User talk:DGG/Archive 113 Jun. 2016

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft:Prince Sayid Mohammad Al-Shahrazad
 * Draft:Virtium Memory and Storage Solutions

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Faanya Rose - Recent Edits
Hello!
 * Every Faanya has been exchanged for Rose. If you will search the world you will see that she is the only Faanya in it.  Since her surname changes from Arch to Goldin to Rose, and could perhaps change again, Faanya is unique and the name for her throughout the article can be Faanya.  In life she is Faanya as Cher is Cher.
 * Recommend Timeline is kept - helpful to position this subject in time easily
 * The achievements/successes of family are germane to this biography. Faanya is a person who was integral to the successes to others. She has little college or what would be considered today apprenticeships or mentorships except in the relationships to these men. On another page was said that this material should be on a personal website. There is none and never will their be one. When she dies these facts die with her.  Until research is complete for standalone articles for the men (I am working on this) can they not remain here?  Perhaps in footnotes?
 * Example - Poswohl and Judaism are key to Jonathan Sacks appointment to Jewish ethics in Britain
 * Example - Robert Rose exploration history key to Faanya exploration history later in her life

Thanks for your consideration. Lynda Roy (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am still working on this--I normally work on fixing an article over several days.
 * Great comments - my responses follow.

1. We refer to everybody except popular entertainers by their last name. Using a first name alone is not appropriate to formal writing and, especially for a woman, gives me a feeling of disrespect and condescension. I agree that in this particular case, where the name is that of her second husband, using it in the earlier parts of her biography can seem confusing. I know I need to find a better solution. I'm thinking of using just "she" more often, with a few uses of her full name. This is similar to what we usually do when there are several people of the same last name to be discussed in an article.
 * I wrestled with this quite a bit because standard practice is surname. However, when I asked people to review my article before I even attempted to post on Wikipedia reviewers said they preferred just Faanya.  Reviewers did not know Faanya personally.  But I do get this.

2. This is an encyclopedia, and we write as compactly as possible. Saying things once is sufficient & appropriate. The article as presented said many things three tines over: the initial biography sketch, the sections on the various periods of her life, and the timeline. I don't have the right balance yet between the first two, but the timeline is absolutely inappropriate. I cannot easily think of a biography of any individual, no matter how famous or complicated, where it would be appropriate. It is sometimes useful as a summary of complicate historical events. We use it very occasionally for the history of organizations, where there are complicated mergers and other changes--but even here, usually an attempt to include it is an attempt to say things twice, which is a technique of promotional writing, or of advocacy. When we do need to use that style for organizations, we remove most of the descriptive paragraphs sayibg the same thing.
 * Noted. I looked at Timelines inside and outside Wikipedia and chose this Template:Timeline of Einar Jolin's life. People do and don't read the entirety of articles online - research shows a higher give up rate for longer articles.  Having a graphical depiction of the milestones of a life is an approach for cultivating attention.
 * Thinking about promotional writing, I can see where a timeline can do this, but I also see where visual information is easily welcome to readers. I'd like to retain this timeline. Lynda Roy (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

3.In your comment at the AfD, you said "Keep. A Milestone for Women ". This seems to indicate a promotional intent, which is out of place in an encyclopedia
 * I appreciate this observation. Not promotional really, but an understanding that different audiences view notability differently (see last bullet).

4. The accomplishments of family may be in some sense germane, but saying so is original research, and not appropriate here, unless there are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements independent sources, normally sources as responsible and objective as formal academic biographies, that do discuss them. We do mention the probably notable relations to provide links, but we just mention them.
 * Noted.

5. We don't write an article in footnotes. We only use them as a way to provide references, and excerpts showing the exact wording, and absolutely necessary information about the reliability of a source or other account. Most of the existing footnotes that are more than references need to be removed or integrated. I was saving that for tomorrow.
 * Noted.
 * I have been looking at footnotes in general on Wikipedia, and I see often supporting information delivered in footnotes that doesn't so much tell the story, but enriches the telling. I adopted this approach after reading Bill Schwarz, Memories of Empire, where the footnotes clearly enrich the main story told in the text. Please know that I understand your point. My motivation was cultivating attention. Lynda Roy (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See footnotes of Hillary Clinton (and please know this is not to compare the two biographies, just the style of the footnotes.) Lynda Roy (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

6. If you think that any of her relations are independently notable, start articles on them in draft space (not article space). You'll have at least six months to work on them. You can copy over what text you need from the versions in the article history, but indicate in the edit summary from where you moved. For an explanation, see WP:NOY INHERITED
 * They are. I will.

7. Had you written a briefer more focused article, it would probably not have been challenged at all. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism or overexpansive writing is an equally good reason. For an explanation of why this is important, see WP:EINSTEIN.
 * Noted. My observation is that quite a few shorter articles are poorer and fly under the radar, which seems to defeat the goals of Wikipedia. Yes, I could have gone for shorter, but this person is notable and I thought demanded the care, and consequently the length.

8. In summary, please remember that an encyclopedia article article is not intended  for those who know the subject. It is intended to provide the information someone in the general public might look for who has come across the  name. If you wish to write a full-scale biography, or use her as an example to discuss the general nature of the influences of women of her era, it should be published elsewhere. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Promotion or advocacy is an even better reason.  DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted. Please know that women's advocacy was/is not the intent of this article. Initial reasons given for deletion were notability. In considering why Faanya Rose would be notable it occurred to me that notability has shades, sometimes gender among them, which prompted the comment.  If promotion or advocacy was the interpretation, that was not intended.

DGG - That you took the time to respond is much appreciated! Lynda Roy (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

World War I songs
Thank you for interacting with the new editors that are working on the World War I songs, World War I era composers and lyricists, and related topics. This is one of the weaker topic areas for Wikipedia and your assistance in helping out is appreciated. If you'd like to see the list we are working from, please check out: GLAM/Pritzker TeriEmbrey (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm glad to see it's a fairly selective list, not, as I feared, a list of every song that was published. Based on my general experience with a variety of topics, the safest way to cover a field like this is not to go down a list alphabetically or at random, but start with the ones most likely to be notable. In general, I'd advise you to first do articles on the people before the songs--it's relatively easy to write and document a biography, especially if you can find an obit. And I'd really suggest using Draft space until you get enough references to be impressive.    DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Pinging correct spelling. Pam D  04:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Admin The Wordsmith's comments re: "...the ineptness of many current Arbs..." is certainly casting aspersions
Given the seriousness of this Rfc at User talk:The Wordsmith/GMORFC the ongoing threats to sanction participating editors seem to ring hollow in light of supervising admin The Wordsmith's astonishing comments regarding ArbCom members. The comment, which by any definition "casts aspersions," raises a number of questions that call for immediate answers, given the self-created deadline for comments.

The questions, which I hereby put directly to The Wordsmith, are as follows:


 * Exactly which ArbCom members are you referring to, when you describe them as "inept?"


 * In what way are these current community-elected ArbCom members, as you term them, "inept?"


 * Do you have diffs to support this sweeping claim, and can you produce them? If not, why not?


 * Since the thrust of this extraordinary Rfc seems to be to prevent "casting aspersions," in the Talk pages of GMO articles (as well as precedent-establishing proposed "locked in" multiple article wording regarding GMO safety) is this not exactly what you are doing in the past 24 hours towards members of the Arbitration Committee? Does this not disqualify you immediately from further participation?

To all concerned: I will post the above subsection on the Talk pages of current ArbCom members, per The Wordsmith's declaration, despite substantial objections, that they will be locking down the page a few hours from this posting, making further timely discussion on this page impossible. Jus da  fax   11:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , without making any comment on the actual questions at issue, I regard statements such as these as polite fair comment, well within the range of what is permitted by NPA, & all other relevant policies.  DGG ( talk ) 13:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Speaking strictly for myself, if I am described as "inept" I take it as an attack on my competence. I'm frankly at a loss to define the word as polite. In any case, the situation on that page is currently in flux, and I await further developments. Jus  da  fax   13:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * it's always curious how perceptions differ. To me, along this particular axis of insults,  inept < inadequate < incompetent < unwise < foolish <  dumb < moronic < stupid  ; though I know by experience some people consider foolish the strongest, I have never before encountered  inept in that position. Anyway, my view is that anything dealing just with myself does not particularly affect me; what I resent is ethnic insults and the like, because they insult not just oneself,  but the others in that group.
 * Looked at from another angle, I do not think there is anyone on arb com who is actually competent in dealing with the things we need to deal with, though there may be a few of my colleagues who think they are, and if they say so, I don't consider it helpful to challenge them about it. The intent of a panel is that as a group the individual prejudices and misperceptions cancel out.  I hope we all understand that anyone who gets upset by being insulted is not well suited to be an admin at WP, because if they deal with anything non-trivial they will be unable to keep their equanimity; this goes much the more so for arbs, whose role is to deal only with things that people are over-emotional about.  DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying, thank you for being an ArbCom member. I doubt I'll ever summon the courage, yes courage, to serve as an admin, much less an Arb, so there's that. A hero of mine just died, and life is short. Bless you, and yours, always. Jus  da  fax   05:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

COI article creation
Hallo David, Pluribus Networks (company) has been created, 2 years after Articles for deletion/Pluribus Networks. The author admits his COI but the article has quite a lot of reliable-looking sources. That editor has made no edits other than about this company, and is producing very well-crafted references etc, impressive for a new editor. I'm not sure what we do in this situation: please have a look. I thought I'd come here rather than throw them to the wolves of ANI. Thanks. Pam D  06:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Pam. I fixed the link to the AfD in your comment, hope you don't mind. My personal reaction is UGH! The only thing this startup is notable for is... er... raising startup money. The coverage is still basically press releases, warmed up press releases with a byline, PR-planted interviews, and a meaningless industry"award".  The title of the 2015 Forbes article says it all: "The billion-dollar club: 10 business software wannabes". I'd !vote "delete" at an AfD, but I suspect it might scrape a pass depending on who participates. Voceditenore (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I know I ought to preview everything, was in a bit of a hurry, and Windows10 on a new laptop often leaves my typing point not at the place I expect after I've pasted something in, hence the misplaced closing brackets. It's a pain! As for the article - yes, maybe another AfD is called for. Pam  D  12:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Two more points to note: the article is at the wrong title, but Pluribus Networks appears to have been salted after the 2nd AfD in June 2014. And has commented at the editor's talk page, saying "Nice job creating a tight, well-sourced, and neutral (at least on the face of it) article", which differs from your impression.  Pam  D  15:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Pam. I wonder if 's "(at least on the face of it)" applies to all three aspects or only its neutrality. But as I said, people will differ on what they consider adequate sources to establish notability. I don't think routine funding, staffing, and "partnership" announcements, + a PR-planted interview with the company's CFO qualify. The only in-depth source of the 10 references which have been added for a 76 word article is this one, and it's not about the company. It's about one of their products which may or may not prove a success. That kind of over-citation to essentially trivial sources is typical of these sorts of articles for start-ups which have yet to make a real mark. There are numerous tech sites which exist simply to recycle startup publicity. All those "references" show is that the company has an active PR department, and this WP article is, of course, part of that PR strategy. Voceditenore (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep it is a pretty marginal case. I just worked it over some.  It is a bad thing that they created it under the alternative name.  DGG/Voceditenore:, I can't see if it is the same as the as the the version that was AfDed; if so, would you let me know? ((WP:G4 is hard to do if you are not an admin).  If it is not the same, would you please move it to the proper name, and I will nominate it for deletion to see what folks think.   I will say that people use "startup"  in funny ways - this was spun out of Sun into a company with an experienced management team six years ago and has raised almost $100M and has products for sale; this is not a startup in any meaningful sense of the term.  Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have always considered one of the properly strictest editors with respect to keeping coi out of WP. But anyone can make an error: my own rate of error for articles like this is at least 5%, some in each direction (by errors I mean those I consider errors, not just those where the consensus decides otherwise. Anyone working with borderline articles will have a large number of instances where the consensus does not support them--the only way to avoid this is to work only with the obvious).  Thinking back to my own errors, I suspect most of them come from the environment--after reviewing a string of very bad articles, an merely moderately bad one can look good enough --- and vice versa, though its relatively rare for anyone reviewing NPP or AfC to encounter that situation.
 * As for this article: There was a single AfD, followed by a G4 for re-creation. The re-created article was improved a little: it omitted some of the worst references and removed some of the advertising copy and the technical details about the product, but the same basic objections applied and I consider it a good G4 . The new version is considerably better and briefer with respect to its contents; the references are not quite as bad. It's not a G4 candidate, but whether it will pass AfD is s uncertain, and can only be tested by listing it for an AfD discussion. AN/I ia not the place for questions such as this.  DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a reference. However, this main space contribution seems to become more promotional as I read further along in the text. I think this contribution should be more along the lines of the reference that I added ---> here< (and check the edit history). The first parts of the reference that I read seem to be independent reporting. Of course I don't know how "Business Insider" (online) rates as a reliable source on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. I would like to AfD it to see if it stays or goes.  I can't make it any better than it is now and I am not sure it should live.   I would like to do the AfD under the Pluribus Networks name but it is salted.  Would an admin among you please move it so I can AfD it?  thx Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with AfD for this article. Why not AfD under its current title since the other title seems to be clearly resolved? With respect, I don't understand the need to AfD under the previous title. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So that the whole AfD1 and AfD2 thing works like it should and are both there in case we do delete it and someone wants to create it yet again. Jytdog 15:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * DGG and User:Voceditenore neither of you think it should be moved/are willing to move it? If not I will do the AfD where it stands.  Just let me know. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to forget to do this, so I will just go ahead and do it now and manually link the other page.Jytdog (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * done: Articles for deletion/Pluribus Networks (company) Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Tap into your library experience
Hi, David - if I may please tap into your library experiences...not sure if my question falls within your area of expertise, but thought I'd give it a shot anyway. Re: historical collections of notable families - images, documents, etc. - and what such a collection would be worth to a library, if anything. I see where several "collections" have been sold to various libraries but how is that value procured? Atsme 📞📧 23:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See our article Archival appraisal, and then the book by Boles in that article's "further reading "  DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

retrieve delete material HVR Software
Hi DGG, I see my first article is deleted. is it possible te put it back in my sandbox for practice and hopefully a second change? Volgens (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Volgens

Recent Edits - Faanya Rose
David, thanks much. Very instructive. Makes me a much better contributor in the future. Lynda Roy (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have some more to go--unless you'd rather have a try at shortening or removing some of the footnotes yourself. I paused last night partly to find out your reaction.  DGG ( talk ) 13:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * My reaction is I am being mentored by the best. Keep going.  I am watching.  Lynda Roy (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

About Draft:Komal Jha
Hello There ! Hope my note finds you in good time. I was contributing the aforementioned article and provided the sufficient references to support the subject. I am interested to know what needs to be done now to get it to main space. FYI, I created this draft after consulting an admin User:JimFBleake. And yes, it meets the WP:BASIC criteria and another admin says that criteria is lenient. I am confused by this as the definition of WP:BASIC says the subject becomes notable on Wikipedia if the particular criteria is met. Request your guidance on publishing and improving the article. Thanks ! Ch.th (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have made a fairly extensive comment at the current MfD on the draft.  DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Bot|talk]]) 03:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi There ! Thanks for all the support and guidance. Admin JohnCD has left the decision on you. I request you to bring it to a logical conclusion.
 * Also, I want to move on and contribute a couple more articles on emerging artistes and need guidance on whether to take it through review process or I can do it directly. Please let me know. Thanks ! Ch.th (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Paper Companion
Just letting you know that the article had actually been PROD-ed before you tagged it, and the author removed the PROD without explanation. I've listed it at AFD now. RA 0808 talkcontribs 23:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent Edits - Faanya Rose
David, thanks much. Very instructive. Makes me a much better contributor in the future. Lynda Roy (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have some more to go--unless you'd rather have a try at shortening or removing some of the footnotes yourself. I paused last night partly to find out your reaction.  DGG ( talk ) 13:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * My reaction is I am being mentored by the best. Keep going.  I am watching.  Lynda Roy (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

About Draft:Komal Jha
Hello There ! Hope my note finds you in good time. I was contributing the aforementioned article and provided the sufficient references to support the subject. I am interested to know what needs to be done now to get it to main space. FYI, I created this draft after consulting an admin User:JimFBleake. And yes, it meets the WP:BASIC criteria and another admin says that criteria is lenient. I am confused by this as the definition of WP:BASIC says the subject becomes notable on Wikipedia if the particular criteria is met. Request your guidance on publishing and improving the article. Thanks ! Ch.th (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have made a fairly extensive comment at the current MfD on the draft.  DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Bot|talk]]) 03:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Educational Development Center, Inc.
DGG, I created the article for a person with a COI. I only agreed to create a one-sentence stub, and told the editor to request any changes on the talk page. That's why it's only one sentence, but there are sources covering this company. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "There are sources covering this company" is far less helpful than actually providing the sources. Huon (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry. I'm not going to be involved with making this article any further, so you can do what you want with it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The persons with the coi has until the 18th to suggest sources and make an edit request. That would seem the most feasible way to proceed.  DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey I would like to write an article but the page is deleted
Hey i would like to write an article on the following link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThemStuff but it has been protected by you so I would like to ask kind request if i can put my article on there or should i just give you the article for you to place it.

Thank you so much for reading

16:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)~ SamUltrox — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUltrox (talk • contribs) 16:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The article I deleted twice was a straight advertisement ,ending with the sentence "We look forward to your patronage." Furthermore a good deal of it was copied from the site. That's the only place such material belongs. I see no signs the site is likely to become notable, but if you ever do have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, then you can try to make an article with the Article Wizard. If the refs only are blogs and mentions, don't even try.  DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply
But the article is protected by you how can i write on it

SamUltrox (talk)SamUltrox —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not protected if written in Draft space, which is in any case the way it should be done if you have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COIfor an explanation. If the draft is approved, an admin can moveit to mainspace. ButI do not advise you to write even a draft unless you actually have good refernecesand can write in a non-promotional manner. The sort of advertising material you submitted would be deleted even as a draft.  DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the message on my userpage
Many thanks for the message which you left on my userpage re the article on Diana Speed. Do not worry, I would not even think about deleting the tag stating that this is a proposed deletion article.Vorbee (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , that wording is standard--the notices are placed automatically on the talk p. of the author of the article when it is listed for possible deletion. Their purpose is to alert you to the discussion, so you may comment if you choose to do so.  DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

About: your review of UNEXMIN
Hi, DGG, and thanks for your review. You may think it was written in an "advertising" style, but please consider the context. This is a description of a European Horizon 2020 research project. It is not "news", and we are not promoting or advertising anything. The content will be edited from time to time as the project progresses, and new links will be added. The text was written by someone whose native language is not English, but will be edited and improved. Silicondale (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * comment forthcoming  DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * {U|Silicondale}},there are two problems: First, the first half of the article describes what the problem is, and gives the background for why the project is needed. That sort of material would belong in a grant request; tin an encyclopedia, such information would appear in an article about the p[roblem in its own right, either as part of an article about mining in Europe, or even a separate article on Abandoned mines in Europe. not in an article about the project, which inherently gives the project undue emphasis.  There are no references for this part of thearticle, except a  ingle technical report.  The second half of the article talks about what the project intends to do; however, this will not be appropriate content for an encyclopedia until the project has actually done it.  This part of the article has no references whatsoever, and presumably relies entirely upon the project's website.  An article in WP can not be written on the basis of such sources, but must have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources; in this case, I would expect that they would be primarily from the technical literature of the profession.
 * Normally, I would have listed an article of this nature for deletion, as not meeting the basic requirements at WP:Notability; quite a few articles on European Union projects have in fact been deleted for this reason. I haven't done this yet for this article, mainly because I personally find the subject very interesting and unexpected, and I hope that you will be able to fix it. I'd advise you to do it quickly, before someone spots it and does list it for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

INQUEST (charity)
Hi, DGG I posted this on my own talk page, thought it best to post here to to check with you directly, as I'm not sure if you'd see the other post:

Thanks for the suggestions for moving the article towards a NPOV. I had planned to add further neutral/factual sources, remove the ‘aims’ section and rephrase to a more neutral tone this evening. However, I can’t now find the text of the page to edit/re-upload in a form that meets the NPOV guidelines. Are you able to suggest where I could find this? Thanks. --08:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Senrab16 (talk)


 * I noticed this as I'd come across the charity when trying to find to whom to complain about the Coroner's Office, after they'd taken away the helpful pile of papers my aunt left when she committed suicide aged 94 as "Coroner's Evidence" so we didn't get the benefit of her thoughtful provision of contact details to cancel the newspaper and milk delivery and so on, let alone who to notify about her death, until 3 weeks after the funeral. (She was a very organised 94-year-old spinster, still driving etc but worried about her Parkinsons and determined to get out while on top of the game). They weren't the right people for my complaint but I'd remembered them, and their name crops up in a lot of news reports. I've created a stub at Inquest (charity), with a few good sources and quotes. I hope that if you've got more material to add you can build on this foundation. I've used the mixed case title as it seems more common in media, though I've mentioned that it's sometimes styled in caps. Pam  D  12:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As I'm not an admin I have no idea what you'd written in your original article, but I think what I've put together is the sort of robustly-sourced stuff which will let the article survive. The Longford Prize 2009 is just the sort of thing it needs: I was delighted to find that, as searching for information on an organisation whose name is such a common word is ... let's say, tricky. Pam  D  12:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , the deleted contents consisted of their statement of aims, and a very detailed account of the cases of  Peach  & Kelly, which is what gave the extremely promotional impression to the article.   The use of long quotes gives a pathetic effect e--such details of atrocities make very good promotion, but for that very reason they do not belong in WP.   I've added from that version one usable sentence, and adjusted your references and links to our standard format.   DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Brian Levine (judge)
Which criteria of Criteria for speedy deletion did you have in mind when you closed an active discussion after one day? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason I cited there.  DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Fundamental violation of the spirit of BLP" is not one of the criteria listed at the above linked policy page.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You have no valid basis for protest, Brewcrewer.  You should consider yourself lucky that you didn't get blocked for creating that article.  You may yet be -- but your account appears to be a SOCK, so maybe you don't care about it getting indeffed . Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC) (absolutely incorrect.  Very sorry. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC))
 * I think Brewcrewer is quite right to protest. Why was the BLP deleted after one day with the discussion still going on? I myself think it should have been deleted, but the process wasn't followed properly. And, if you believe an account with 50k edits is a sock, do open an SPI instead of casting aspersions without evidence. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was actually a SNOW. And in any case WP:AN is thataway if anybody thinks a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE has even a whiff of a chance of surviving. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I struck above. Very sorry - very very sloppy of me. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the reason given was a "speedy delete" and not WP:SNOW. The only CSD criteria which could apply is WP:G10, which deals with unsourced attack pages. This was a largely negative article, but not unsourced. As for WP:SNOW, there was one keep, and Brewcrewer hadn't weighed in themselves. Why the hurry? AfDs are supposed to run for seven days. As for WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, the proper procedure is to first discuss with the closer, and only then go to WP:AN. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * eh meh. It was very clearly SNOW that the article was a BLP violation as it stood and we don't let BLP violations hang around; I reckon DGG will comment directly.  I understand and appreciate your sense that process should work rigorously and fairly but this one seems like the bad kind of stickleriness; there is nothing to stop the article from being recreated taking on board the reaction it got the first time. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As I see it, there are two reasons for deletion that supersede all others, BLP and copyvio. In this case i consider the bLP violation so drastic that it doesn't mate much what term is used in deleting it. Possibly I should have said Attack Page as the closest.  DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than AN, I suggest either BLPN or DelRev. But of course, be prepared to defend the appropriateness of the article. Best way, as suggested would be to try again with different tone and emphasis. I shall probably still challenge it, but I won't close.  DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

About Sustained Dialogue Institute
DGG, I will be declining your WP:A7 on that article as soon as soon as I click on. Surely it would least amount to a WP:REDIRECT? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out what to do with the pair of articles, Sustained Dialogue Institute and Sustained Dialogue Campus Network. Together they represent a promotional campaign. If we had one, and could write it non promotionaly .it might make sense to have it on the Institute, but the one on the Network is the much more substantial article.  DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

NoPassword Page
Hi, you recently deleted "NoPassword" page for the reason of the article being advertising or promotional. The page I created about NoPassword was an informative article about the NoPassword solution and how it works based on articles and references covering the solution in Forbes, Entrepreneur, Tech.Co., Huffington Post and Inc. It simply explain the solution and it wasn't in any sense advertising and promotional. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks!SaraMas (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * the article was written to explain the general problem of insecure passwords, and then give the advantages of this product. That's exactly what an ad does. An encyclopedia article describes it. Forbes article is the most substantial, but its a general article on the problem mentioning this product as one possible solution among many. Other similar references would help to write something that might be more objective. As for the other Telecruch nowadays publishes press releases and Huffington Post certainly does.   DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Amin Daliri
Hello, I noticed you tagged [Amin Daliri] page for deletion, while its an incomplete translate of his page in persian. He isnt just an Assistant to a Minister of state, he is an Economist, University teacher, a professor in economy field, and also Former manager of economic relations with foreign countries and more..... He is more famous than many others having a page in Wikipedia, also its an incomplete translate of his page in persian, i havent enough time to write and complete this article so you cant read more about him now, btw ill try to write some more to help complete this article during next weeks. regards

Some rows/sources added for now, you can find persian sources about him this way (About 7,040 results) Faratel110 (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Epacadostat
I have deprodded because a merge to Incyte appears to be a viable WP:ATD. Please consider merges and other options WP:BEFORE prodding. ~Kvng (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * you're probably right about this.  DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

23:04:27, 15 June 2016 review of submission by Guitarscarsaddict
Hi There. Trying to create an entry similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couch_Guitar_Straps Having trouble seeing why one is viewed as advert and other is not. Thanks!


 * We have many unsatisfactory articles accepted in WP from earlier days when our standards were lower. Not all have been removed, and such articles can confuse people who take them for models.  Unfortunately, too few people see this as a priority, so it will probably be years before we can remove all of them. I think the Ialia article almost as unsatisfactory as yours --except that I note that essentially all of the musicians listed there who use it are notable (in the sense of having Wikipedia articles), while very few of the ones you list are.  DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles
I wondered if you could review these articles I've found randomly: Anil Kumar Bhalla, J. Randall Price (is 1,663 holdings enough?), Jon McKenzie, H Abdul Raqeeb, Ola Orekunrin, Alice Beck Kehoe, Shi Hu (artist), Paul Leverkühn and Takashi Yamaguchi. SwisterTwister  talk  04:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * can't judge Shi Hi;  Leverkühn, Price, McKenizie, Yamaguichi clearly notable,, the others adequate except for Bhalla. We seem, to be using the padma shri as a standard of notability, but it is only a 4th level decoration. I'd consider the three hiher Indian civil ranks to show notability , not this, but I don't really want to start reviewing the several hundred existing articles.  DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Brian Levine (judge)
Which criteria of Criteria for speedy deletion did you have in mind when you closed an active discussion after one day? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason I cited there.  DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Fundamental violation of the spirit of BLP" is not one of the criteria listed at the above linked policy page.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You have no valid basis for protest, Brewcrewer.  You should consider yourself lucky that you didn't get blocked for creating that article.  You may yet be -- but your account appears to be a SOCK, so maybe you don't care about it getting indeffed . Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC) (absolutely incorrect.  Very sorry. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC))
 * I think Brewcrewer is quite right to protest. Why was the BLP deleted after one day with the discussion still going on? I myself think it should have been deleted, but the process wasn't followed properly. And, if you believe an account with 50k edits is a sock, do open an SPI instead of casting aspersions without evidence. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was actually a SNOW. And in any case WP:AN is thataway if anybody thinks a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE has even a whiff of a chance of surviving. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I struck above. Very sorry - very very sloppy of me. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the reason given was a "speedy delete" and not WP:SNOW. The only CSD criteria which could apply is WP:G10, which deals with unsourced attack pages. This was a largely negative article, but not unsourced. As for WP:SNOW, there was one keep, and Brewcrewer hadn't weighed in themselves. Why the hurry? AfDs are supposed to run for seven days. As for WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, the proper procedure is to first discuss with the closer, and only then go to WP:AN. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * eh meh. It was very clearly SNOW that the article was a BLP violation as it stood and we don't let BLP violations hang around; I reckon DGG will comment directly.  I understand and appreciate your sense that process should work rigorously and fairly but this one seems like the bad kind of stickleriness; there is nothing to stop the article from being recreated taking on board the reaction it got the first time. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As I see it, there are two reasons for deletion that supersede all others, BLP and copyvio. In this case i consider the bLP violation so drastic that it doesn't mate much what term is used in deleting it. Possibly I should have said Attack Page as the closest.  DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than AN, I suggest either BLPN or DelRev. But of course, be prepared to defend the appropriateness of the article. Best way, as suggested would be to try again with different tone and emphasis. I shall probably still challenge it, but I won't close.  DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I should point you (and the others challenging the close) to the original precedent that allowed this. Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden is probably the first case to give BLP serious teeth, specifically "Any user may convert a grossly unbalanced biography of a living person to a stub. Any administrator may delete the article and its talk page". It also clarifies that "A grossly unbalanced biography of a living person is considered an attack page for the purposes of speedy deletion". The page was an obvious hatchet job, and thus speedy deletion per BLP is not only appropriate, but mandatory. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

About Sustained Dialogue Institute
DGG, I will be declining your WP:A7 on that article as soon as soon as I click on. Surely it would least amount to a WP:REDIRECT? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out what to do with the pair of articles, Sustained Dialogue Institute and Sustained Dialogue Campus Network. Together they represent a promotional campaign. If we had one, and could write it non promotionaly .it might make sense to have it on the Institute, but the one on the Network is the much more substantial article.  DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Amin Daliri
Hello, I noticed you tagged Amin Daliri page for deletion, while its an incomplete translate of his page in persian. He isnt just an Assistant to a Minister of state, he is an Economist, University teacher, a professor in economy field, and also Former manager of economic relations with foreign countries and more..... He is more famous than many others having a page in Wikipedia, also its an incomplete translate of his page in persian, i havent enough time to write and complete this article so you cant read more about him now, btw ill try to write some more to help complete this article during next weeks. regards

Some rows/sources added for now, you can find persian sources about him this way (About 7,040 results) Faratel110 (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , at worst, even if it is deleted, when you do have all the information and referneces together in English, you could try again in WP:DRAFT space.  DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for reply, im new here and i dont know how to do it, would you please advise me? Faratel110 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

23:04:27, 15 June 2016 review of submission by Guitarscarsaddict
Hi There. Trying to create an entry similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couch_Guitar_Straps Having trouble seeing why one is viewed as advert and other is not. Thanks!


 * We have many unsatisfactory articles accepted in WP from earlier days when our standards were lower. Not all have been removed, and such articles can confuse people who take them for models.  Unfortunately, too few people see this as a priority, so it will probably be years before we can remove all of them. I think the Couch article almost as unsatisfactory as yours --except that I note that essentially all of the musicians listed there who use it are notable (in the sense of having Wikipedia articles), while very few of the ones you list are.  DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for the guidance. I see now that I fell for an ad posing as an article and used a template I shouldn't have. The Couch article was created by a user that no longer exists and most of the references are referenced to the company's own website. I assume these factors combined would be reason to suggest deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarscarsaddict (talk • contribs) 18:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no way to find out except by trying, and the results of AfD are unpredictable. If it should be the case that these are established people in WP who know and like the company, it often will not be deleted. (that major artists use them might possible be considered relevant) My guess is that AfD gets it wrong about 10% of the time--just just differing interpretations, but wrong. This is in my view too high a percentage of error, but I don't think we'll ever get it lower than 5%. Just as anyone can write here, anyone can comment. The principle of WP is that people will usually correct one another, but that's usually, not always;.  DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The process continues to be confusing from notability standpoint. For example the Couch Guitar Straps entry was quickly edited after is was flagged by DGG as an advert. My guess is that certain companies monitor this stuff to make sure their "wikipedia ads" stay active? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarscarsaddict (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles
I wondered if you could review these articles I've found randomly: Anil Kumar Bhalla, J. Randall Price (is 1,663 holdings enough?), Jon McKenzie, H Abdul Raqeeb, Ola Orekunrin, Alice Beck Kehoe, Shi Hu (artist), Paul Leverkühn and Takashi Yamaguchi. SwisterTwister  talk  04:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * can't judge Shi Hi;  Leverkühn, Price, McKenizie, Yamaguichi clearly notable,, the others adequate except for Bhalla. We seem, to be using the padma shri as a standard of notability, but it is only a 4th level decoration. I'd consider the three hiher Indian civil ranks to show notability , not this, but I don't really want to start reviewing the several hundred existing articles.  DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Mikayil Alakbarov etc
Hallo David, I see you A-7'd Mikayil Alakbarov. Looking carefully he is asserted to be a Hero of the Soviet Union, which is described as "the highest distinction in the Soviet Union". I wonder whether that constitutes notability?

This is just one of a mass of unsourced stubs created today by a new editor. They have two major problems (not including any notability question - they all seem to be Heroes of the Soviet Union, which may or may not be enough):
 * 1) All completely unsourced
 * 2) All illustrated with old photos asserted to be "Own work" of the editor - ie almost certainly copyvio.

Could you have a look? I've asked the editor to stop disruptively creating so many unsourced stubs, and given a formal level 1 warning. Pam D  17:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hero of the Soviet Union is included in Highest gallantry awards, which is one of the criteria set in WP:SOLDIER, so all these horrid little stubs appear to pass Notability. Pam  D  17:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed,  they are all notable no matter how little is said, because it's the highest military award-- I removed the Speedy on this one.  I thought perhaps we could use the provisions of WP:N that when there is no more information than fits in a list, there's no need for a separate article. However, it seems that he, and presumably every one of them, does have a full article in the Russian WP  that gives sufficient details for a full article here (I added the link for him.) . The photos come from there, and have a full statement that they are free in the USSR and the US,  So it seems that it is appropriate to make the articles, if it is done correctly. The MILHIS group are the best people to follow this up.  DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Not all the photos have that provenance: see Aslan Vazirov where the image File:Везиров Аслан Фархад оглы.jpg has been uploaded as "Own work" and is not the same as in the Russian article. The editor has produced about 9 more unsourced stubs since I asked them to stop doing so. Pam  D  23:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

deletion of neuvoo
Hi David, I wanted to speak to you regarding deletion of neuvoo page. First there were issues ot citing sources and I made sure to provide as much citing and sources to provide concrete reference to the information. I spoke to several other admins to ask for advice and asked to proof read and check to ensure criterias are met. Today I saw that it was flagged as crosswiki spam and was deleted. Can you please help me understand why it was deleted and what I can do to bring it back? I even checked out other competition companies' wikipedia page and one of them is VERY similar to our page that we had. (Indeed) Thank you Rainbowsherbet5 (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Five separate editors --all of them experienced -- have now listed the article for deletion or deleted the article. There is no evidence the firm is notable according to WP:N and WP:CORP, and not even a claim to importance--all you have shown so far is that it has raised money. It is therefore a reasonable assumption that the purpose is to promote this new enterprise. WP does not do that--if we were a place for business promotion or advertising, we wouldn't be of an use as an encyclopedia. What you need to do is first, wait until the firm or product becomes notable enough for people   to write references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements -- routine coverage of rounds of funding are just indiscriminate notices. then, someone without anyconflict of interest will know of the firm,and write an article.


 * Although it is possible for people with a conflict of interest to write articles using the WP:AFC process, very few of them are ever found satisfactory. And I remind yo of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure.


 * It is true there are a few tens of thousand similarly promotional  articles in WP left over from the early days when we were less careful, and it will be a while until we get to remove all of them, the least we can do is not add to them.  And in the past, our terms of use were somewhat less stringent.  DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent merge proposal
Hello, after you proposed a merger I was unable to find the reason. So I looked through your contributions and found this page. I'm guessing the article you would really want is this one? Cheers! Corkythe hornetfan  20:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Twinkle macro did not complete for some reason. I've clarified at Talk:The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina.  DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A BLP that needs massive overhaul
Take a look at Jessie Chung. I did some quick tagging in the lede and slightly de-promo'ed some phrases, but the entire article is littered with highly promotional language. According to a recent AfD, she is notable for being openly transgender and something to do with her marriage, which got a large amount of media attention in South East Asian countries. Delta13C (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * �. the standards for the quality of content in WP articles on entertainers is so low, that I am very reluctant even to touch them . In this case i removed a particularly outrageously promotional section, though I would not be really startled if it returned.  The standard for content in articles on physicians is considerably higher, tho in some specialties, such as such as plastic surgery, which not are often related in some way to entertainment figures  we remain afflicted with an immense amount of unremoved promotional junk. But since medicine is not the primary carer, i moved most of it from the lede.  DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please remove the tag from Poligon page
You added a tag for speedy deletion of the Poligon page, but I think I addressed it and explained why it is significant in the context of Slovenia. Mitar (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I deleted Poligon as I concur that there was no indication of any significance—"the first and largest coworking space in Slovenia", the reason given on its talkpage for why it should be kept, doesn't suggest any particular importance to me—but I have no objection if you or any other admin undeletes it. &#8209; Iridescent 19:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Kewal Krishan (forensic anthropologist)
Hi DGG, you accepted this draft and I was wondering your reasoning for it. Every single reference there was written, or co-written, by the topic (who also happens to be the author of the article). Not a single independent source that talks about the person at all. I came across this after the author tried to add their name to the list of notable forensic anthropologists on forensic anthropology with a nonindependent reference. Just wondering what you saw in that draft to accept it. I tried looking for additional sources that are independent and I'm not finding much. Thanks for you time. --Majora (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The standard for acceptance is being likely to pass AfD. I think it's likely that he will, as  an expert in his field under WP:PROF. The official meaning of "likely to pass" is only 51%, though almost everyone who reviews afcs in practice sets it much higher, usually somewhere between 66 and 80%. My own standard is 80%, but if this one does not pass it will I suspect be the first of the thousand or so I've accepted. It's a balance between being sure to keep out the garbage despite possibly erratic further checking, and giving the full community a chance to make the decision.  DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Agroinvestbank
Today I declined a G10 speedy deletion on Agroinvestbank. I do not feel it meets the criterion, but the editor that tagged it has questioned my decline. I see you have previously looked at it and Prodd'd it. Can you look at it and give me your opinion whether you think it is eligible under G10. -- GB fan 15:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , there was a NPOV version to revert to so in any case A10 was unnecessary -- but the edit history does show the article was apparently started for the purpose of providing the negative information. From WP:Attack page, the term applies not just to unsourced negative information, but poorly sourced ... . However, the source seems adequate  in this case. Looking at that source, my Prod was in fact wrong, & I would be prepared to defend notability if additional references were added.  I think the best course is to add some more material.   DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.  -- GB fan 16:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

One Call Insurance Services Ltd
Draft:One Call Insurance Services Ltd was marked for speedy deletion and I need to access the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.30.242 (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * DGG, I'll reply to this, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wednesday June 29: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Ace Relocation Systems, Inc. Recent Deletion
Ace Relocations Systems, Inc.

I understand and respect the rules and guidelines put forth by Wikipedia as they apply to business listings. I do feel, however, that the rules are not being enforced equitably. If Wikipedia is concerned about fairness, the rules and guidelines need to be applied to each and every business listing on the site. There should be no “grandfathering in” of pages created prior to Ace Relocation Systems’ that do not adhere to those rules. If there is no active/functioning link to an article about each of the businesses in a legitimate news source – which seems to be the main reason for deleting the Ace Relocation listing – then those should be deleted, as well. Keep in mind that the "Ace Relocations" article did have links to reputable news sources such as the San Diego Business Journal, the San Jose/ Silicon Valley Business Journal and the Phoenix Business Journal. Below are some examples of businesses that are no more legitimate or qualified than the "Ace Relocations" article. This is but a very small sample of those. There are, I'm sure, many more since this was an audit conducted over the course of approximately two hours. An examination of these articles' references will reveal that they are no more, most likely even less, qualified than the recently deleted Ace Relocation article.
 * Champion Bus Incorporated(Has only two references that are not to notable sources.)
 * Move One Inc.
 * The HCR Group
 * Thor Industries
 * Turtle Wax Inc.(Their only significant reference is to business week.com. Ace Relocation has a similar bloomberg page as well).
 * Two Men and a Truck(Their only major reference is wsj article that does not even mention them).
 * Qpass-Has no references whatsoever.

A note about news sources writing articles about companies in the moving and storage business: generally they do not spend a lot of time writing about them unless they are the subject of criminal investigation or an outpouring of consumer complaints. “No news is good news” is the rule in the relocation industry. }} Ogbrewer (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also at Deletion review/Log/2016 June 20. Though I'm sure you'd see it there eventually too. —Cryptic 23:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just as said at the Deletion Review you just opened Deletion review/Log/2016 June 20, you are quite correct that there are many articles -- not just on business but on a e whole range of topics -- that do not meet current standards. They  were accepted in earlier years when standards were less well established, and enforcement of them tended to be erratic. It will take usa very long time to get rid of them--there are probably about 50,000 to 100,000 in that category. The least we can do in the meantime is not add to their number,  There is no intention to grandfather them,  but we canot in practicediscussmorethan about 100articles a day, and most of this is devoted to new articles or those where the standards were both lower and less consistent. Just as you complain that the older articles are not quickly removed, their authors argue they should not be penalized for what was acceptable (or at least winked at) at the time.
 * There is also increasing realization that borderline notability combined with  promotionalism is situation that requires deleting the article. . Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia.


 * With respect to the article on Ace Relocation Systems, I do not consider any local business journal as reliable for the purpose of notability-- they exist in large part for the very purpose of providing the opportunity for publishing press releases. But it is not I who made the decision. Everyone who commented was of the opinion that the sources for that article were inadequate, and they include six experienced WPedians. All I do as administrator is to recognize the consensus, and, in this case, realize that no further discussion is likely to change it. If you have additional sources of high quality, as I said at the Del Rev, just let me know and i will reopen the discussion. If not, when you do have such sources, you can try again via WP:Articles for Creation, keeping in mind our rules about the need to declare conflict of interest ,


 * As for the other other specific articles you mention, I just nominated HCR Group and Two Men and Turtle Wax for deletion at AfD. I'm considering MoveOn. The other articles have the special problem tat consensus at WP tends to be fairly inclusive for electronic companies, and extremely inclusive for manufacturers of vehicles. There's no point in listing articles for AfD when I doubt they will be deleted. It's inevitable  that the contents of WP reflect the interests of the people who choose to write here.  DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have found an additional reference in the Orlando Sentinel. Here is a link to a brief overview of the article from the sentinel's archives. I am currently attempting to provide a link to the entire article, but it is difficult to find one online. I will add a link if I find one. Please take a look at this and let me know if this would be substantial enough. Either way, thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogbrewer (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Polar Electro wikipedia page
Hi

I'd like to ask for you to reconsider the deletion of the Polar Electro page. The company is a pioneer in its field (infact the inventor) and the science behind its products is well established and used by professional sports scientists as well as multiple universities etc.. globally. Therefore company and information about the company and its research is of interest to many people, not only users of their products and for example fairly sought after in the search engines. Making this information available has been a challenge and I am hoping you could help me with this by both restoring the page but also letting me know what would be the best way to move forward..

I'd like to undertake efforts to improve the page - and specifically by listing highlighting more of how the company is involved and referenced in the scientific sports research (doing its own research, devices used by people doing the research, research the company is involved in or supports) area by citing some of the references to the company and its work in the scientific sports community (for the lack of a better word :-)) that are largely unknown at the moment. T o avoid doing that in a fashion that would out of bounds of the guidelines of Wikipedia I would be very interested in hearing about how to add those references and citations properly.

My personal aim is to help make the company's involvement in the scientific research in the sports / human exercise capacity field (and the use of its devices in that research) more easily found / available (as the parties that create the research develop them in a manner that does NOT make them easily available /easily consumed ) to all that seek information in that area, so that the people who have an interest in improving their physical performance are aware of the differences between approaches and equipment available. For this I think Wikipedia is the best and most impartial source via citations. I feel the scientific research and due diligence the company

In other words people with interest in the subject will be able to understand the science and philosophy that set this company apart - the external refwerences will help inform people of the accuracy (and therefore the availability) of devices suitable for body measurements and how those merasurements may help them achieve their goals (be it in regards to their personal health or for example professional / national sports organizations and their needs or more new research). This in turn should allow them to make their own decisions if they are in a position described above that would then in turn allow the company benefit from the due diligence and effort they have placed in their operations. As I read the G11 description I understand the point of view of your approach in your activity, however I am hoping you would be able to reconsider your decision (or subject this request to a reconsideration by a wider panel if appropriate), considering the information I have given and the understanding of how this organization sits in the intersection of commerce (yes its a business) and scientific research.

Some examples of external reference materials that are the type I would like to include as citations - if I could understand how to do it appropriately are:

While I understand that its possible that not all my examples above may qualify /or arent the greatest examples (something i would hope to get support on) please keep in mind that those are but a small reference list to help clarify my point. (Here are infact some more references from the companys website - just from a single category of research - the point I am trying to make is that the company is notable in multiple ways, ex: it operates globally, it is a pioneer and inventor, it is actively involved and referenced in science and so on something that sets it apart and something that would make sense to be able to verify via Wikipedia - A related question:pending hopefully a decision to re-instate the page of course - would you consider that the best way maybe to share information on those references would be to cite refences by for example devices used in research? )

All the best (and please excuse me if this ends up on the top of the page - **Please add new sections at the bottom, not the top ** - if that is the case its not by design)

EDIT & Note - I just looked up the deleted page from wayback machine, it had a note at the top from 2003 saying citations needed in certain places - I could definitely find and add those + have a look at other companies pages to make sure the information is more like on those, allthough Its not easy to figure out exactly what kind of a page is 100% appropriate. All this would be much easier if the original page was restored.

And is it perhaps this type of citations that are needed more: a story on Polar on Forbes I would certainly appreciate all advice on making sure the page is up & up to standards, looking back at the old version I think its more an issue of not updating & not understaiing what all the information that should go into a wikipedia copmpany page is rather than this being a case of the company not being notable. All the best Sambkk (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I shall take another look at it tomorrow. Please excuse the delay.  DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG thanks for the reply. If you find theres a more appropriate way the page should be constructed please let me know, would be happy to work on it.Sambkk (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Hi DGG, I am wondering if theres any updates regarding the Polar Electro page - have you had a chance to review? I understand the page itself may need work.Sambkk (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I was going to move it into Draft space, but instead I decided there was enough good material, and therefore I restored the page, and made a number of edits.(look at them to see what I removed & understand why I removed it)   I shortened the chronology section, but ended up by removing it altogether, --it needs a drastic revision to list only the 4 or 5 major developments.  The article also needs references. There should be a good number of product reviews available,  besides the references you pointed to. Remember that a few strong comprehensive references are better than any number of short notices. I'll try to take another look in a week--if there are still problems, I'll move it to draft space.  DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG. Thanks & thats great. I need to look at it this weekend and review what you are saying to get it right. I think realistically I might get the improvements (depending on how many are required) on piece by piece over the next 2-3 weeks, as not all of this I am so familiar with. it shouldn't be a problem to get external references and product reviews etc. as I know there are plenty about. just need to get them right. Much appreciated. thanks.Sambkk (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

13:22:02, 22 June 2016 review of submission by 5.148.13.2
I am an active member of the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) and it has just been brought to my attention that a Wiki page for the body is being created. I am surprised such a detailed draft article filled with legitimate references is being rejected. We already have a small page on the Swedish version of Wiki: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Mentoring_and_Coaching_Council The EMCC is one of the world's leading accrediting professional bodies for certifying coaches and mentors. It is recognised as such by the European Union - all referenced in the draft. The EMCC does not seek media publicity and therefore might be lacking more readily available citations, but would you not agree that amomg the 60 or so references, there are enough which demonstrate sufficient notability of the EMCC?5.148.13.2 (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It often takes several rounds at AfC for an article to become acceptable. The current version is essentially a press release about the council, talking about the importance of the group and listing the founders. A press release tells the reader what the organization would like to say about itself; an encyclopedia  article tell s what the reader who may have heard about the organization would like to know, which consists typically on what it has accomplished, as shown by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements--articles written about it because ofi ts importance, not because it may seek publicity . The current draft has a great many references, but they are almost all of them mere announcements. A more focused article is needed.  DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Michael Wasserman
I happened to find this article earlier tonight and wondered if you could review, as I personally seem to still find it questionable. SwisterTwister  talk  06:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * see Articles for deletion/Michael Wasserman  DGG ( talk ) 07:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Notable and encyclopedic ?
Hi DGG.

I refer to your comment.

While I did think on balance Gregory Levey was worth keeping, just, the point about an argument for deleting the other articles was exactly the point I was making. I suspect we are in furious agreement ?

Aoziwe (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes,, we are probably in agreement generally; No matter where we draw the line, there will be disputes about what side of the border something falls, and there are always some articles at afD which could reasonably go either way.  Even werewe to make fixed rules, such as $ of revenue, there will still be cases where it would be reasonable to make an exception.
 * But we may not be in agreement about the relative importance of the different areas. The rule I go by. is that where there are good WPedians working on very detailed articles in a field I have no interest in, I see no reason to disturb them; what I ask is that they let others write detailed articles in fields that concern them,--in, particular, I of course mean fields that interest me . This especially holds with fields where the decisions are made in a rational and reproducible fashion. So for professional athletes, including jockeys, there are fairly good clear and widely accepted criteria; for asteroids also there are good criteria that call for listifying 99% of them; for music groups there's a very widely accepted simple standard of placement on accepted lists that I can accept as rational  , even though I'd have placed the necessary level as higher.  The problems come when we move from objective criteria like "fully professional team" to the GNG, where most sources can be considered as either substantial & reliable or as more notices and promotional depending on whether or not one wants to delete the article   DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Food for my thoughts.  Aoziwe (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Ronald J. Ross and COI tag
Hi DGG. I am curious about this. You moved this from Draft space to mainspace, and left on the COI tag. Oversight? Or do feel like there are major flaws that need to be addressed, that you are signaling with the tag? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * a major contributor did have a coi. As I understand it, the general rule is to not remove this tag if the article ever justified it. . Anyway, with AfCs, I just made sure they are good enough to not even be challenged at AfD, not  that they are  it was perfect. But since you mention it, I'll  fix it up a little further. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh interesting. In my view the COI tag is there so independent editors can review, and especially do their own search for RS that might support negative information that the conflicted editor didn't want there (my favorite by far is... oh can I find it again?.. Marc Bell (entrepreneur) which was rewritten by his intern to remove Bells' history in the porn industry (kind of jimbo wales esque).  But once the article is really reviewed by independent editors, they should remove the tag... anyway thanks for explaining! Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Not notable
I came across Brunswick Square (East Brunswick, New Jersey) during pages patrol. Looking for sources, there are trivial local news stories about a fire, needing an artist, and so on. There is nothing notable there.

The article references do not appear to be related to the article. The first ref is broken anyway, but is supposed to be connected to "The International Council of Shopping Centers: New Brunswick". And one ref is supposed to be the list of stores at the mall, but it goes here: (its a mix of page 404 and a link to a store). That ref would be really trivial anyway if it worked.

However, my biggest concern is the large template at the bottom of the page entitled: "Shopping malls in the New York metropolitan area". I believe the template is entitled: "New York City Malls", and yes here it is. I count 89 malls - I might be off by a couple, but there it is. What can be done about this? The thing is, this shows that a number of people have no idea what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The NY Metropolitan Area has 24 million people. I think the number of malls reasonable. Certainly for the ones in NYC proper, all those listed are clearly notable, except perhaps   one, that I just nominated for deletion.  Articles for deletion/Bricktown Center at Charleston  If anything, the listing is conservative; O can think of at least one or two more.  In thesuburbs, I only know a few of the possible regions, so there are probably a few borderline one.  Aasfor this particular one, if you think it not notable, list it for afd.


 * Afds on malls have been toatally inconsistent. Some ears ago I tried to establish a basic standard of 1 million sq ft, (100,0000 sq. meters) for the ordinary type of suburban mall (downtown city ones are harder to specify---they are normally more compact. The proposal was rejected. I think the best way forward is to look for chains of malls, and see if we can combine them.  Malls sometimes do define an areas--after all, perhaps the original pyrpose of a city was to have a protected market square.   DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK thanks - this was very helpful. Before this, I did not know the notability standards for malls. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Battle of L'Anse aux Meadows
I have revert your edit to "Battle of L'Anse aux Meadows" as there is no source for this battle or date, If you have one that would be great but the fact is there is not one out there...either for the place or the date. --Moxy (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your move to Battle of Vinland (1003). I was trying to find a better name myself. I agree it's a better title, if only because the name was not used at the time either in history or legend. (  DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check these pages 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) 00:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Ribbit Capital (company) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=726737873 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%2F726737873%7CRibbit Capital (company)%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * On the Bernard Kerik page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=726736883 your edit] caused an empty citation 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%2F726736883%7CBernard Kerik%5D%5D Ask for help])

Sherrill Manufacturing speedy deletion
Dear DGG, It appears you have deleted the Sherrill Manufacturing page due to copyright violation. However, the article was edited after the original user flagged it for that violation. The violation seems to have been due to a quote from the website of the subject of the article which was not cited properly. A quick check of the copyvios report (which as of a Earlier today reflected no such violation) prior to deletion would be super helpful! Is it possible for you to undelete the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodenameAckles (talk • contribs) 02:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * c}, I will take another look later today or tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the quick response.
 * I've looked at the final version in detail, along with the source of the copyvio. The remaining paraphrase is still quite close, and WP treats close paraphrase as copyvio. In this case, it's not only close but it retains too much of the promotional language of the original:  " recognizing the future could no longer be exclusively tied to Oneida Limited®, Sherrill Manufacturing embarked on a process of diversifying the customer base" ; "a completely restructured company with a new vision and rejuvenated business plan." etc. It needs rewriting from scratch for neutral encyclopedic language (and probably condensing). You're going to have to rewrite, and I suggest doing it in Draft space using the AfC process.  DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox company
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox company. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings!
I see you are on the edit filter managers' list. How would I best go about getting this done? TIA. &#128406; ATS /  Talk  01:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm only on the list so I can see the hidden filters (I know enough regex to read them but I am not expert enough to try to write anything non trivial--it's much too easy to mess this up in a way that causes serious problems.  Just like I have checkuser so I can see the results, but I don't know enough to actually run one.  DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. &#128406; ATS /  Talk  05:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move, admin help required
Hi DGG: Could you please move Georgian Jews to History of the Jews in Georgia (country) because the article is 99% PRECISELY about The HISTORY of the Jews in the country of Georgia and that is the format of ALL the "History of the Jews in ____" ALL COUNTRIES on Wikipedia, check it out for yourself. Thanks so much in advance!! Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for all your help! Kindest regards, IZAK (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

REQUEST for the draft be undeleted
Could you please kindly assist me with the following problem or forward me to a considered resource.

I highly apologize for bothering with this simple question, but Im such a beginner for Wikipedia project and i dont have enough time to figure it out all by my self.

Please help me with Restoring text & data from the recently deleted page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouDo (it was created and uploaded from my coworker"s account who does not speak english at all)

or please advise if it is possible to get it. i would highly appreciate if i could get back the text of the article that was uploaded on this page, because i dont have it saved locally. or please forward me to any responsible administrators.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yulia Buryka (talk • contribs) 15:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've sent you the text by email, together with some advice.  DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 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) 00:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Richard I. Levin page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=727549188 your edit] caused an empty citation 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%2F727549188%7CRichard I. Levin%5D%5D Ask for help])

A kitten for you!
Hi, i see that you recently made the comment "The only one which is not local is the Telegraph." in response to list of news articles in the afd Articles for deletion/Jasper Knight. Agree that the The Daily Telegraph and The Australian are not local papers. But neither are The Sun-Herald, The Sydney Morning Herald(smh), or The Sunday Mail. The Sun-Herald is available in most large towns and cities along eastern australia and throughout New South Wales, ditto smh plus oz capitals, while The Sunday Mail is the main newspaper for South Australia. Also, here is a link to some readership figures for oz papers which may assist -. ps. luv your work

Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC) 

Please comment on Talk:Accompong
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Accompong. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

19:27:57, 30 June 2016 review of submission by 182.69.100.0
All the statements in the wiki article are factual. There is no opinion stated anywhere. Additionally each statement has citations. Can you please explain why the article was rejected?

Thanks


 * I've declined it both for the basic nature of it a an advertisement and the failure of the citations to show notability, and it any case it was his company that was funded, not him personally. Notice about funding are routine notices and do not show notability  Notice of minor awards do not show notability. 40 under 40 usually means "not yet notable, but may be later"  The purported award at the  retail.franchiseindia.com is referenced to a page that shows him merely as a speaker, not an award winner. Other   minor awards are referenced just to press releases, which neither count for notability  nor are even reliable for showing the award.  The only purpose of including this material is to promote him and his business.  The criterion for acceptance is that the draft will probably not be deleted if included in article, and this very probably would be deleted.
 * BTW, his company is probably notable, but that page to needs to be looked at for promotionalism.  DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)