daily. I tried to take inspiration from the format of Sylvie Collection's competitors here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacori and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritani

Thank you. Cody sharp (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , I think the 2 articles by other editors that you mention do verge on promotionalism, and also show dubious notability. Some aspects of yours show the promotionalism even more strongly, such as the list of celebrities who wear the jewelry. What I'm going to do is restore the article with that part omitted it, so you have a chance to improve it. I'll get to the other ones also.  DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for guidance on Malt Shop Memories Cruise article issues
I'd like to take a second stab at creating an article on the Malt Shop Memories Cruise, which you speedy-deleted under rules A7 and G11. It's one of seven interrelated articles that I've posted over the last few days, which together (IIRC) are my first attempts to create articles from scratch. Maybe that was ambitious, but the topic is a multi-faceted one. At any rate, I'd like to address the problems, and would appreciate some feedback on how to do it.

A7: No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)
I didn't realize that a statement of importance was necessary, and I've fixed this in the other articles. But, for the Malt Shop Cruise and the longer run viability of the other pieces, I want to be sure that I adequately state their importance.

Music cruises are music festivals in ships. These are huge, regular assemblies of talent. They got my own attention when family friends attended the Jazz Cruise; when I looked into that cruise, I found a whole field of performances that was under the radar (or, at least, mine).

As I understand it, the cruises should meet notability guidelines because (1) they are major assemblies of talent in their genres, and (2) draw large numbers of the public to be involved. If that doesn't meet notability guidelines, what distinguishes the cruises from the land-based concerts that are documented in their own Wikipedia articles?

G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion
Being familiar with Wikipedia spam, and understanding the limitations of my source material, I did make an effort to keep my tone neutral. Was this a matter of the substance, rather than the tone? I looked for models, and found long-running Wikipedia articles on music cruises: Shiprocked and Jam Cruise. How do these differ as to promotion?

Potential overall solution; pros and cons
I originally considered covering all these cruises in one large article. However, when I drafted it, the article was huge and therefore difficult to navigate. It seemed more sensible to break it out into hubs (Entertainment Cruise Productions and wikifying previous information in Time-Life) and spokes (the various cruises), thereby allowing users to get as much or as little depth as they wanted. What is your thinking on that?

Thank you for taking the time to advise on this. &mdash;Matt Stevens (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Shiprocked and Jam Cruise are hardly stellar examples of neutral articles; in fact, they stand a good chance of being speedily deleted themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've looked at it again--I think that you do indeed make an adequate demonstration of possible importance. My deletion under provision A7 was therefore mistaken. But notability is considerably more than just a show of importance. and  whether this will be considered actual notability will be up to the community, and decided in an AfD discussion--and it's hard to predict what would be decided.  Notability here is decided primarily on the basis of sources--reliable third party published sources that provide substantial coverage. They have to be more than routine notices, and not press releases or based on press releases. If you have such sources, you probably will  be able to write a satisfactory article that will pass AfD. Without then, it still may pass, but it's much more doubtful.
 * I think the key problem here, besides sourcing, is promotionalism. The usual way of thinking about it is that it needs to be addressed to the general reader, not to a potential client or customer. An article that is sourced only to the subject's own website, and that talks primarily about the performers who will be present on the next cruise, would generally be considered promotional--it's essentially indistinguishable from an advertisement.
 * Looking at the other articles,my opinion is that the other articles on the individual cruises are promotional in the same manner, and if my attention had been called to them, I would have deleted them. I could do this still, but I think it would be fairer to wait a few days; if they are not radically improved, I probably will list the entire group of individual articles for deletion as promotional to see what the community thinks. For consistency, I have restored the article I deleted also. so they can be considered all together.
 * The overall article on ECP is much stronger, primarily because it also talks a good deal about past seasons, which makes it more of an encyclopedia article and less of an advertisement. However, it too has only sources that are derived directly from the company. This needs to be corrected.
 * The problem about sourcing this entire set of articles is that most sources will basically be reprinted press releases. for example, the article on Soul Train Cruise in  USA  Today,   seems to be indistinguishable from a paid advertisement. It would help very much if you could find true after-the-fact review articles that do not primarily reprint what the company representative tells them.


 * In general, the usual advice is to first establish an article on the main subject before trying articles on the more specific ones. This is especially true when introducing articles at the same times on a large number of specific closely related subjects. such as this. The manner in which you did this would normally raise the question of whether you have a WP:Conflict of Interest. However, I see you have done some significant work of a number of unrelated topics spread out over many years, so you certainly have the benefit of an assumption of good faith.     DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, DDG--I appreciate your advice. I understand how third-party sources help to assure impartiality.  So, I'll look to find broader sourcing on these topics.  Offhand, I think there's likely to be a deeper pool for the longer-running cruises than there is for the more recent ones.  (Ironically, if they're well-run--that is, no shipwrecks or salmonella or anything else that stimulates independent news coverage--they could manage themselves right out of article eligibility.)  I have no idea what's available about the parent company, but it looks like they've carved out enough of a swath that there should be something. &mdash;Matt Stevens (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)'


 * Your comment about shipwrecks and salmonella is indeed true: sometimes subjects are more infamous than famous. Organizations seeking to promote themselves on Wikipedia should be wary: not only does it violate Wikipedia policy but it can also lead to some nasty unintended consequences. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, both Shiprocked and Jam Cruise were G11 speedily deleted (two different admins, neither one was DGG). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, my initial fix on what's viable, based on what existed when I started, is rapidly eroding! If it turns out that this idea isn't workable, then so be it.  But having done this much work, I'm going to try to straighten it out, based on the feedback I've gotten.  (And, damn, it's harder than I thought, although picking what turns out to be a marginal topic by WP standards has not made it easy on myself.)  I have to say that I'm really impressed with the support that's available.  I did not expect help on this scale when I took up the template's offer to seek it from the flagging editor.  Learning by doing doesn't provide the tidiest syllabus, but it's certainly a high-quality course.  Thank you, Dr. Fleischman and DDG. &mdash;Matt Stevens (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. It's a steep initial learning curve for everyone (myself included). You're a good writer, so with a little more familiarity of our neutrality and sourcing guidelines you could be an excellent contributor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 13:41:57, 29 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Lboniello
Hey, thanks for processing my request for the kioware page on Wiki. I completely respect that I need to add more resources in order to make it notable, but I was wondering what the threshold is? I've seen other articles in the same category with fewer (and less notable) resources, and I have submitted no fewer than 3 news sources (RFID Journal, American Library Association Magazine, and Kiosk Marketplace) discussing kioware kiosk software, as well as 2 research papers referencing the software as part of the study. Can you help me to determine what else would make the references meet the threshold you are looking for? Other software products with fewer references - and less notable references - have made the cut. Examples include: Webconverger and Netkey (notice most of the references are from Kioskmarketplace, which is one of the kioware references). Would adding notable clients be helpful (mirroring what Netkey has done)? I appreciate the response and just want confirmation so that I can be a better Wiki editor! Lboniello (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * response forthcoming tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to recreate article on Dr. Philip A. Flournoy
Dear DGG: I recently submitted an article on American Physicist Dr. Philip A. Flournoy, which was immediately deleted. I contested the deletion, and my reviewer suggested that I recreate the article, adding in more justification for the importance of the topic. But my reviewer (user St170e) also requested I get permission from you first before recreating the article. Our discussion thread on St170e's talk page is here.

So I'm contacting you to see if you're OK with me recreating an enhanced version of the article. Thank you for your consideration! --Rflourno (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Judging him as a scientist, he must meet either the WP:GNG general notability guideline, or the WP:PROF special guideline for researchers. The GNG requires substantial third party independent published sources about him that are not press releases or based on press releases,  to show that others have recognized his importance. WP:PROF requires evidence that he is considered an authority in his field--that page explains the various possible criteria. Citations to his work are an important factor.  I see several of his papers cited  in Google Scholar, with fairly substantial citations.  and I see a few citations to his patents  there also. It might be possible to use these as the basis for an article. Being awarded patents is not considered a sufficient indication in either standard, though patents that can be shown to be  substantially exploited can help.  It is relatively difficult to show notability for scientists in industry as compared with those in the academic world. To supplement the citations, it will help to be able to demonstrate membership in national organizations;;, but what would prove notability is prizes or distinctions at a national level, such as Fellowship (not mere membership) in the American Physical Society.  Otherwise, the material does not show indications of notability .   Directing a division of researchers at DuPont is not notability either. Opening one of the first Computerland franchises is not notability.  The only thing in the article that might come near is "Dr. Flournoy evolved and employed unique trading algorithms that generated consistently solid yearly returns for his clients regardless of overall market performance" But this has to be shown by third party published sources, not by mere assertion. Write the article as suggested. With the citations, it will not be speedy deleted, but the community will judge it at a discussion at WP:AFD--results there are unpredictable.    DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your guidance! I will drop back and see if I can gather more publicly-noted evidence of distinction for the physics work; if so, I'll rewrite and re-submit.  Thanks again!  --Rflourno (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User Vdhillon and copyvio
You reviewed some articles for speedy delete yesterday by. He has a very long history of copyright violations, both images and text. The latest I found was 2 days ago. I'm not convinced there is a lot of hope for this editor. The only edit to his/her talk page was to add this month. I see a lot of work however by this editor and it would be nice to be able to keep him. Any suggestions? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller,

I am happy to learn and continue to contribute. I do not mean any deliberate harm, if you see my track record over last few years, I have been contributing consistently and in fact sometimes I am frustrated that you guys delete hours of my hard work. Seems I still am on learning curve and there is a way to go before some of my edits and posts are good enough without being butchered. Please advise me, where can I look/read (quick read in a central place) to quickly come up to speed and comply.

Also, I do not understand the issue with me not having much entries on my talk page (where do I find it? is this edit/comment itself is my talk page? thanks) and whats the significance of writing talk page entries? I want to understand why is it needed, when all I want is enhance the wiki entries that I am reading (my way of repaying to others while I am learning from wiki on topics) or create new entries when there is a gap. Please help me come up to speed and make me understand significance of some of these things and how to avoid issues Thanks. Vdhillon (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * response forthcoming tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Academic
Hello. Do you think Gu Su is notable? Got his books in the library? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * the books are in very few US libraries, but Worldcat isn't helpful for Chinese libraries, and even if I could find the necessary sources for that, I couldn't read them. He seems to be a full professor at one of the very best Chinese universities.  DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Updating Genpact page on Wikipedia
Hi David,

I hope I'm writing to you in the correct manner. If not, please instruct me how to do so.

Thanks so much for your help on updating and protecting the Genpact page on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genpact.

We have more proposed edits to the page. A few are noted in the Genpact Talk Page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genpact including more references in the History section, and more countries with references in the Locations section.

We would also like to create a few more sections including many references. The new sections would be: 1) Company Timeline (Including Acquisitions) and 2) Services and Vertical Industries Served.

Our major competitors have very similar sections on their Wikipedia pages.

Thanks in advance for your help and guidance.

Sincerely, Christian Wzt5zb (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Many pages on business organizations at WP are excessively promotional, and have not yet been corrected or deleted. We do not want to add to their number. (You mention a comparative page; I've taken a look at it: my impression is that it needs substantial improvements.) Keeping that in mind, and referring to the list of proposed changes on the article talk page, (1, a list of acquisitions is appropriate content, but it would be better to write it as a paragraph than a timeline. Timelines are in general to be discouraged as non-encyclopedia style, better suited to corporate presentations. (2) "with the goal of enabling outstanding efficiencies." is meaningless jargon. All changes in corporate structure have that intent.  (3)For the sections on services and vertical industries, please propose a paragraph; it should not be overly specific or detailed.  (4) As you say,   " in BPO and IT outsourcing, stakeholders like to see countries of operation" That's exactly why they don't belong here. Encyclopedia articles are not written for stakeholders, but for the general public; content directed primarily to those who are current or prospective investors or clients belongs on your web site or other sponsored publications.
 * I'll make some of the changes.  DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks David. We appreciate you and will propose paragraphs soon.Wzt5zb (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi David, I have proposed more edits/paragraphs for the Wikipedia page on Genpact at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genpact. I tried to include several references but the Genpact/Wiki talk page wouldn't allow me to post them. How should I share them with you? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzt5zb (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Wzt5zb (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi David, I would like to request your assistance on a few things. 1) As per your direction, I proposed edits to the Genpact talk page for Recent Acquisitions, Partnerships and Joint Ventures written in paragraph and encyclopedic/factual fashion instead of bullet points, with many neutral references. The result was Wiki editors turned them all down. Please check it out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genpact. How do we get this right for you guys to publish more content on the page? It's becoming very time consuming and frustrating, writing, pulling references to no success. Genpact competitors have way more information than Wiki is allowing Genpact to post. I find this unfair. Check them out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Group. Can you please help? I'm willing to do whatever is needed to work with you/the Wiki process. I'm trying here. 2) You said for us to remove any timeline related text and provide a link to it on the company website with that content. I proposed this edit with the result of Wiki editors rejecting it as well. How can we get more information posted on the Genpact page? 3) The page also has a box on the top that says the article has major issues. I've tried to follow the process you/Wiki have described to update the Genpact page. How do we get the negative marks removed from the top of the page? Thanks for your assistance.Wzt5zb (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi David, Can you please help with the requests above?Wzt5zb (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you. I will try again to propose neutral content.Wzt5zb (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I did remove most of the box,as much of it has been dealt with in the current version. That one of the major contributors has COI is a statement of fact which will remain.
 * 2) if the request is to insert a list of locations, another editor agreed with me that it was unsuitable. I have no right to over-rule the consensus of other editors, even if I disagree with it. And in this case, I agree.
 * 3) As for your requested edit on acquisitions, are you seriously asking to include a section beginning "Genpact continues to enhance its capabilities and expand globally through acquisitions, partnerships and joint ventures." ? Try writing a version without advertising, and I'll consider it. So me useful steps to take in rewriting are:   avoid adjectives to the extent possible,  use the company name as little as possible, and eliminate business jargon like "onboarding."
 * 4) As for comparisons, Tata Group corresponds more to the original GE, of which Genpact is a split. The relative size and importance of the two is disproportionate by two orders of magnitude: Tata is 50 times the size. I think I've said this before. Making sure all competitors large or small have the same depth of coverage is not the policy of a NPOV encyclopedia.

Hi David, Can you please revert the Genpact page on Wikipedia to what we had previously – just a few days ago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genpact

Someone reverted the most currently made edits, that were implemented and approved by you. Someone added defamatory remarkings including (It treats its employees very badly and there is undue office politics leading to very high attrition rates.) Can you please remove? Also the top section only included: This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source.

And the citations have been messed-up to include broken links, that were previously working. Also, can you please add another layer of security? This is about the third time the site has been vandalized.

Thanks so much for your help. It's much appreciated.Wzt5zb (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks, wzt5zb Christian

Hi David,

It appears the Genpact Wikipedia page has been marked for speedy deletion. Can you please advise on how we can avoid this scenario?

Thanks for your help. 8.19.113.13 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Wzt5zb (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Any luck on advise on how to avoid speedy deletion of the Wiki page covering Genpact?8.19.113.12 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no likelihood that the article will be speedy deleted; for it to be deleted, it would need to be nominated for our WP:Articles for Deletion process, which asks for a community decision. Such discussions are hard to predict, but I would imagine that it would be kept. What the article does need is some further improvement to make it look less like a company web page. My advice to to remove the minor awards, or to find some way of condensing the presentation.  DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

07:17:37, 6 October 2014 review of submission by Clairefenton
I would like to know why this has been rejected and how I can improve it? Clairefenton (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Avoid adjectives of praise, and don't talk about someone's "philosophy" to help vehicles run better and last longer. After all, it's the intent of every automobile product manufacturer. Don't talk about which brand name products it sells; don;t claim something like "true global reach for a company with 154 employees. Additionally, everything needs documentation from a third party published source, and from more than the company website. And instead of adding more advertising and immediately resubmitting, fix it first. Frankly though, I doubt that no matter how well you write it that the company has have what is required to show notability: the necessary references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements.
 * Even better,. what we really need is an article on the principal company, the UCI-FRAM group, which I think is undoubtedly notable, but not the minor subsidiaries.  DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Tiptree sneeze
You seem to have said that Draft:Tiptree sneeze needs to have more lasting interest to achieve notability. I did include the fact that the video went viral and resulted in the creation of parody videos (which also went viral). I'd like to have more input on what I should do. Thanks.Qxukhgiels (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * you might wait to see if it lasts more than a year, and especially if someone writes about it in something more substantial than a newspaper or a TV news program. I'll put it in mainspace if you like, but I'll nominate it for deletion and I estimate it has  less than a 50% chance of survival. Of course, afd is unpredictable.  DGG ( talk ) 14:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Request on 20:33:48, 9 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Crash2341
Hi. I submitted an article for creation for Louis A. Lehr, Jr. It was declined on October 6, 2014 stating "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

My question is that all the materials provided were reliable published sources and nothing I created. Can you please explain why it was declined even though the sources I provided were independent, reliable sources, i.e. the Chicago Tribune?

Thank you in advance for your help. Crash2341 (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * an article on him might be possible; but this one goes into great detail on his major trials, material which is duplicated almost word for word in the article on the law firm. I note that the article contains "The Illinois Bar Association News noted that during the proceedings Judge Becker expressed “an admiration and appreciation” for Lehr’s “marvelous sense of humor and light touch and for their leavening effect on this most contentious of all litigation.”"   While true, this is not suitable for an encyclopedia,and including it shows considerable doubt about your purpose.
 * You seem to be editing almost exclusively articles connected with Arnstein & Lehr, LLP, often to insert there name as the attorney for some particular business. Most of these are excessive detail and have been reverted by various editors, including myself.
 * I call your attention to our rules on WP:COI, conflict of interest editing. If you are editing on behalf of the firm, either as an employee or a consultant, you must say so.  DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

have been reverted by various editors, including myself.
 * I call your attention to our rules on WP:COI, conflict of interest editing. If you are editing on behalf of the firm, either as an employee or a consultant, you must say so.  DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Steven Z. Pavletic page
Dear Sir,

recently you deleted an article we have started to upload onto Wikipedia, for physician "Steven Z. Pavletic". It was marked as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" which should be fundamentally rewritten. We fully understand your position and would like to amend this text, so that it satisfies the minimum requirements for Wikipedia. Since this will be a similar page for "Steven Z. Pavletic", we are contacting you as instructed in order to receive feedback on how to proceed. Please let us know soon! Thank you and best regard, DarkoDarko1983 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Z._Pavletic&action=edit&redlink=1


 * Question for you: is "we" a single person, or a firm. if you're a firm, only individuals can edit here. In any case, if you are a paid editor editing on behalf of someone else, whether an employee of the individual or, it would seem, as an external consultant, you should not write the article in mainspace but use the WP:AFC creation process of writing in draft space first, and submitting it to see if it will be accepted.

A WP article is expected to be a plain description intended for the general public who might want to know about the subject. It must not be primarily addressed to prospective clients or supporters or employers. It therefore must not praise the person, or contain material supporting his cause or advocating support for the medical speciality in which he works. It must also have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. We already have an article on GHVD, and you need not repeat it.

In terms of notability, the criterion is WP:PROF. The fundamental criterion there is that he is an authority in his field. This is normally shown by citations to his work, and there are sufficient. Therefore, it will be possible for an acceptable article to be written. The question is, who should write it.It's a serious question whether a paid PR person can possible reorient their thinking to what is needed, as the purpose of WP is so very different from the usual purpose of PR. Only a PR person would even think of including the quote you used about him from Nola, and I cannot believe any individual would include it if they were writing the article.

Personally, I wish we had a rule that nobody could ever write about themselves, or their organization, or any person or organization who paid them to write anything. We don't have such a rule. But I sometimes have said in giving advice, "when the subject becomes sufficiently notable, someone else will write about it." Another administrator here tends to responds with a phrase like, "for decency's sake, please wait until someone else thinks he's important."  DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

thank you very much for your quick response. Indeed, your reply was helpful and we have significantly modified the article "Steven Z. Pavletic", which will be posted using the WP:AFC creation process of writing in draft space first - thank you for drawing my attention to this.

To answer your question, I do not represent a firm, but am a private citizen who volunteered to help post this text written by another colleague - not Steven Z. Pavletic!

In any case, we assure you that that the prior and the modified version of the text, in particular, has been drafted objectively and in good faith, and we hope that it is now more in the "spirit" of what you are looking for.

I look forward to your feedback on the latest version of this text.

Thank you and best regards, Darko Kerić — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko1983 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Mark Nelson (scientist)
Hello again, DGG. I see that you commented on this submission. I added some book reviews and replaced a primary source. Is it acceptable yet? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * working on it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

== deletion Vector NTI ==

Dear DGG,

You deleted Vector NTI before I could react (7 days is definitely too fast for occasional writers). It's an important bioinformatics package used in molecular biology. Because it's a specialist topic it probably appeared unimportant to you but to the thousands of people working in this area it's not. For me this is the point of the Wikipedia that it can contain specialists articles that would be culled in a book like the Britannica. Please reactivate or at least send me the text, so I can move it to a less restrictive wiki.

All the best, --— J.S.talk 06:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Since it was deleted only via PROD< you're entitled to have it restored, and I undeleted it. But there two serious problems that must be addressed. The first, is that it must be written in paragraphs, not as an outline.  The second, is that  you need  references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. It's not the specialist nature of the topic which is a problem, it's showing its notable via others than the developer writing about it. We go not by what the inherent nature of something is, but by what the world thinks of it-- see WP:N for an explanation./ DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with the referencing of independent sources and included 3 additional ones. Also, I extended the introduction to highlight why this is important and to whom. In my opinion, forcing everything indiscriminately into paragraphs reduces ease of reading. A features list is a classic example. It's much easier to get an overview, if it's not jumbled up in a paragraph. Readers can quickly scan the different points in a list, something impossible in a paragraph where only the first point is easily accessible. References are not yet formatted nicely. Sorry, haven't had time to find out how you put them neatly into Notes, Citations, and Sources or what exactly the difference is. If you point me in the right direction, I'll see what I can squeeze in. Regards, — J.S.talk 17:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sol Biderman Collection
It looks like it was an "edit-athon" meant to promote/advertise a university library collection (probably to get more funding from donors?). See Meetup/Nashville/Vanderbilt Edit-A-Thon 2014. But sure, I have added merge tags and contacted the page creator. Probably a good idea to expand Jean and Alexander Heard Library with it, though it really ought to be referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was an editathon, which, as most library or university based  editathons do, worked on topics for which the library has special collections to support. That's just what we've done at the ones I've been involved in at Princeton and NYPL and Columbia.  The trickiest part of these sessions is finding topics that are sure to be considered satisfactory and that can be completed at the session.  This particular topic was not wisely chosen--they should either have done it on the individual or on the Special Collections in general.   Your suggest for how to proceed is exactly what I was going to suggest.  DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What happens if no one responds to the merge request?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sol Biderman Collection
It looks like it was an "edit-athon" meant to promote/advertise a university library collection (probably to get more funding from donors?). See Meetup/Nashville/Vanderbilt Edit-A-Thon 2014. But sure, I have added merge tags and contacted the page creator. Probably a good idea to expand Jean and Alexander Heard Library with it, though it really ought to be referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was an editathon, which, as most library or university based  editathons do, worked on topics for which the library has special collections to support. That's just what we've done at the ones I've been involved in at Princeton and NYPL and Columbia.  The trickiest part of these sessions is finding topics that are sure to be considered satisfactory and that can be completed at the session.  This particular topic was not wisely chosen--they should either have done it on the individual or on the Special Collections in general.   Your suggest for how to proceed is exactly what I was going to suggest.  DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What happens if no one responds to the merge request?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

DRAGA design
Thank you for your comments. The fact that I am being paid to create this article has nothing to do with its content. If that fact is the only reason to reject the article, then could it be submitted by someone else? JB, DRAGA design, Oakland, CA USA 20:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Shemford
Just wanted to check if you still intend to restore the page (as you mentioned on my talk page) czar ♔   01:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless someone else decides to do it. in the next few days  DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

06:34:40, 26 November 2014 review of submission by Briskmanlaw
Hi there! I am not seeking a re-review - I just wanted to ask some questions about how to improve the article. My main question is do I need to improve the sourcing, the writing or both? I don't want to resubmit without making the right changes.

Thank you so much for your patience and help!

Briskmanlaw (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * the first step is to remove the lists of practice areas and staff members. Both belong only on your website or advertising. A list of every possible form of accident is not encyclopedic content for a law firm. Second is to have references from general newspapers and magazines about the cases, not just law journals. Even so, without an   references providing substantial coverage about the firm itself from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, it is doubtful whether it  would stay in Wikipedia.  DGG ( talk ) 13:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments - really helpful. I hope I’m not bothering with another question. The main reason for the way the entry is written is that so many other similar law firms have entries that include similar information (listing practice areas, members) and similar types of sources, and are published that way. Is that just up to particular editors or… how come for some entries that works, but not here?
 * For example, listing practice areas:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiff_Hardin#Practice_Areas
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_%26_McKenzie#Practice_areas
 * Similar sources:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitch,_Even,_Tabin_%26_Flannery#External_links
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horwitz_Horwitz_%26_Associates#Notable_cases
 * Just trying to figure out how this all works! Still at work on improving the entry as per your comments :). Briskmanlaw (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James UH Chin
Dear DGG: I came across this professor draft article which seems notable at first, but it seems he's an adjunct professor and here's the Google Scholar report:http://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=V08w1yYAAAAJ&hl=en. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No clear way to decide. I'll fix it as I can and accept it. Everyone who writes a non-promotional article in good faith about a probably notable subject has a right to have the community decide if the subject is actually notable.  Currently, I define "probably" at 2:1, 66%. It is not fair or reasonable for individual Wikipedians to act as gatekeepers in such cases; the spirit of WP is that we make community decisions.
 * What we can rationally act as gatekeepers for, are the throughly unlikely or utterly impossible article. (altogether too many clear G11 are just being marked "advertising" and left to be indefinitely rewritten. I nominated 40 of those  rejected as promotional for G11 last night, 38 were deleted. I intend to continue.   DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Start of Phyillis Wise page
I see that you started the page for Phyllis Wise Oct 15, 2014. What happened to her original page? I can't find anything about it in the deletion history. Want to know why her page was deleted and how you came to start her current page. JKIDM (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I work very frequently on academic subjects, and frequently work on university articles. I started this page because I saw her mentioned in news reports, and in the article on the University, but found there was no existing article (nor had there ever been).  Heads of universities should have articles on wikipedia, and so should all members of national academies such as the Institute of Medicine.  There's a section that  to be added, and I intend to add it. I am indeed aware of controversy that should be covered there, and it is tricky to do this properly, so I postponed it. I do know how to do it right, with proportionate neutral coverage,  and I meant to get back to this sooner; thanks for reminding me.     DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

William Adlam
FYI: the PRODs were removed: see Articles for deletion/William Adlam. JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Request on 18:59:51, 10 December 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Bragdonite
After having published architectural history for 35 years with monographs and essays printed in five languages, I am completely astounded at the rejection of an article that took me 4 months to complete for Wikipedia. I have long defended Wikipedia as a viable source of credentialed information, and believed it was worthwhile to offer the best scholarship for submission -- which is what I tried to do from my decades of experience in this type of writing. I will hack down the piece and resubmit, but this is the first time in a long career of scholarly publication that anyone has ever rejected anything I have produced and I just don't know quite what to think of that. I have maybe grown too old to be writing for present day audiences. Perhaps my first missed clue was being criticized for marking down college students who copy and paste from Wikipedia with the links intact. Thank you for your time in reviewing the piece. I see you have received many awards and notation for your work. Bragdonite (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As a scholar,  when you write on a subject a subject, even if not doing original research,   you synthesize the material,  draw conclusions, and  support them with    the authority of your other published work,  and your name and position; there is also the further quality certification of peer review,   professional editing, and publication by a press that is known for its quality. In  return, you are personally entitled to the merits of the work you do to further establish your authority.   Many encyclopedia rely on a similar process, most notably the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
 * Wikipedia is something different. Ne do not publish original research or synthesize, nor do we draw conclusions. Everyone  here writes as if they were anonymous, and has no personal authority. I don't think our way is a good way to publish research, but it might be a good way to do a tertiary source like an encyclopedia. because it is possible that multiple contributors can provide a more balanced treatment than any one individual, however eminent. It does of course assume readers who can draw their own conclusions.
 * It is however not very difficult to accommodate oneself to this, by writing in such a manner that the conclusions are implicit, and that every detail is supported with references even beyond the ordinary requirements. Instead of the support of outside certification, you have the support of the internal consistence and the obvious quality of sources. The real problem for scholars and professional authors of all sorts here is that there is no control over the work once it has been finished. Most authors expect to produce the finest completed piece of work that they are capable--albeit often with the assistance of editors in the preparation, and then to have it stable. This is not possible here, and specialists of all sorts have the inevitable sensation of seeing their good work gradually changed and usually degraded. I therefore advise those accustomed to conventional publication to publish their work in the usual manner, but in addition to give a free license; there is thus a stable form  as your own contribution, and also the   base for the much wider diffusion of your understanding--and in particular the very real possibility of translation into a great many languages. You cannot here reach your audience with full exactitude, but you can reach in some manner a much wider audience.
 * I've made the analogy to delivering an introductory course an introductory survey course to a very non-specialized audience; where you must expect the students to come away with an often very imperfect idea of your meaning.


 * For submissiona such as this particular article, I would normally have accepted it, making the necessary cuts and rewording to meet our normal style and our peculiarities, and probably simplifying and shortening some of the peripheral material. But when I encounter work by an obvious expert--especially in a field where I myself have no particular qualifications--I will often try to persuade them to do the improvements themselves, which ought to be  yield a better result. As we have a remarkable number of expected peculiarities, I will then make only some additional adjustments. (I almost said, final adjustments, but of course nothing I do in accepting or revising an article is any more final than what the author has done in writing it.

As a child, I dreamed of writing an encyclopedia. But even so, I can help produce a much greater one than I even then thought I would be able to do by myself. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that helpful discourse. I had a rather different view of the idea of Wikipedia and feel more comfortable in understanding the scope and limitations of the project from your comments. We all have suffered the results of committee ministrations on getting work off the table and out into the world. It was slow of me not to recognize that function is implicit in the structure of Wikipedia. I am revising the Dyson piece, and have to this point removed 40% of the draft. I am reluctant to diminish the Design Philosophy section, as there is nothing else on Wikipedia that comes close to Dyson's explanation of organic design, but I will try to chop it down. I very much appreciate your courtesy in allowing me to edit the piece as you mentioned. I will reconstruct the citations when I am done with the deletions, as I had built them to reflect multiple instances of the same reference.


 * I do have a question I hope you can answer. Someone edited the paragraphing within the Career decade sections to collapse all the sentences into one enormously long paragraph within each section. It was unreadable. Is this a Wikipedia stylistic convention? I notice this is not the case on the Frank Lloyd Wright page. I consciously modeled the Dyson page after that page's format.


 * Again, my thanks to you for the guidance and the insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bragdonite (talk • contribs) 20:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

04:44:15, 11 December 2014 review of submission by Psanchan
Hello, could I get some help on how to make my article better? I can't find other sources that seem verifiable, but have heard of him in the community and met with Dr Coceancig himself.

Thank you.

Psanchan (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, experience shows that it is very difficult to produce a satisfactory article here on a subject where one has a direct financial interest. it is usually much better until other people with no such direct involvemen think the subject is so highly important that they will write the article.


 * It is not altogether impossible, when the subject warrants it. the requirements here for an article such as this are first, to meet the relevant notability standard of WP:PROF, establish that the individual is an authority in their field through the award of major prizes at a national level, the presidency of the major national level professional association in a wide field, holding of a named or otherwise distinguished chair at a major research university, or the production of a very considerable amount of highly cited professional peer-reviewed publication--the amount and nature depending, of course, on the particular subject. And this must be demonstrated  by published evidence.  The question here is whether external fellowship in the Royal College of Surgeons of England is intrinsically such an honour.  It might be,  and if the article were otherwise satisfactory I would accept it and ask that the community discuss the matter.


 * But an article must be descriptive, not promotional, and rely on references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements for the demonstration of the importance of the work. it must not use terms of praise, A method of dental treatment cannot be assumed to be a great importance because the article says that it is, nor can someone be assumed to be the inventor of it because the article says so. External reliable evidence is needed. It is also necessary that the article not read as an advertisement for his practice. When one of the two references is the site where he does advertise his practice, it does so read. You may try again, of course. when  you have it ready, let me know, and I will give it an immediate review.  DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oscar Goodman (oncologist)
Hello again DGG. This fellow appear to be an assistant professor, but he has some well cited papers. Is it worth looking for some independent sources here? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the article is unfortunately an advertisement & would need substantial rewriting. I'll check to see if the cited papers are not just large clinical trials of which he is just one participant.   DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Clare Balding
Seeing the "peacock" tag you added to Clare Balding, I thought I would see if I could clean it up, but I'm not sure what it is you were objecting to. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "highest-profile", "leading", phrases such as "she became so impressed by the vibrancy and physical challenge of the sport" -- I know such wording permeate our articles, but it's all of it wrong without a third party quoted source, and we shouldn't add to it.   Additionally, the sucession of short single-sentence paragraphs give a somewhat promotional tone. Just fix these & remove the tag.  DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Trevor M Jones
DGG, Further to your removal of all the references on the page Trevor M Jones, it took me a long time to compile these references at YOUR REQUEST. Specifically you requested: '(3) We consider being an editor of journals significant. Please include them, with the exact positions and the years.' This I have done and now you are removing them. Why have you done this please? I would like them reinstated as it adds credibility to the page. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonieVP (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * we consider the position of being the editor of a journal significant. We do not consider the individual editorials significant.  DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)