User talk:DGG/Archive 101 Jun. 2015

Notability Journalists
Was looking into whether Weijia-jiang, a Channel 2 reporter for CBS News, would qualify for a page. I haven't seen anything substantial about her, but I'm also surprised she doesn't have a page already. Journalists, like academics, open-source, or historical societies, fall into one of those categories I feel editors will argue in favor of a page regardless of source material, because their work benefits Wikipedia and there is ::Academics have a fairly clear heirarchy within the profession, and this can be very helpful. Journalists, less so. an enthusiasm to support them here. Then I looked at WP:AUTHOR and was curious how "widely cited by peers or successors" is interpreted. Seems like it would be an extremely easy criteria. On one side of the coin, I'm rolling my eyes that we have so many specialized criteria that appeals to the community's interests, but I also need to provide someone with fair advice on what is considered acceptable on Wikipedia, which isn't always the same as what I would support. CorporateM (Talk) 01:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Academics have a clear formal publicly available hierarchy within the profession,and this facilitates understanding their relative importance. Journalists do not have this. the only clear criterion I know  is awards at a national level--as for people in any subject. That's of course a little too restrictive here, but I do not know how to supplement it. What y0u link to is not citations,but bylines. Various CBS local stations acknowledge the name of the CBS reporter reporter whose story they reprint. That's not influences, just syndication. It would mean something if NBC used him as an authority than that his own network does, but not all that much, because journalists normally use others reporting where they themselves did not have contacts.  Academic citing people have a formal way of measurement, reliable databases to record it, and accepted standards of significance. Journalist have none of these.  Academic judge each other by means of such  citations; journalists do not.  What's much more to the point is that academics and public figures sometimes cites journalists as being experts. Again there are not quantitative standards like there are in the academic world,but sometimes a journalist is indeed recognized as an authority--unfortunately, as applied at WP, that tends to mean random quotations, not the quantitative comparisons possible in the academic world.  Outside the academic world, some fields do have built-in standards--for example, politicians (being elected) or athletes (palying on a recognized major league team) . Some have recognized  external standards, like charting in some fields of music. But most do not.  DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have some knowledge of considerations in that migtht be used in establishing notability (in the Wikipedia sense) of television journalists.
 * (1) At the top, signifiers are awards like the Peabody, two of the Edward R. Murrow awards (international and Washington State University)...
 * (2) The specific job held in specific programs (anchor and managing editor of the Evening News; a combined position in the case of CBS News), specifically named positions (Chief White House Correspondent...
 * (3) Named correspondents with the most prestigious television news shows, length of service at the network level. If nothing else, a correspondent for one of the top network news divisions—three over-the-air news networks likely have fewer than 300 correspondents in total. There may be a distinction in general title at the network level—entry into that level as a reporter, with a negotiated contract (with agent) after three years.
 * (4) Correspondents named as foreign correspondents.
 * (5) Aside from on-screen fame as notability, producers in television news have a role that is more wide-ranging than an editor at a newspaper, and are eligible for some of the same national awards as correspondents.


 * In the interest in giving an quick, and, I hope, useful reply, I'd add this: a television news correspondent at the network level with more than 6 years services should be considered notable in the Wikipedia sense. Large market (say, the top ten) local stations are a 'depends'. Local station news departments are a feeder network for network news, with the stations owned by over-the-air networks being a richer source because of the exposure to national audiences through on-network-air when called on to provide national coverage for localized stories: experience counts.


 * Of course, events may move some television correspondent and anchor classes not mentioned into Wikipedia notability. I've tried to avoid specific examples as best I can, in the interest of neutrality. But for the example given by CM: no, come back in five years.


 * For other types of journalists, face recognition is less, as is the money—perhaps in recompense, deciding Wikipedia notability is easier to decide. — Neonorange (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Do yo mean these are factors to be taken into account, or do you mean meeting any of these is enough  (as in the WP:PROF analogy) and thus mean to include all foreign correspondents?  DGG ( talk ) 13:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I only consider notability for US television journalists; I don't have knowledge of that field in other countries.


 * I looked through WP:Notability (people) and could not find a good fit there for television journalist. Better guidance is necessary, I think. At the network level, this is an extremely competitive field, with individual work product appearing on a cycle as short as one day. There is constant reviewing and critique of every broadcast(inside a network), with comparison to coverage from other sources, from print to directly competing television networks (along with informal internal peer review). There is an important difference between network and local (for journalists); for local, there are five slots for each story—for network, five stories for each slot. Which leads to "publish or perish".
 * To directly answer your question: at the network level, either (2) The specific job held in specific programs (anchor and managing editor of the Evening News; a combined position in the case of CBS News), specifically named positions (Chief White House Correspondent, for example, or (3) Named correspondents with the most prestigious television news shows, length of service at the network level. If nothing else, a correspondent for one of the top network news divisions—three over-the-air news networks likely have fewer than 300 correspondents in total. There may be a distinction in general title at the network level—entry into that level as a reporter, with a negotiated contract (with agent) after three years or (4) Correspondents named as foreign correspondents) is sufficient. Note: I would also suggest considering time in current and prior positions.


 * Big market local television? A more difficult question; more likely to get independent print or digital coverage; less likely to be notable. For this sector and below, significant major national awards may tilt the balance.


 * To speculate about the hard data of citations for academic publishing, consider a network television story published, and not retracted as some sort of vetting. Academic criteria are hardly applicable, considering the vastly shorter 'publication' cycle of television journalism, and the different skill sets involved. Of course television journalism and academic publishing meet entirely different societal needs, and ought to each be evaluated on this differing basis. But I ramble.


 * I will compare the list of television journalists with Wikipedia articles against those who I judge to meet the criteria I scribbled above if you think this would be useful. — Neonorange (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much ! I just got off the phone with her friend and explained both my perspective on in-adequate sourcing and the more thorough requirements you have outlined above. This type of work is important, because in my role as a paid editor, I am often able to prevent disruptive editing before it happens through good consulting.


 * DGG, I disagree with your argument that academics should have special notability requirements because there is a structured hierarchy in job titles. The same is true in business, which has VPs, CEOs and heads of divisions, etc. We could easily create a similar criteria for business executives, whereby any CEO of a $1 billion+ business qualifies for an article, but we do not do so, because there is less enthusiasm for having those articles by our editor demographic and because it's OR for us to evaluate a person's significance ourselves, rather than defer to the existence of independent source material. CorporateM (Talk) 19:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * According to WP:ACADEMIC, more than the structured hierarchy of job titles is involved, . Citation metrics is also an important tool for assessing notability of acedemics. The general principle is that a professor is considered notable if their published academic research work is widely cited by other researchers. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to "should" as oppose to what is current consensus, acknowledging that my viewpoint is not the accepted standard. Most editors contribute in a manner that reflects their personal POV; the difference between a POV pusher and a regular editor is whether their POV is reasonable and supported by strong sources. This is often the nature of COI, that such editors tend to have unreasonable viewpoints that are not supported by strong sources and they are therefore much more likely to be POV pushers.
 * In my view - some of the worst POV pushing comes from POVs that are supported by the majority of our editor demographic and are therefor not seen as POV pushing at all. So, for example, most of our editors would support very low standards of notability for topics they have an interest in, while exerting much higher standards for topics they don't personally feel are significant.


 * had an excellent example of this, regarding 100+ articles on Linux, while the queen's dress was not deemed notable, despite having an overwhelming body of literature. Another example - one day I sent a good dozen articles to AfD. Most of the company pages were deleted, but the most promotional of them was on an unknown open-source project, which had a landslide KEEP. Editors actually argued that the article can't be promotional, because it's not a commercial product, but it was the most promotional off all of them.


 * Sorry if I'm going on a tangental rant. CorporateM (Talk) 20:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider all human activity as information processing, and Wikipedia is a free market of ideas. In the Wikipedia ecology the only scarcities are good sources and good editors—article space is effectively unlimited and the pool of potential editors is effectively so. Unlike television news productions, there is an unlimited number of slots for what seems an unlimited number of sources.


 * For biographical articles, perhaps a rule of thumb could be—if the article helps the subject's career, it's too soon. The academic criteria are satisfying to me because, failing all else, they have a strong statistical base in citations; Wikipedia, without an editorial control function can hardly do better. And the same for professional athletes in the top-most leagues or competitions. Criteria for business executives are less satisfying because there are few hard data points; those that exist are open to interpretation. Possible criteria for television journalists end up in the middle; lots of published work, but little critique.


 * In a more direct response to CM, I believe pushing certain categories of articles is not POV, it's enthusiasm, and not destructive. There's no competition with other categories. On the other hand, that enthusiasm may result in low overall quality of a category—in some cases that might not be all bad.


 * And, it turns out, at CBS News, all the present correspondents are blue linked, along with a large number of past correspondents. So I will not need to cross check. — Neonorange (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Take another example that was on a historical society and written almost entirely out of primary sources, press releases and promotional brochures for tourists. As it happened, all their artifacts were sponsored by selling "meat juice" as a "health tonic" centuries ago. I can only imagine how much sickness and false health claims paid for the exhibit's artwork. But since we didn't have any legitimate RS', and editors wanted an article to exist on a subject they are enthusiastic about, we mostly ended up being a mirror for the org's own promotion. A company article in the same circumstance would never stand.

The point of comparing two categories of articles isn't that they compete, but to show how rather than mitigate the community's biases, we have embraced and even codified them into our policies. Creating articles on subjects that don't have strong sourcing leads to using weaker sources, which always leads to NPOV problems. We should insist on stronger sourcing everywhere, as its our best defense against POV pushers, even when those POV pushers are ourselves. CorporateM (Talk) 00:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * CM: Is it fair to say that you dearly wish for specific Wikipedia policies or guides to point out whenever advising clients or colleagues who don't want to hear no—when they see thatweakly sourced and promotional articles exist? When speaking of bias, I think lack of coverage is a bigger problem than poorly sourced coverage Wikipedia is without a pervasive editorial policy embodied as a group of editors educated to the importance of proper sources, and trained in the tools to find those sources. I edit the articles I think are broadly important—and tend to avoid articles I think less worthwhile. Rather than more policies, I'd dearly love to have more resources for research, and see examples of good research given special prominence—Main Page II, with discussions of good articles, and how they got that way. — Neonorange (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I intended to advocate for fewer policies, not more; a prior discussion on Jimbo's talk page showed quite a bit of support for consolidating on a single notability criteria that merely says we need credible, independent RS' to be the primary basis of the article (per our sourcing policies). If those independent RS' do not exist, I consider it a major problem to create articles based only on primary sources, rather than delete the page as being unsourceable. As you say, we have unlimited space, so I don't see why the significance of a topic should be considered, or especially why as Wikipedians we should be evaluating a subject's significance ourselves. Analyzing an academic's citation count, rather than deferring to the judgement of the sources, is just OR and feels wrong. We should only be evaluating notability in the context of the strength of the sources.


 * Regarding ranked articles, most editors agree they are almost always produced as a result of a single editor's focused efforts. I'm not sure what you meant with your question about "other stuff exists". Naturally I do have a sometimes frustrating job of explaining to companies why they shouldn't have the same promotional article their competitor has. Recently a few people within on of my client orgs were upset their competitors had dedicated "Award" sections, which I refused to create on their page; at least one of those dedicated "Awards" section was created by a paid editor that alleges to be ethical. But people and companies always look at other articles about people and companies, not at open-source, military history, academics, etc.  CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * there seems to be a lot to respond to here:


 * 1. I am not arguing that "academics should have special notability requirements  because there are fixed job titles". I am saying that it is easier and less ambiguous to apply hierarchical standards of notability where there is a fixed and generally hierarchy, as there is here.  There are many such I've seen used in WP; judges of various courts,  executives of companies, competitions, football leagues,   church leaders,   historical buildings,   US roads,   -- and probably many more I have never happened to encounter.


 * 2. My basic idea is that we should judge more by objective standards   than the GNG.  I think "notability" is   importance . I think we should do several successive things:
 * a. Develop objective standards for all the classes of articles, and call it "importance". Where there is disagreement on the standard, as there will be in many cases, resolve it by compromise. (I prefer the concept of compromise to consensus, which can mean almost anything.)
 * b. User the presence of reliable sources in a more defined way only as a backup for those things unimportant but where there is great public interest
 * c. define this public interest criterion much more strictly, as substantial national coverage by general interest reliable widely used sources--which is possible because it will be used only as an exception.
 * d. Remove the entire concept of "presumptive notability" Replace it by "objective importance in the real world"


 * I reject utterly the idea that we need fewer policies for notability: trying to use the same policy for everything gives wildly disproportionate coverage if taken literally. What we need is more defined policies, so we need fewer quibbles and exceptions. The goal of the standard should be to permit unambiguous and consistent decisions. The idea is to argue less about bad content, so as to be able to write more good content.


 * 3. However, I do agree with  that we need to concentrate much more on content. The depth of coverage should be proportionate to the degree of importance, provided always that sufficient reliable sources exist for verification. Personally, I suggest "amous" as the criterion for includign extensive details.  For awards, we need lists of those  are worth including  (which will be a lower level than those proving importance, but still of some substantiality.)


 * 4. In dealing with the argument that articles of the level desired already exist, I generally word it: "There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or  remove.  The least we can do is not add to them. Do you want your organization to be a good example, or just another bad example?"

Please comment on Talk:Ask.com
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ask.com. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Conservbrarian
Appears to be a spam account creating promotional plugs for various companies. Thought you might have an interest in it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagged, and will look at it further. Articles like this always produce the dilemma whether to rewrite or to remove. Two years ago, I almost always opted to remove  is possible, but now I'm a little more cynical and a good deal less patient.   DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment
I pinged you at the arbcom case as I have never stated that Ubikwit was being treated more favorably than myself, which is what you stated. In fact, I've been defending him in my comments. Can you show me where I stated that Ubikwit was being treated more favorably?--MONGO 19:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't comment on an ongoing case here. I will revisit the PD discussion page later tonight or tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was on break, and I'll return to it now, but I'll pop back to say this. DGG, getting on the committee has gone to your head. MONGO is, or was, one of our very best content contributors. What have you done for this site, that gives you the right to give him the high-and-mighty arb brushoff and continue to ignore his question at the arb page? And where's your sense of priorities? I see what you spent the intervening time on. "The need of WP to continually attract new editors", forsooth. Seasoned editors not so important, eh? (PS, I see you've "replied" to MONGO at the arb page just now, without answering his question or withdrawing your claim. Too little too late. Worthless.) Bishonen &#124; talk 07:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC).


 * Echoing what Bishonen said: DGG just answer the question. You made a claim about about what MONGO "thinks" without substantiation. Either provide a diff or strike the statement.- MrX 12:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not going to discuss an ongoing arb com case on my talk p; I will take another look at the PD talk page to see if I should comment further there. I did not join arb com to judge individuals, but to help resolve problems. There's a difference.  DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I shall make a further comment, but I want to re-read the entire material first, soin order to make sure I am doing it accurately.  DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

(Urgent) Request for Comment - Sock Puppet Investigation Into Contribsx
Hey there David. I am a UK based blogger who is covering the arbitration about the Contribsx account.

As you know, in that case a CheckUser, Richard Symonds claimed publicly that Contribsx was a sock of a living UK politician or someone acting under the direction of said politician. The ArbCom investigation has proposed findings of fact that there was never any evidence that proved that assertion and it should not have been made. You yourself have voted for them. It is generally a truism that the burden of proof in any allegation of misconduct falls on the accuser.

Please understand that this is a front page story in the United Kingdom, and that the conduct of everyone and anyone involved may be scrutinised by the media. With that in mind, I would like you to comment on the following statement you posted as a comment under one of the principles -


 * "It is, similarly, unable to provide definitive information that a person is not operating an account. The most it can demonstrate is "very likely" or "very unlikely". Statements that it has exonerated any individual are therefore not correct either. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)"

You will appreciate that whilst it is facially a neutral comment it could be interpreted ambiguously and I wonder if you wanted to expand on it or clarify - especially bearing in mind that the arbitration concerned arises from incautious comments by Mr Symonds. I appreciate that the page is a proposed / draft and consequently if it is amended or removed before voting closes I will report on the amended version (or not, if deleted). Vordrak 22:43, 07 June 2015 (GMT).


 * I have replied on PDtalk.  DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Do you mean the proposed decision talk page? I went and checked and could not see your reply or any edit from you in the history. Apologies if I misunderstood as I am new to wiki editing. Vordrak (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's there now. I took a few minutes to re-read your previous blog posting before I actually pressed send.  DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

followup on AfD participation comment
Hi DGG, I do appreciate your responding to my comment. My comment itself probably was misplaced, being in an AfD itself, but IIRC i was actually wondering if you would see the comment. I really had been wondering if you received the feedback of the AfD discussion; your reply suggests yes. So thanks. -- do ncr  am  05:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Skintern prod
OMG, Dave ... et tu? Well at least it was a prod ... I suppose you knew I'd probably add more sources later when I came back (I had an errand to run that took me across state lines). And indeed someone else went and added exactly the same sources ... it was uncanny. Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised there was so much, but I agree I should have checked for myself.  DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. You were just doing your job (so to speak). Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm L. McCallum
Dear David, I'm curious to see what you think of the references to altmetrics.com in this article... --Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * commented there.  DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

EQ Technologic speedy deletion
Sir, I believe the article EQ technologic is not a spam or ambiguous advertisement. The article has significance importance as Information Technology company in Pune. I have tried to provide number of references to maintain the authenticity of the article. This article will help People in Pune, India and world wild who wish to seek the information about the company. It will be boon for the Information Technology Professional who wish to seek the information about IT companies in Pune, India. So I kindly request you to let the article remain on Wikipedia. mean while I will definitely try to improve the quality and information of the article so that it meets the standard of the Wikipedia. Thanking you in anticipation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihar.suryawanshi (talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory, and we do not make articles on all companies regardless of their current importance, in Pune or anywhere else. The company has to do more than just exist; it has to be notable according to the standards of WP:CORP; there need to be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. If, and only if, you have them, try creating the article by using the WP:Article wizard. Three separate admins have already deleted it, and I have consequently protected against direct re-creation. And I don't know whether it applies, but also I call your attention to WP:COI.  DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

well if your are talking about third party independent sources, i think ISO is a third party source. plus The ministry of corporate affairs is also a reliable independent and popular source. I dont know on what basis you have deleted the page and how can you make out whether a page has an importance or not since you belong from other region. I feel you are jobless and you just want to hamper people from creating articles. and I think your basics are not clear about Wikipedia, i understand its not a directory but at the same time Wikipedia is a source of information. no matter weather the information be as small as pin or as huge as Plane.


 * The Ministry of corporate affair is a reasonably reliable source for the information in an article, but that it lists something in a directory does not show that it's notable, just that it exists. My activities on Wikipedia for many years has been trying to rescue as many articles as possible, but not everything can be rescued. I will take another look and see if there is anything I can suggest. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 17:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Arlan Huang recreated
I'm about to head off to bed and so don't have time to read through this and determine if it should be put up for speedy deletion again, but I thought you'd like to know that Arlan Huang, which you deleted, was recreated by the same user. Do with that info what you will; if it's still there in the morning, I'll take a look at it. Thanks!

BU Rob13 (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * improved substantially.  DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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


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

Marion Rice Denishawn
Hi! I'm curious about your contesting of this PROD. As your edit summary suggested I do, I already checked for more sources prior to PRODing the article and came up lacking anything beyond trivial that could be construed as being in-depth coverage. My personal policy is never to PROD anything without going through the exact same steps I would take before listing it at AFD. I was wondering, since you contested the PROD, if you perhaps found something I didn't? Thanks for your time, Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. glad you are doing it right, because so many people don't.
 * The article as it stands is subsidiary to  the extensive article on its founder, Marion Rice, and in turn dependent on the articles on the Denishawn school of dance and  its very famous founders Ruth Saint Denis and Ted Shawn. Since Marion Rice Denishawn is not a name of a person, but a dance company made up of the three personal names, it is likely to be rather confusing to search for it. This of course does not necessarily mean this revival company is anywhere near as notable, but there seem to be 3 substantial reviews in major publications, & I am prepared to defend notability on that account. But at the least, the article needs some more historical information on the company itself, and a check for other performances. (and in any case I think we'd at least merge it with the article on Marion Rice.) I hope to look for some more at NYPL Performing Arts next week.      DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ota Fine Arts
Hi DGG, I am writing in regards to the page of Ota Fine Arts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Fine_Arts) which was deleted by you. Could you advise on details and how we can improve the text for approval. Also can you send us the latest copy of the text before it was deleted, so we can work on it. Email: jodi@otafinearts.com Thank you very much, your help will be greatly appreciated. Jodi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.158.205 (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Insect Science (United States) and Journal of Insect Science
Hi, we have two articles on two journals with identical names: Journal of Insect Science (United States) and Journal of Insect Science. The former is actually the more important one, although the latter is older. I find the dab "United States" not too well chosen: although it is the official journal of a US society, it is published by OUP and they present themselves as "an international journal". Do you have any suggestions on how to rename these journals, or should we just leave them as is? --Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The official titles according to all cataloging rules are Journal of Insect Science (Tucson, Ariz.) and Journal of Insect Science for the Indian one because the first one to be published gets the primary title. Cataloging rules follow logic, not usefulness. Where the sponsoring society is located is much more important than who the publisher is, WP naming policy however requires the most looked for at the primary title, which can in this case only be done by violating the disambiguation rules, and using  Journal of Insect Science (United States) and Journal of Insect Science (India), with Journal of Information Science being a disambiguation page only. The only logical alternative is Journal of Insect Science (Entomological Society of America) and Journal of Insect Science (Indian Society for the Advancement of Insect Science), again with Journal of Insect Science being a disambiguation page only. Someone is sure to object, and the best answer  is IAR. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these thoughts, but I'm not quite sure what you recommend as the best course to follow. Adding the society names as dab to both titles and create a dab page for Journal of Insect Science? Or just leave everything as it is (with the hatnotes, people won't have problems to find the info they are looking for). --Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * best is adding society names for both and creating a dab page (but indicate on that page that its a delibrate IAR choice, and add it to the watchlist). It's the most useful way,  tho it is technically IAR. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply  here 17:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for the advice, this indeed looks like the best solution. --Randykitty (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Advert banner on Assurant
Hey DGG, could you help me review the advert banner on Assurant? It's been there for 4 years now, and the article seems like it's been improved on that front since then. Given my COI, I'd love an opinion on whether or not it meets NPOV standards, and if not, what can be done to fix it. --FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) I'm doing some further work on it.  DGG ( talk ) 12:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the edits DGG. If you have a minute, could you explain your thought process behind removing the content that you did? I'm trying to gain a better grasp of what does and doesn't make for a good article. Also, I'm interested in updating the Operations section with the recent news that Assurant Employee Benefits and Assurant Health are up for sale. Could you review what I have here? Thanks again!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the basic concept is that WP is written for the readers. It does not contain not the material an organization wishes people to know about it, or the information a prospective customer or client or investor might want, or the internal affairs an employee or regulator might want. The place for all these is on the organization's website, annual report, and other self0written publicity.  Rather, it contains the information that a general reader might want to know about the organization.  The name of the ceo is important general information; the names of other executives & the board of directors is not, except for the largest and most famous companies. (as your comment on the talk page notes, it changes frequently, which is yet another reason for not including it) The list of contributions to local charities is just good-will and PR, not encyclopedic information, though  information about the sponsorship of major professional sports teams and the like might be of general interest. I removed both of those sections, as I always do. A list of lines of business is general information; details about specific products are not, except for the most famous products (the list here is in somewhat excessive detail--it might be summarized well enough by saying the various division offer all the usual insurance products, but I did not reduce it.  . On the other hand, we do include the corporate history, because without this it's not possible to make sense of what the organization actually is. We do include major public controversies and court cases of public interest, but not in excessive detail, nor do we include routine consumer complaints. I kept that section, but removed  some details, such as the names of the plaintiffs. I also removed information from which one might conclude the judgment was compromised at $20 million instead of $37 million--what's given is primary information, and we don't make such deductions, but need specific statements.
 * Information that needs to be added is some information about the history of the company after the 2010 lawsuit. The proposed sale of one division of the company is not information. If it is sold, that would be.  DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed reply and explanation. Regarding the list of products offered, I can see your point. In the spirit of collaboration, how about we solicit the input of WP:Finance? Perhaps there are folks who have worked on other insurance Wikipedia articles and/or company pages. They might also be subject matter experts on other ways to distinguish and present the information. Thanks again for your time and feedback. Regarding the company's history post-2010, I'll look into relevant references.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey DGG, I wanted to circle back with you about your involvement on Assurant. I know you're quite busy, but I didn't want to leave you out of the loop moving forward in case you still had some outstanding thoughts on improving the article. Your time and opinion is always valued.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on 08:09:49, 16 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by BartJong
Please delete the page (again). I had hoped to be able to add more references by now, but it has turned out today that I was too optimistic.

BartJong (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. It can always be restored if you find additional material.  DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Jillian Haslam
I find it hard to believe that when you read the story of Jillian Haslam  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jillian_Haslam) you didn’t find her a notable person, she is adequately referenced. Someone who has a genuine story of growing up in the slums of Calcutta and then progressing through to a career in banking and now writing books on the subject and founding charities. It is not surprising that a film is being made about her life. This after all is the stuff of the movies and even international awards. Jillian is a unique person and deserves a Wikipedia page. Perhaps you don’t have the same sense of values. Nmwalsh (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right that I don't have the same sort of values, at least not in connection with what belongs in an encycopedia. Being a "unique person" does not  "deserve a Wikipedia page". And nobody however notable deserves a page full of the sort of puffery that is in that draft.  DGG ( talk ) 14:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Village Capital
Hi DGG, could you help me remove the advert flagged banner on the Village Capital page? It's been flagged for a while now, and the page seems like it's been improved. I'd love an opinion on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's standards, and if not, what I can do to fix this to remove the banner as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahlerbattle (talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * as a start, remove the adjectives of praise. the substitute ordinary english for jargon like "across", and decrease the amount of dupllciation. Then I will take another look. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Manohar Khushalani
Hi DGG !Why did you delete Manohar Khushalani's page. He is a very eminent person in his field of Theatrics Drama Plays etc and he is a Professor too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreya12100 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encycopedia, and does not publish CVs. The article was a full listing of e very detail of his career, includingh a list of all the courses he has taught, all the lectures he has even attended, all the groups of which hew is a member, and every project he was worked on. This is what one writes when wone is applying for a job. It's too promotional to be an encyclopedia article. Additionally, all the references appear to be to mere lists, showing he did hold the various positions. We would need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. If you can show this sort of material, either for his work as an actor or as an engineer, it might be possibleto write a proper article. But if you are the subject or represent the subject, do it using the WP:Article wizard.  DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Karen Horen
Hi, why did you delete the Karin Horen page? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaggityswag08 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Another editor listed it for deletion as having no indication of why she might possible be important from the standpoint of an  encycopedia, and I agreed, and therefore deleted it. I could equally well have deleted it as an advertisement, considering the sentence " She would love to do more public speaking and grow the charity work. More so to be able to engage with more people through building communities and making a difference. " The references are in my opinionPR,and are interested in her primarily as the spouse of a notable actor.  DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Aditya Birla Finance Limited
Hi, Curious to know the reason for deleting Aditya Birla Finance Ltd Page. You have redirected it to its Group Page i.e. Aditya Birla Financial Services Group. Here check this both the URLs: http://adityabirlafinance.com/Pages/Individual/Our-Solutions/Overview.aspx & http://abfsg.com/Pages/Home.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunalshahv (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC) . I've placed the relevant warning on your user talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As the article said, "Aditya Birla Finance is a part of Aditya Birla Financial Services Group". I considered the articles on ABF do be a mere advertisement, and recommended that it be deleted altogether. Another editor made the merge to prevent the deletion. I still think there is no need at all for even the redirect for this small division, but I'm willing to let that stand, and not start the necessary community discussion on whether it should instead be deleted. At the very most, I do not see any reason at all why we need articles on both. It might be useful to list in the main article the various divisions that make up the company.
 * I see you have also written articles on other divisions of the company. I will meed to take a look at them to see if they should be merged and redirected also. Since these firms are almost the only topic on which you have worked here, I assume that it is quite possible that you are in some way connected with the company. If so, I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organization as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use,  Section 4, "Paid contributions without disclosure.

Michael E. Hansen
Hello DGG, thank you for your work patrolling my Michael E. Hansen page - I notice you added a 'weasel words' tag, then removed those words. Shouldn't we remove the tag now too? Incidentally, those words were actually sourced in the references, but it might be simpler if we left them out. Thank you for your help once more. --Evenmadderjon (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, I meant to remove the tag; please do it .  DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)`

Magazines/journals
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately that may be of interest to you. --Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * commented there DGG (at NYPL) -- reply  here 16:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Unclear
Hi DGG. Your comment, and your comment heading, seemed at odds in the category deletion discussion here, so I wonder whether you may perhaps wish to clarify in that discussion. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * clarified there
 * DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 16:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Medical device promotion
Could you take a look at Articles for deletion/Lady-Comp and tell me if you think a note to WMF Legal is in order? Seems to me someone is violating something FDA has already written a lawyer letter about. — Brianhe (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is hard to tell what Legal will choose to get involved in but my guess is that they will not want to be involved in one  instance like this. Possibly the FDA might be the more interested. After all, the WMF does not and cannot not take responsibility for the accuracy of the information in WP.  What I do know is that  is our 0own responsibility to  remove the promotion. Whether this means writing an accurate article, or removing it entirely, is our own decision, and AfD is an appropriate place for that.  DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for Assistance
User:DGG, I'm in need of your assistance. Hopefully, you can be impartial and see through all that has been happening here. There is a WP article entitled Az-Zakariyya that I tried to make revisions to, by adding the current Israeli data about the village (now a Jewish Moshav, but formerly an Arab village). The author of that article (an Arab) disagreed that I add any current status about the village (such as current population stats, photographs, etc.) and so I desisted from doing so. See history of page. Since there was a second article written about the same Moshav (namely, Zekharia, this time written by a Jew but much shorter in scope), I decided to work on his article and to bring it up to par by enhancing it and carrying over some of the information found in the other article, but improving it and deleting derogatory statements about Israel. Now, the same (Arab) editor is deleting my edits on Zekharia. I have brought this matter to your attention since you are an administrator. If you wish to know the complete matter and what has so far transpired between me and the other editor, you may wish to see the Talk page on Az-Zakariyya, under the section: "Merge." I would hope that you can help solve our dispute, but more importantly, that the editor in question does not continue to disrupt by vandalism my editing, just as I would not disrupt another person's editing.Davidbena (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the normal practice is that  there will be two articles,since there is no institutional continuity (just as there is a separate article for New Amsterdam. Otherwise, I' m not sure what the problem is.  DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you that there should be two separate articles. If you haven't yet cast your vote on the Az-Zakariyya Talk-page, under the section, "Merge," then you are cordially invited to do so. Thanks for your reply, and "shavua tov"!---Davidbena (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, A REMINDER: I would appreciate it if you could cast your vote on the Talk Page of Az-Zakariyya, section: "Merge," and say that you are for retaining both articles.Davidbena (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Copy and pasting
We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please send permission for release under a CC BY SA license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org per WP:CONSENT. I think you would enjoy watching these copyvio problems and responding accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas559 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * DGG, the bot flagged https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ground-penetrating_radar&diff=667195529&oldid=667195195 I didn't deem it a copyvio, hence I only made you aware of the User:EranBot/Copyright/rc project and not a particular issue. But point taken.--Lucas559 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

== Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies ==

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

Hey
Sorry, I meant to ping you with my reply at VPPR. The study found no disadvantages; I'm not sure where the idea started that it is slightly worse. Having both editors available was (very) slightly positive for editors in the study. Also: try it out! It's much faster and more capable than it was back in the day, and the automatic citation filler does a great job with some very common sources, including URLs to books.google, The New York Times, and PubMed. I'd love having your personal reaction (post to my talk page or WP:VEF if you want). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "editors with VE enabled spent substantially longer to save their edits (t = -4.9083, p-value < 0.001). VE enabled newcomers took ~ 18 seconds longer to save their edits on average than users in the control." Perhaps you regard this as a positive result. Halfak attributes this to people experimenting, but I don't see why new editors would experiment more in one system than the other. It might possibly mean they have greater confidence that what they are doing is right, as they may rarely use the preview function. The confidence may or may not be misplaced.
 * I'm not sure that block rate is a measure of quality of text editing--blocks of new editors are usually caused by the type of material they choose to add, not technical errors. Ditto for reverts. Number of characters successfully added during an editing session might be one possible measure.
 * As someone who has been instructing newcomers for many years, I had hoped for greater positive effects than the very slightly marginal ones shown in the study. I've been putting off teaching some potential groups of users from year to year, hoping for such improvements. But increasingly over the years, new editors in training sessions have little difficulty with the wikitext editor, an observation which I do not understand. it may in part result from the increased emphasis in teaching by asking people first to edit existing articles (where they have a wikitext example to follow); it may partly be due to the improved add-ons for inserting references in wikitext.
 * I have VE enabled. I  know when to use it in preference, or at least where i expect it to make no difference. Much of what I do is adding references to less common sources, sometimes with custom or tricky formatting.  If both are enabled for a new editor, would they know that or would they get confused.?  DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Block and revert rates are a good thing to measure for the handful of people who have claimed in the past that VisualEditor will somehow increase the rate of vandalism, or (in a more AGF-compliant variant) that Parsoid causes so much page corruption that good-faith edits have to be reverted because nobody can preserve them. Nobody's ever seen any evidence of VisualEditor inducing vandalism, and the Parsoid team just announced that their error-free roundtripping rate is running at ≥99.95% (on a live sample, included pages with broken wikitext), but I'm glad that they decided to check anyway.
 * There seems to be a plan forming to evaluate edits for quality, but it requires a lot of hand-coding of edits, so I'm not sure how long it will take.
 * In terms of the slightly longer time spent inside the editor (the time spent editing total was the same), I explain the 18-second average increase in time partly due to VisualEditor having more things to experiment with. For example, image editing:  you've got one button in the wikitext editor.  Click it, paste in the file name, add a caption, decide whether the size should be changed, and you're done.  In VisualEditor, you can search for images, read descriptions, add alt text, and try several different formatting styles.  That obviously takes a bit longer than looking at three blanks, and it can all be done from inside VisualEditor.  But it (the extra 18 seconds per edit) could also be explained by people doing more in VisualEditor.
 * By the way, have you talked to other people leading Wikipedia workshops about your impressions? I hear from the WMF teams involved in that kind of work that "New editors hate wikitext" is either the #1 or #2 most common complaint, and that workshops based on VisualEditor, which are happening in the non-English-speaking parts of the world, are going really well.  I don't think I've heard anyone say that the complaints about wikitext have been going down.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Response to afd
I left a response to your nomination with a few links of additional coverage. I think that right now people are obsessing over the Coke can incident which by itself doesn't pass notability. When you take all the sums and add it up she is notable though. She has had coverage in multiple outlets for at least the last 4 years. She has been featured on New Hampshire public tv and on PBS with issues of faith. I had to do a fair bit of searching with filters prior to 05/2015 to find it..the coke can incident had a lot more coverage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * we'll see what others think. I've been getting increasingly skeptical about"First ___ to do something" as a criterion of notability except for truly historical contexts, and I;ve always been dubious about notability based on "Frequently appeared in ____."  DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok so we've had a couple other comments but I am really interested in your opinion about the coverage and articles I linked to on the talkpage. I want to understand what you think is inadequate in my interp so I can adjust my approach going forward. I try to write about things I "know" will be kept so I'm trying to see just how much I "know". Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Could you do a favour for someone?
See User_talk:Dodger67. I'm trying to persuade Dodger to have another crack at RfA. We all know it's a horrible process at the best of times and Dodger67 didn't have the best of times. I thought that if you could possibly support a renom it might encourage them. No pressure, obviously, but please do chip in over there. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a look
 * I can't ask for more than that. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

, I've looked at his record and I think he is ready and would like to co-nominate--especially considering my role in the RfA1. I will comment there. The noms need to be synchronized, so email me when ready. I'll write my statement in the meanwhile.  DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is splendid. I'll draft something, email it to you and you can post it when ready? --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Qualitas Career Academy page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=668487301 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F668487301%7CQualitas Career Academy%5D%5D Ask for help])

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


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

Speedy on Portea Medical
I removed the speedy tag because I didn't think it was eligible for speedy deletion since it asserted some notability. I did not take note of which speedy tag you used. The article was fairly short, so any problems with it seemed fixable. That being said, I only did a cursory glance at the article, so it may still fail the notability guidelines if you take it to AfD. Cheers ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 04:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * {U|Editorofthewiki}}, my tag was G11. There are reasons for speedy other than the assertion of importance, and  short articles can be advertisements.  Immediately upon seeing your decline,  I of course took it AfD on both grounds.  It has already been speedy deleted there as G12, which I should have checked also.  DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

'Creeping Promotionalism'
You wrote: "I think I managed to deal with the Miranda Esmonde-White article sufficiently to avoid deletion"
 * - Thank you. MaynardClark (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

July 8: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cem Ersoy
Hi DGG. Although this appears to be a notable professor, and he is cited a lot, I am having trouble finding much written about him. Maybe you can do better. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

You rightly owe someone a private thanks, or some form of acknowledgement for their work. Or are you only the whip? :) -- Green  C  13:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are apparently referring to my comment at Articles for deletion/Canine Companions for Independence (2nd nomination)
 * if you mean others have used this wording before me, that's very possible, but I've been using it for many years, and I'm not consciously copying anyone.
 * If you mean it's not a valid reason:
 * WP:CSD is limited to the reasons specified; any reason the community accepts is good at AfD. See WP:Deletion policy], point 14." Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"
 * It is obviously a good reason for AfD, since it can even justify speedy G11; it's a restatement of "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." from WP:CSD#G11.  Similarly the essay WP:TNT has been used repeatedly by others as an argument for many deletions.  Whether any particular article in question is actually that bad, is of course subject to a community decision: at AfD if at AfD, at Deletion Review if it was done at speedy. In this case, it is indeed possible that the decision may be against my proposal.
 * a related deletion rationale I often give is  that "an article that is only  borderline notable and is also  promotional should be deleted  ." That only works at AfD, and only if the consensus agrees with it.
 * WP:CSD is limited to the reasons specified; any reason the community accepts is good at AfD. See WP:Deletion policy], point 14." Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"  DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thomas Piketty
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thomas Piketty. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)