User talk:DGG/Archive 117 Oct. 2016

Contest deletion of Chieh Huang
I wish to contest this deletion. But as the action occurred so quickly there wasn't an opportunity to. Zerofourzero (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * the reason given was unambiguous promotion or advertising; in such cases there is nothing to contest I'm afraid. A fundamental tenet of Wikipedia is 'neutrality', and we are not a version of LinkedIn, where a CEO is automatically noteworthy. We rely on third-party, independent sources. If the gent is notable enough for the encyclopaedia, then someone will already have written on him, and we can follow them. And attempting to advertise him on the front page was pretty specialist I have to say. Muffled Pocketed  18:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * actually, there can be something to contest, because the inerpretation of "unambiguous" can be disputed. But looking at the article, "Huang declared that he seeks to create a workplace culture where "people actually enjoy going to work and going after a goal." Huang has made headlines in major media outlets for generous perks offered to his employees" is about as unambiguous advertising as it gets, and the entire article is written in that fashion. There are indeed sources, but the sources seem based entirely on his own PR, and the places that published them should be ashamed of themselves.  DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Recreating Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 6517
I noticed that you had deleted Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 6517, so can I recreate it again? I'll improve it.. it will have many references and good sources.. The reason that this article should be created is that this incident is very significant in Indonesian aviation history, and also highlighted that things will get awful when a thrust lever was set too way back..It also marked how many crashes involving a Xi'an MA60.. User:PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am required to close AfD discussions according to the consensus of relevant comments, not according to my own opinion. Please check the WP policies mentioned in that AfD discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Recreating Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 6517
I noticed that you had deleted Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 6517, so can I recreate it again? I'll improve it.. it will have many references and good sources.. The reason that this article should be created is that this incident is very significant in Indonesian aviation history, and also highlighted that things will get awful when a thrust lever was set too way back..It also marked how many crashes involving a Xi'an MA60.. User:PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am required to close AfD discussions according to the consensus of relevant comments, not according to my own opinion. Please check the WP policies mentioned in that AfD discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there are certain things that I want to highlight.. First, the event was covered extensively in Indonesia, and there are even coverage from the international media as well.. And it did meet the WP:NOTABILITY.. Second, it was a major hull loss and approximately 25 people were injured.. If that happened in America or the United Kingdom they probably won't delete it (in which I believe for 100%, they WON'T).. Also, for comparison, it was more severe than Malev Flight 262 and Hapag-Llyod crash in Vienna, and there are many more flight crashes that didn't involve fatalities and hull loss, but somehow still kept in Wikipedia.. So I think it was still worth to keep..
 * I will give you some time to think about it.. I'll accept the decision (to let me re-create or not)


 * Sorry for bad and rough english.. No hurt feelings, okay?


 * By the way, I'm new to Wikipedia, so.. well still learning..User:PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Request admin review
Hello! You were involved in Articles for deletion/Think Again Conclave when an article was repeatedly created. You had stepped in to DELETE and SALT.

Recently, the article was created again at Think Again Conclave, BITS Pilani -- I ran across the AFD at Articles for deletion/Think Again Conclave, BITS Pilani. I would appreciate your review of my work going through to close, delete, and salt the new page--both operationally (did I complete all the operations correctly) and administratively (did I make good decisions). Thank you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The only thing you left undone is to block the ed. as a promotional-only account. (In routine cases I give just a level 4im warning, but when it is aggravated by evading deletions and the like, then I block immediately, because the ed shows by their actions that they  know that they are doing things that are not permitted). The 2 eds may be sockpuppets, but its not worth hunting that down over just this one article.  If it should be created under yet another variant, there's another possible step, which is adding it to the title blacklist, where we can use regex.  DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I considered blocking the editor but wanted to make sure the procedure was done correctly on the first part.  I'll look into it next.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC reforms
David, I realise you are totally overloaded with Wikipedia work, and understand that you won't have time to join the work group, but as your comments are some of the most valuable concerning these critical issues, your input on the polls at Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/To do would be most appreciated. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But I will join the work group-- . I;m getting discouraged by my current efforts at deleting promotional articles b he resistance from several editors who think that unimportant, and will even go to the lengths of gratifying the COI promotional  editors by rewriting their work even when the subject is not particularly important. The significance of NOT DIRECTORY   has escaped them, and they'd rather increase our size than our quality. This goes in cycles, and at the moment they seem to be winning.  DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * and of course it is not our job here to ignore notable topics, or to even go so far as to call a notable topic "not particularly important". We go by what independent reliable sources have to say, we don't let our own personal views interfere.   --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are degrees of notability. Even WP:GNG is clear that a article having moderate notability does not necessarily justify an article if, for example, it can be combined as part of a more comprehensive article. Determining the degree of notability is very much our job. There are many important topics in missing from WP; in what order shall we work on them? Obviously we're limited by what people are willing to do, but for those of us able to work on a range of topics rather than having some particular interest, which article should we choose? Personally, I think those submitted by promotional and paid editors go to the bottom of the pile, because we want to discourage, not encourage e such editing. But many different choice are compatible with building an encyclopedia like ours.  DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , There is one area where we can let our own personal views interfere - at least mine, and that is that I won't lift a finger to help a paid spammer increase his fees and ultimately the turnover of his company or client on the back of my tens of thousands of hours of voluntary work on Wikipedia. No run-of-the-mill company of any kind is so important for an encyclopedia that it has to be included, with or without sources. It's not our job, we're, well, unpaid volunteers, and we choose what we are prepared to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, we all get to pick and choose what areas of wikipedia we want to contribute to. Personal views like you describe above are an absolutely valid reason to not contribute in a certain area.  Just like personal views that notability is the prime factor, and neutrality concerning 'how the sausage was made', is an absolutely valid reason to contribute in a certain area.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft essay: AFD and promotionalism
Another friendly challenge: Help edit an essay on AFD and promotionalism. First step, do we agree on the wording for what to debate in this essay? Currently is: "Proposed: During Articles for deletion debates, a Delete !vote based on a complaint of promotionalism is valid." -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not make sense to get into multiple debates with  on the same general topic. We have to pick one place. As far as I am concerned, this page is good because it is very widely watched. As a preliminary, a question such as 'Proposed: During Articles for deletion debates, a Delete !vote based on a complaint of promotionalism is valid."  is not precise enough for a debate. It depends   on the meaning of valid--I suppose you mean acceptable as one of the reasons for makig the decision, not as something that trumps all other arguemnts. It is explicit from WP:AFD and WP:NOT that any'' violation of WP:NOT is suficient to delete an article, not just notability or promotionalism--and any argment based on any such provision is therefore to the point, as distinct from ILIKEIT.
 * I think you mean more precisely the strength that should be given to such an argument. Even that is hard to answer in the abstract. It obviously depends on the degree of promotionalism. If promotional, it also depends on whether someone is prepared to rewrite the article & fix the problems. It depends  on  whether the article is satisfactory in other aspects.  Andd despite what you say above, if the article is fixable I think it does depends on whether the article is worth fixing.  We are limited in editors, and in their time, and by their interests.
 * I propose a somewhat different question. . Small variations to the notability standard either way do not harm the encyclopedia as much as accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign.    DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The 'either way' seems imprecise.  Shouldn't the proposal take a stance one way or the other: for the variation to keep, OR the variation to delete.  For example, I'm going to venture that we agree that an article should NOT get a variation towards keep based simply on the fact that the article is NOT part of a promotional campaign.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki8''' ...........................]] (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, but a non promotional article should if there is an chance at all of notability be moved to draft space for possible improvement; and, if not, the contributor given assistance in finding a better topic.
 * Let me try some other wordings: what I meant was  that being a little deletionist or inclusionist does not matter   as much as promotionalism does. It's ok to be somewhat inclusionist or somewhat deletionist and reject promotionalism entirely; it is not ok to be either somewhat inclusionist or somewhat deletionist  and accept promotionalism. You are, for example,  considerably more inclusionist than I about companies, and I probably more than you about academics,  and I consider that fine, & it's something  we should be willing to compromise about; but you are willing to accept promotionalism, and I do consider that wrong, and I think it something I would not compromise about.
 * Worded another way: the decision to keep or delete an article depends first upon promotionalism, and only if not promotional, about notability. I could word it in a single direction: An article should be rejected if it is promotional (regardless of notability ), and it should be rejected    if it is not notable (regardless of promotionalism). I consider all these statements more of less equivalent.  DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're getting close to agreeing on the proposed wording to debate. Lemme ponder a little bit and get back to you soon.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft essay: AFD and promotionalism
Another friendly challenge: Help edit an essay on AFD and promotionalism. First step, do we agree on the wording for what to debate in this essay? Currently is: "Proposed: During Articles for deletion debates, a Delete !vote based on a complaint of promotionalism is valid." -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not make sense to get into multiple debates with  on the same general topic. We have to pick one place. As far as I am concerned, this page is good because it is very widely watched. As a preliminary, a question such as 'Proposed: During Articles for deletion debates, a Delete !vote based on a complaint of promotionalism is valid."  is not precise enough for a debate. It depends   on the meaning of valid--I suppose you mean acceptable as one of the reasons for makig the decision, not as something that trumps all other arguemnts. It is explicit from WP:AFD and WP:NOT that any'' violation of WP:NOT is suficient to delete an article, not just notability or promotionalism--and any argment based on any such provision is therefore to the point, as distinct from ILIKEIT.
 * I think you mean more precisely the strength that should be given to such an argument. Even that is hard to answer in the abstract. It obviously depends on the degree of promotionalism. If promotional, it also depends on whether someone is prepared to rewrite the article & fix the problems. It depends  on  whether the article is satisfactory in other aspects.  Andd despite what you say above, if the article is fixable I think it does depends on whether the article is worth fixing.  We are limited in editors, and in their time, and by their interests.
 * I propose a somewhat different question. . Small variations to the notability standard either way do not harm the encyclopedia as much as accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign.    DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The 'either way' seems imprecise.  Shouldn't the proposal take a stance one way or the other: for the variation to keep, OR the variation to delete.  For example, I'm going to venture that we agree that an article should NOT get a variation towards keep based simply on the fact that the article is NOT part of a promotional campaign.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki8''' ...........................]] (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, but a non promotional article should if there is an chance at all of notability be moved to draft space for possible improvement; and, if not, the contributor given assistance in finding a better topic.
 * Let me try some other wordings: what I meant was  that being a little deletionist or inclusionist does not matter   as much as promotionalism does. It's ok to be somewhat inclusionist or somewhat deletionist and reject promotionalism entirely; it is not ok to be either somewhat inclusionist or somewhat deletionist  and accept promotionalism. You are, for example,  considerably more inclusionist than I about companies, and I probably more than you about academics,  and I consider that fine, & it's something  we should be willing to compromise about; but you are willing to accept promotionalism, and I do consider that wrong, and I think it something I would not compromise about.
 * Worded another way: the decision to keep or delete an article depends first upon promotionalism, and only if not promotional, about notability. I could word it in a single direction: An article should be rejected if it is promotional (regardless of notability ), and it should be rejected    if it is not notable (regardless of promotionalism). I consider all these statements more of less equivalent.  DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're getting close to agreeing on the proposed wording to debate. Lemme ponder a little bit and get back to you soon.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Another rewording: there are two positions I could support,and I've gone back and forth between them:
 * 1. Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted. This is the only way to discourge people from using the WP for advertising. If the subject is actually important, someone elsew ill create an article. Rescuing it sends the message that if your write an unacceptable article about yourself, someone will very possibly fix it for you, and therefore you might as well try to advertise here. It furthermore sends the message that if you you hire someone to write an article and they take money for doing this, and they write the usual unacceptable article such peoplewrite, then someone will fix it for you free,, while the guy who wrote the bad article gets the money. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The wording "Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted" is good, and should allow for a clear debate on that proposal vs. what I would call neutrality on how the sausage is made. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I had not finished. I said there were two positions I could support. The second is
 * 2. Promotional articles should always be deleted, unless they are very clearly about an undoubtedly notable subject, and some responsible WPedian is prepared to take responsibility for rewriting them. This would normally be done by moving the article to Draft space. This has the advantage of getting articles about the clearly notable subjects and increasing our coverage, while removing promotionalism and discouraging the bulk of the promotional editors, who are rarely writing about unambiguously notable subjects.    DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * oops! my bad.  This one would need some rewording to keep us focused.  Perhaps something like Articles with promotional issues should always be deleted if those issues are not fixed by the closing of an AFD discussion.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * as an alternative, you mean, to  always be deleted.  But I think everyone would agree on that. The question where we disagree is whether we should even allow them to be fixed unless the subject is very notable.  DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * would it be fair to say the general question is: "Promotionalism Overrides Notability" vs. "Notability Overrides Promotionalism". Where Promotionalism meaning an article with promotional content issues.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Patrolling
Have you seen this graph made for us by the WMF? No way could anybody properly patrol anyway near that many articles in one day. I dread to think of the actual quality of all those patrolls and it's too ate t check them all. At that rate, no wonder all the other patrollers backed off - they hardly got a look in. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends a little if one concentrates on only the most obvious-- or -- as I do-- primarily on the ones other people don't want to handle. But as far as I can tell all these were unselected, and of course it's far too many at a time. Myself, if I do more than 20 or soata time, I get a little careless; I've seen other people do properly 100 or 200 a day, but 1200 is ridiculous.  Other large backlogs have had similar problems--and, in my opinion, also some WP contests where volume is a factor.   DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , re-examining this, I am unsure whether the count includes automatic patrols--when we edit a page, it generally marks the page patrolled as well. That certainly seems to be the case for many of the recent ones.  DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , that would make the the real backlog number even higher. Simply editing a page - or even adding a routine maintenance tag should not mark a page as patrolled. This was indeed a bug we identified some years ago before the creation of Page Curation.I'll have to do some test patrols to see hat is happening. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete Alpha Academic?
Wikipedia: Credible claim of significance states that speedy deletion can be applied to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. Given that Alpha Academic is an educational institution, why did you delete the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.64.158 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * because, as the article said, "its "core business is proprietary trading and electronic market making, "  DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of FIRST Steamworks
Hi, I believe you have deleted the page FIRST Steamworks under an improper deletion criteria. A7 states that an "Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" can be speedily deleted. However, FIRST Steamworks is the 2017 FIRST Robotics Competition game. It is not virtual and is ran by For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) out of New Hampshire. This is a worldwide high school robotics competition recognized by many high school leagues as an official varsity sport. The organization's website is firstinspires.org, and Wikipedia has articles on all past games for all of the organization's competitions (including FRC, FTC, FLL, and FLL Junior), as well as the organization itself.

The article is currently a stub because information about the game is released in stages, starting with the teaser trailer on September 20th and culminating with the game overview released on January 7, 2017. Previous articles such as last year's game, FIRST Stronghold, were also stubs until the game overview and were allowed to exist as stubs on Wikipedia with a similar amount of content for a similar timeperiod, slowly added to as the game is revealed. Check for yourself under history for the entry on Stronghold. Many people added to the page and I was able to remove the stub tag back in January of last year. It is now a full article.

This is a high school sport played with real robots in event centers across the country, not a virtual browser-based game. Lots of people feel strongly about it. I do try to avoid questionable contributions, and this is not one of them. Can you bring it back, please? Thanks! Your work is appreciated. Wywyit (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems the wrong box was accidentally checked--it should have been deleted as Organized event with no indication of significance. That the main competition is notable is not an indication that any one year's will be, and there were no references except its own site. When you've got some third party references, it might be time to re-create it.  DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Blag Magazine
Hello. I noticed that you listed BLAG Magazine in the CSD log, but I can't find the speedy delete tag in the article's revision history. I guess I am interested because I was going to tag it for speedy delete. But if you already did, well then I will consider other options.Steve Quinn (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. Well I found a couple of sources that might indicate this is barely notable -->,. However, if there isn't much else, then I might take it to AfD. I will keep trying to see what is available. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The history is a little confusing. I encountered it, I think on New Pages, and decided to nominate it for deletion as G11. Unfortunately, I clicked the wrong button and deleted it instead of just nominating it. I therefore restored it, and renominated it properly. It was subsequently cleaned up a little over the next few hours, but without much change in the basic content. was the admin who then deleted it as G11.
 * It might be notable. But the content is so unambiguously promotional that I think you;d really need to start over. e.g. "BLAG Magazine eschews advertising, instead producing branded-content for companies like ... Sally and Sarah take pride in creating "bespoke, dynamic and campaign-worthy" content for companies, which allows for BLAG's creative independence and unique style to remain intact without editorial compromise. " It wasn't deleted for lack of notability=--I think it's notable  myself., there are other refs, but I think they tend to be advertorials, but it's the area of modern culture where that's not unusual.   There's not much potentially  usable material in the deleted article--I think you'd do better to start over. But if you want a copy, ask Seraphimblade  DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I spoke to the editor who was writing it regarding the problems. I'd tend to agree with DGG there wasn't really anything to salvage. It looks like that original editor has started a draft at Draft:BLAG Magazine, so you might consider giving them some help and advice there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * DGG and thanks very much. And, I think the article draft space is probably the best place for it right now. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

SAGE Encyclopedia of Economics and Society
Hi Dave! It appears that you have removed the SAGE Encyclopedia of Economics and Society. I understand that text could have benefited from some revisions to avoid copy right complications. I was wondering if you can roll-back the page so I can revise the text. 21:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmajlesara (talk • contribs)
 * , the entire contents of the article consists word for word of the "abstract " on the publication's web page. You can find it there. But in addition to being copyvio, it was essentially promotional, and you'd do much better to forget about trying to revise it and start over. There are surely reviews of this important publication to use for sources.  DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So, I can recreate the page? Bmajlesara (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * you can and you should.  DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Cacti (Software)
I am trying to determine why exactly the Cacti (Software) page was deleted. You listed it as 'G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion' but it seems anything but that. From what I can determine, G11 is traditionally used for Spam articles. This page is not Unambiguous advertising or promotion anymore than any page about any other piece of software is. Its been here for 10 years and have several dozen other pages linking to it. It could probably use some revisions in a few places, but it does not appear to be G11 worthy. Cigamit (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The page was mistakenly deleted in trying to fix up a large batch of over-hasty deletion nominations by an inexperienced user. I've restored it. I have considerable doubts if the current sourcing shows it is notable, but that's another matter.  DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Page patrolling
has patrolled 219 pages today  in just over two  hours. This is absolutely not  humanly  possible. There are instances where he has patrolled at a rate of 7 a minute - that's just  blind button  mashing. I don't  care what  our  backlog is, no  one has time to  verify  the quality  of his edits so  he has to  stop. I'm going now to  tell  him  to  limit his patrolling and AfC reviewing  to  a total  of 50  patrolls/reviews in  any  24 hours or I'll block  him without  further warning and we can hold the ANI  debate afterwards to  unblock  him  on  condition  that  he limit his daily  reviewing  to  50  articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * http://tools.wmflabs.org/nppdash/patrollerinfo/result.php?user=SwisterTwister may be helpful here? It's not yet finished (new features planned) but it at least lists the latest 500 pages patrolled by a user -- samtar talk or stalk 09:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I will note about 75% of these are by the same user who largely started then at the same time, see the patrol logs for yourself. SwisterTwister   talk  16:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , am I right that the ed. in question is apparently, with relation to his series of articles on Indian villages and related topics? It is indeed possible to go quite quickly in dealing with these, but I think I would either have indicated for each article or , much better, suggested to him on his user talk page that the articles would have been greatly improved by adding a map,   by linking to the articles for nearby towns mentioned,   by using inline citations which he has done only sporadically, and by omitting adjectives like "beautiful". All these are common faults of such articles; his are definitely among the better ones of their type, and the editor should be encouraged to do even better.  I'm not sure I would have gone into this for an individual article, since they are fundamentally acceptable, but wereI to notice such a large number on the subject--as you did notice--then it's appropriate to  contact the editor. NPP does not have to be entirely routine--it can be made much more interesting by following up on important things, such as encouraging promising editors, rather than by aiming for quick cleanup.


 * I've done a quick check otherwise of some of the more recent. . Not counting the villages, I've looked at about 15: 10 I would have done just the same, 5 differently.  Some of the differences are inconsequential, but: for Muhammad Suleman Shaikh, I tagged it for G11. that can be a matter of judgment and I may be wrong, but I would at the very least have tagged as promotional. For Centro Nacional Autónomo de Cinematografía, I added tags for primary sources,insufficient references,and expand Spanish. For Project networks I would have done more, though we have no real standard procedure for this sort of an article: it's basically a term paper. The tag for "essay" is not appropriate, as its message is meant for an opinion essay, which this is not.  I added tags for inline refs, additional refs, and tone. I also added a tag for copypaste from an unknown source. It may indeed have been the contributor's own school essay, but this cannot be assumed. More help must be given here,--at least a superficial check for ca source for a copy source, and an appropriate message to the editor about our style. He's never even been welcomed. Of course, doing this right takes time, as that is Kudpung's point. I think you should deal with the suggestions on these articles. (If you were a new reviewer, I'd do this personally now; but you have fully enough experience  and   skill here  to   handle it properly by yourself) And then, I think you should go back over the previous article you reviewed and try to see if there is more to be done for each of them.--I'd recommend that you do it before patrolling additional ones. I know you mean to do this right, so her's the time and place to start.   DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Cyan (cat)
Hi. I've recreated this redirect as I had previously declined a speedy on it. Cyan is a character (and is a cat) in the Free Collars Kingdom thing, and I considered this to be a valid redirect (as a few other of Neelix's have been when I looked at them). After I declined PatientZero's X1 (and explained my reason on his/her talk page), it was replaced by an IP. You might have a reason that I can't see, or possibly not noticed that I'd declined previously. Peridon (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * you seem to be correct  DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Susan E. Eaton
Hi, DGG I have added book reviews Draft:Susan E. Eaton.Seden4m (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * -- yes, it's better. But these are academic books, so there should be academic reviews available. The simplest way to find them is to use Book Review Index, available in any academic library and some large public libraries. But I've accepted it as is for now. I may revise it a little.  DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Samir Becic - recreation review?
Hi DGG,

First, thanks for all your hard work on Wikipedia. You'll probably never get enough praise for all that you do. My question is regarding the curious case of one Samir Becic, who does meet Wikipedia's notability criteria but has one heck of a deletion history.

The deletion history log is here:

There appear to be multiple deletions as late as January 2015. However they all rely on a 2012 deletion vote, which was valid, when the subject was on the margin of notability.

No conflicts. Thoughts on lifting the admin template so I can take a shot at a reasonable page? DavidWestT (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What additional references do you have? Just tell me the 2 or 3 strongest.  DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Full profile / feature pieces SINCE the latest deletion vote down the line:

(Houston Chronicle) (Houston Chronicle) (Christian Post) Novovrijeme HuffPo (KHOU local Houston news) (ABC)

(SF Gate)

(Undefeated Magazine)

There are a bunch of brief mentions from LAT, NYT and so on. Part of the issue is that he's a journalist, really:

- focus.de (biggest German digital daily: weekly columnist, main health expert) - 89.3 KSBJ Radio Station (weekly appearances) - Health and Fitness Sports Magazine (contributing writer) - More Magazine (contributing writer) - Men's Journal (journalist) - NBC's Channel 2, "Behind the Headlines" - WB39 News -Fox 26 "Tips for Houston" - Radio 96.5, "The Roula and Ryan Show" - Sunny 99.1 with Dana Tyson - 104.1 with Sam Malone

DGG, let me know what you're thinking? DavidWestT (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * give me another day or two.  DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. You need to ask, who was the admin that protected it. But what I would recommend, is that you first make as good an article as you can in Draft space. Omit minor material. Then ask for restoration. If it's declined ,ask me to look again.  DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for some etiquette advice
Hello DGG. I'm contacting you out of the blue hoping for some advice (at your convenience), concerning an ongoing RfC you commented on about two months ago (and in a related arbitration dispute).

My question isn't about your opinion on the RfC itself, actually, but rather your analysis on the bold use of a guideline to re-assert the deletion leading to the RfC. Since we agree on some content points, I'm aware asking your advice might be misconstrued as "canvassing," but that's not at all my intent - just more a question of etiquette, if you don't mind? I can't help but notice you seem very knowledgable on matters of neutrality and the manual of style, so I have a hard time imagining any advice you might give being dismissed for being biased (and if I've crossed a line with this comment, don't hesitate to let me know so I can attempt amends somehow.). To the question: I've read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE several times, and it seems to absolutely support a comment an editor recently made in the side arbitration discussion (that in short, the term under contention should remain out of the lead until consensus clearly supports its addition):


 * ''"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis."

I absolutely believe my arguments are "good-faith BLP objections," and so I would feel correct again deleting the term myself. That said, though, the topic is contentious, and I'd rather not sully my account's repute by doing something that will get me accused of bias or improper POV pushing. To give you context, while I have plenty of hours conversing in RfCs, I've never closed one or led one myself before this, and so I regret my personal experience here is limited. So in a nutshell, would it be wrong of me (i.e. incredibly rude, as the creator of a contentius ongoing RfC), to use that guideline as my rationale for again asserting my deletion until consensus is met? Thank you in advance. Yvarta (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am primarily concerned about content, not procedure; I am concerned about having orderly procedure only so we can deal with content more effectively. I am concerned about the effect of guidelines, not their wording; I am concerned about wording only to the extent it clarifies the intent. I think a considerable part of our guidelines are worded too starkly, omitting the necessary nuance that is needed to lead  to effective application of their spirit and purpose, and I think this is particularly true of the BLP guidelines, which were instituted in essentially a moral panic.
 * As an admin, and as an arb, I follow the rules, but I interpret them to achieve the best we can to equitable and rational solutions, a goal that usually involves some degree of compromise--sometimes, even compromise with injustice.


 * I can't see any other approach as rational, because Wikipedia rules are not a unified code compiled by experts, but a hodge-podge of empirical attempts at dealing with questions as the arise, and therefore comprise a maze of contradictions. But, we do have one fundament rule to justify my approach to problems: IAR. Without it, I would not attempt to do anything substantial here except as a writer or copyeditor.


 * Keep to the basics: close in the way that you think will yield the best result for WP. I've already said what I think it to be.  DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful advice, DGG. I typically just approach guidelines as set in stone, but as you point out, it would be absurd to assume every case study fits every guideline's wording to a T, or that some interpretation isn't required in many cases. I will consider how to approach the issue in the way that most benefits the project overall, and best meshes with the guidelines' intent. Best, Yvarta (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 October
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) 00:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=743708050 your edit] caused a URL 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%2F743708050%7CIntel International Science and Engineering Fair%5D%5D Ask for help])

Draft:University of Transport and Communications
When I was about to start a stub on the University of Transport and Communications (as any independent degree-awarding institution is generally kept as per Common outcomes) I found that Draft:University of Transport and Communications existed. Does that draft read promotionally? If not, may I just move it into the article space? WhisperToMe (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC) , the draft is not promotional, but it has no references whatsoever; If you have any, add them and move it to mainspace. (you can also  add them and then submit the article, but the AfC process is so cumbersome I ofter bypass it; it is not required to use it.  DGG ( talk ) 15:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Edward Cornelius Humphrey
Hi. Why did you ? The subject doesn't seem to pass any notability criteria and the primary author has an apparent conflict of interest. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 14:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I . I guess the question now is how did you think the subject is notable? Was this out-of-process move just to fix your earlier mistake? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * checking my archives--I'll get back to you tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 15:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You can put your response on the AfD. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I was probably going to suggest. It didn't quite qualify for G4 or A7, but that doesn't mean it will pass AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Rodeway Inn and Suites, Fort Lauderdale Airport and Port Everglades Cruise Port
Are you sure that was about an organisation? It seemed to be about the facilities themselves to me. Adam9007 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A hotel is a business as well as a building. Some of the worst promotionalism was removed after I tagged it. Just as an exercise, I'm going to restore and clean it, though there will not be much left. Let's see if the promotionalism  returns.  DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I get a whiff of puppetry here. There's this article, about a Choice Hotels franchisee, written by an account which had been inactive for over a year. And last week, Richchoice (obvious COI username) created Ascend Hotel Collection & Cambria Hotels & Suites two other Choice franchises. The sudden flurry of activity on Choice Hotels topics, the similarity in username structure (Common English nickname + brand name?), the promotional tone of the articles... it all seems too coincidental, yet not concrete enough to raise an SPI. Cabayi (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * what you need for a spi, is to check for identical peculiarities in wording and so on. It might help also to run a careful check for copyvio on the current version of Econo Lodge before  it is either  cleaned or redirected or, most likely, deleted. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion comments
Hi. May I respectfully suggest that you do not attempt to use CSD criteria to delete a 10-year old article (as you did with Conrad Fort Lauderdale)? I appreciate there is no time limit applicable to speedy deletion, but I don't believe that process was ever intended to apply in cases like this. It is for clear-cut uncontroversial deletions which are never going to be suitable for an encyclopedia; A 10-year old article with 100+ revisions is unlikely to be in this category. In this instance you applied G11, but I'm fairly sure that some of those revisions are not "exclusively promotional" and could form the basis for a suitable article. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is often  possible, but there was no version that was both current and omitted advertising. It is also possible to stubbify to stubbify, but then my experience has been that the promotionalism  just gets re-added. I tried constructing a version, and lets see what happens. Though extensively worked on by an editor writing in a promotional  manner,  the original editor was a responsible WPedian, so you may be basically right.   DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Haiti–United States relations
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Haiti–United States relations. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeffrey Satinover, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Question on news release tag
Hi, DGG, for Paul T. P. Wong's biographical page, you added the "news release" tag a week ago. In response, I have attempted changing or deleting some wording that may have a promotional tone. Can you give any further guidance on which sentences/sections are promotional? Thanks. Evelyn Mak (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For academics, we usually mention only their 4 or 5 most cited papers, including the number of citations from Google Scholar or the like. We include only major awards. We don't describe the accomplishments of their children.
 * I have also tagged your other articles as advertisements, as all of them seem designed to promote Wong's theory. Unless you revise them to include criticism, remove promotional praises, remove therapeutic claims that do not have sources that meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS, and remove connections with earlier theories depending only on Wong's works (or change them into statements like "Wong considers that...", I am likely to list them for deletion as promotional.
 * It is also promotional to make redirects from unlikely search terms that have not been used as alternative names.
 * As this set of interwoven articles is the only topic you have worked on, it is reasonable that I ask you whether it is possible that you might have some connection with the subject. If you're just a fan, and have no business, professional, or employment connection, you might want to declare it, but you need not be specific. If however there is any financial connection, please see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure, which require that the specific connection be described. In such circumstances, you would also be well advised to write articles on the subject in Draft space.  DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As a newbie on Wikipedia, I'm thankful for your guidance. I'll be making those edits shortly. Yes, that's completely reasonable. I am Wong's research assistant. Wong has been asked several times by different people to create Wiki pages on these topics, so we're finally getting to it. Appreciate your help in making these of encyclopedic quality. As well, when I have completed the edits, do I refer back to you or undo the tag myself? Thanks. Evelyn Mak (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a number of problems here; it may take me a day or two for a full answer.  DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Genuinely appreciate your help. Will be checking back here every so often. Evelyn Mak (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hotels
@DGG - What do I need to do to create a Wikipedia friendly page at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ascend_Hotel_Collection&redirect=no ? I'm so confused why it keeps getting deleted/redirected. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickalan (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * give me a day ortwo on this also, please.  DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As with above, an editor who's been fairly inactive for the longest while piles in on recreating a recently deleted Choice Hotels brand. I can't see the deleted versions or those of its sister brands, and copyvio doesn't seem to be the issue (as you suggested above), but it reeks of puppetry, sleepers, and the like. Cabayi (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The way to deal with companies is to write the article for the largest unit that owns all the others, with sections for the individual brands. The brands only need separate articles if they are particularly well known in their own right, more than the parent. It is possible that some of these are, but it is unclear if there is sufficient non-l material available to make good separate articles. The first step  in doing this is to improve the content in the main article.  DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Refresh !vote
Let's consider a new !vote type for AFD: Such a vote would only be valid for consideration if, in my opinion, it includes a pointer to a ready-to-go replacement. Your thoughts? -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * REFRESH - Likely notable topic with overriding issues. Delete in order to remove the current article content and contributor history from public view.  Then re-create with content from Draft:Example
 * I don't want to add more complexity to the system, or use new terminology. People close this way  already . We could put in the instructions an encourage them to do so. But I am very eager  to try to find some compromise between our positions, (I should rather say the 2 sides,since we're not the only people), because the current conflicts are tying up the work at AfD.
 * In order to use wording that;'s already familiar, I would support adding a button for Delete and encourage re-creation It would still be the understanding that plain delete does not prohibit re-creation or need approval to re-create,and Delete and protect is still available--though quite properly, we use it very little, mainly when there have been numerous hopeless tries.    DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Admiral Markets
Good day,

As you mentioned in the comment you are able to help us out with informative wiki page about our company

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Admiral_Markets

It's made only for informative purpose according to all the wikipedia regulations. We did add lots of references and made text as neutral as possible.

Please advise what shall we do next to get it published.

Best regards,

Denis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.14.179 (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This wouldn't pass AfD. The sources are too weak, and it is too promotional. As for sources, we need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The way you have entered the references, without filling in the website or publisher field makes it difficult to judge them without looking them up or going into the source text--,but doing so, I see they are mostly promotional advertorials from newsletters, mere notices, and the like. If the first book is "Publications" is intended as a reference, it doesn't mention the company in its index; the second one there was published by the company itself. Promotional articles are written for potential clients/customers/staff/investors/ etc., and contain what the organization wants to tell them. Ecyclopedia articles are written for the general public who may have heard of the company, and give them the information they are likely to want. Details of licensing and compatibility fall in the first group. The place for them is the firm's own web site.
 * If we remove the poor sources and the promotional content, thee's nothing much left.


 * Even more important ,if you or the two named editors who have worked only on this article have any conflict of interest, see WP:COI And if the conflict of interest is financial or as an agent or paid writer, see also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure  DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sun October 16: CommonsLab / Open House NY Photo Contest + Hackathon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Another candidate for speedy
DGG, since you nominated Swap-O-Matic under g11, you might also be interested in this. Brianhe (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hypertherm
Can we get the G11 reversed and restored please. Hypertherm are notable leaders in plasma cutting and they have a number of design innovations in their machines, not found in others. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But the article is advertising, e.g. "Hypertherm's general manager was quoted as saying: '“Hypertherm devotes an enormous amount of resources to the development of technologically advanced plasma cutting systems and consumables. We believe that our innovations deliver unique advantages and superior productivity and profitability for Hypertherm’s customers. As such, we are very protective of our inventions and will use whatever legal means necessary to ensure that our patents are not violated.' ” and the claimed innovations are unsourced.
 * But we certainly need more technical articles, and of course I recognize your knowledge of technical subjects, so I  restored to Draft space as Draft:Hypertherm for you to clean and source. When ready, just move it back; no need to ask my permission.    DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Lodge (company)
Hello DGG, I notice that you recently removed a lot of content from that article as a copyvio. I had expanded that article adding several references a while ago. Can you please email me the deleted content? I will again expand the article being sure to avoid any copyright issues. Thank you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I emailed it to you. the copyvio was from https://www.lodgemfg.com/content/about-us.asp (and elsewhere on their site). The page is certainly worth the work. Now, if you had been willing to be an admin,.... .  DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the copy and for the hint. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

New problems with an editor
You may remember my problems with this user concerning articles on German artists and art historians. See also this edit from Dr Blofeld's talk page. I did not contribute to Wikipedia for several months. Now I added some information to the article on HA Schult, and one or two hours later my old opponent User:Rhode Island Red has reappeared on the scene, removing content from the said article, falsely claiming that major German exhibition catalogs and other publications are not reliable sources and such things (see, for instance, ) and now saying that the Washington Post article does not contain the removed information, although he himself included it in the main text of the article some years ago (see ). He even changed the wording of some parts of the text, thereby changing the original meaning supported by the given sources (see ). He also questions the notabilty of art historian Wolf Tegethoff (see ), presumably because I have created this article, and he continues questioning the notablity of articles on other art historians I have created (see ). I think it is high time to block the activities of this user. Do you have an idea what we can do? Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The main thing you can do is avoid getting this personal between the two of you regardless of provocation. Just work on each individual article without mentioning any editor's name at all. As for the issues, I've commented on the talk p. . If I need to go back there, just ask me, but try  not to guide me what to do.  DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is now an edit war, as Rhode Island Red is still reverting my edits, though many reliable sources have been provided. What we need is a third opinion concerning the reliability of my sources. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow. I shall have to look at the article from the beginning.  DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Rhode Island Red has now violated the 3 revert rule. See the edit history of Gotthard Graubner. In order to show good faith, I'll wait for your opinion. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Violation of 3RR would require exceeding 3 reverts within 24 h. That is not the case. I regret having had to push it so close to the line but you have clearly violated WP:ONUS, failed to strive for consensus for your additions, and basically ignored the discussion process. This has been a chronic problem. You are also at the bright line of violating 3RR and have now been warned twice. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Warned by you on my talk page, yes. I do not understand why Rhode Island Red has now removed all my well-sourced additions to the article on HA Schult (see ). Be that as it may, concerning the article on Gotthard Graubner, it is a historical fact that in 1959 Schult, Gonschior and Graubner were the first and only students in Götz's class ("Seine ersten Schüler sind Gotthard Graubner, HA Schult und Kuno Gonschior"). It is therefore self-evident that they knew each other well. As all three students later became well-known German artists of some reputation, they are certainly worth mentioning as classmates in the article on Graubner and elsewhere. Furthermore, in 1958, before moving into Götz's class, both Schult and Graubner had studied under Meistermann. So why has Schult's name been removed from the article on Graubner? Graubner had left Götz's class in 1959 before Richter and Polke began studying in Düsseldorf in 1961. This means that Graubner was not a classmate of Richter and Polke, though they tried, together with Konrad Lueg, to form an artistic collaboration (the Gruppe 63), but "in the end, nothing much came of Lueg's proposal". So they didn't form an artistic colloboration. ("Luegs Vorschlag wird letztlich nicht in die Tat umgesetzt; eine Gruppe 63 nie gegründet"). Some critics only mention Graubner, Richter and Polke because they are the most famous painters who studied in Götz's class. Their painting style differs. Graubner's style is much closer to Gonschior's than to Richter's or Polke's. Even Schult's style in some of his early works (see and ) is relatively close to Graubner's (see  and ). These are the facts. So would you please explain what is wrong with the following sentence: All this can be supported by reliable sources, although Rhode Island Red frequently removes this passage (see ). Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students, his fellow students being HA Schult, who also studied under Meistermann, and Kuno Gonschior.

Warning to the two editors

 * I am now going to ask each of you to think--just think, but not say here--, why the question of just how closely associate the various people were at art school matters to you so much.


 * There are ways of wording this to avoid the issue, such as A was a student of X, at the same time that B was a student of X.  The degree of their relationship can then   be left open. It's relevant enough for the relationships of artists to mention, though we do not need to explicitly draw inferences from it. If "in 1959 Schult, Gonschior and Graubner were the first and only students in Götz's class" it is not necessary to actually say that they know each other well.  You should be able  to compromise on some such wording without my having to write it out for you myself.


 * I am going to repeat here the one specific opinion that I gave on one of the talk pages: An artist's bio as published as part of the catalog of a sole exhibition in a major museum is a RS for all purposes. Such museum publications are formal publications and are routinely used as reliable.  A bio published in a commercial gallery publication or part of a group show may, however,  not be reliable. If anyone disagrees with this, please  take to    WP:RSN which is designed for the purpose..


 * I now warn both of you that any mention of each other here or elsewhere will lead to a block. Discuss the edits. I also warn you that in interpreting 3RR, it's the meaning of it, not the exact timing that matters. Some admins may quibble about timing; I care about it being a war. Anyone who pushes it "close to the line" is likely to be blocked.


 * I now ask both of you to please stop editing these articles for the next 48 hours so I can look at them properly. This is intended as a temporary topic ban and I shall enforce it.  DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I stopped editing the said articles. You are right that it is necessary to discuss the edits. My version of the disputed passage in the article on Gotthard Graubner is the following:
 * From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students, his fellow students being HA Schult, who also studied under Meistermann, and Kuno Gonschior.
 * This includes only the facts without speculating whether these artists knew each other well. So I do not understand why this has been changed to the following version:
 * From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students.
 * This current version does not include the full information. The fact that Schult and Gonschior were Graubner's classmates in missing here. However, this information is of importance to art historians who frequently draw comparisons between artists. For instance, in this case it is interesting that Schult, as his early work shows, originally wanted to be a painter (otherwise he would not have moved with Graubner into the painting class of Götz), but later decided to be a performance artist, whereas Graubner und Gonschior remained abstract painters at heart. Furthermore, all three artists later exhibited at the documenta in Kassel and also participated in other group exhibitions. Interestingly, both Graubner's and Schult's art is influenced by the work of Caspar David Friedrich, one of the favorite painters of their professor Götz. So it makes much sense to mention in the Graubner article that Graubner, Schult and Gonschior were classmates in Götz's painting class. Just one sentence presenting all facts without interpretation. However, the article on HA Schult is more problematic, as much more information has been removed here (see ). Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

, please stop trying to guide my responses. If you do not  think I am capable of judging the material for myself, why did you ask my opinion? Please do not respond further until I have had a chance to re-examine it from the start.  DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Klingon Way
Hi DGG; I think you may have guessed that there would be an appeal, here. In my view (and though I was obviously involved with the AfD, I had never heard of this book or its author before coming across the discussion) there are still open questions, here. New information was introduced at a late stage; in the view of three participants (me, Jclemens, and Hobit; none of us newbies) this was enough to tip the article into "keep". For at least two users, this was not sufficient.

There is, then, a legitimate disagreement about whether the existence/content of these sources helps ground the notability of the subject. At a glance, there are at least three such questions: The extent to which the audiobook review counts as a source, the extent to which the Institute's journal could be considered independent of this book and the whether the passing mentions (including mentions that the book was/is important to certain individuals) help establish notability.

Two more things (sorry for the stream of consciousness; it's late here): I accept that the conversation was certainly leaning towards delete initially, but a lot of the earlier commenters reference the complete lack of reliable sources, which became increasingly disputed as the conversation went on. Finally, the conduct of a particular user (I'm not the only person who mentioned this in the discussion) was hardly stellar, and I suspect (though have no evidence to support this) that this may have had something of a chilling effect on the discussion.

I don't expect you to restore the article or reopen the discussion or anything, but I wondered if you share some thoughts on these issues and/or possible steps forward. I suppose one would be to put together the best article I can manage in my userspace and then take it to deletion review, but perhaps I'd rather not spend my time doing that if there is some other option and/or that is doomed to failure. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe, DGG, you can take a bit more time to have another look at the discussion. I would say that the case for keeping the page was adequately proven, and it's possible, in the time you spent on the page, that you may have overlooked the pattern made by the ongoing edits to the page and the sources discovered during the process. This seems like one of those nomination-type saves, where editors actually did a good job in building the page even as the deletion debate went on. I, too, had never heard of the book, nor speak the language, but joined both the discussion and the page editing after coming across the deletion conversation in progress while on an editing run. Thanks. Randy Kryn 4:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All I'm supposed to do is judge what is the consensus on the basis of  rational arguments. I'm not supposed to make my decision on the basis of my own view of the actual issue.  I have sometimes closed on a consensus that is quite opposed to my position, if it looks like people have decided otherwise. More usually, if I disagree with what looks like the consensus is going to be, I add an argument, not close in favor of my position.  But it is possible that the views may have changed during the discussion, and I may have missed that, and it may be that the issue should be reopened for further consideration. I will look at this tomorrow. It's too late here now.  DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify; I agree with you about judging the arguments as presented rather than making your own decision. I just wonder whether there's enough of a case to reopen the discussion or, more likely, close as a no consensus. Alternatively, there may be some other possible course of action. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I relisted. Let me suggest that the article might be stronger with out the examples., focussing rather on the book.  DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Pul (coin)
Dear DGG, if you need help with translation, you can count on me. Also, please see Pul (coin), its draft is a leftover.Barefact (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't gotten to this one yet--I was planning to do a selective rewriting of the Russian article, not a full translation. If you;d like to  add the information from the ruWP, I'd be glad for the help.  DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

New Mail
Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Saturday October 22: WikiArte Latin American Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Proposed deletion of D. Raja Reddy


The article D. Raja Reddy has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Template Wyeth
Please help me improve Template:Wyeth!!! ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ (Talk to me) 04:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/PBS logos
Hi DGG. Would you relist Articles for deletion/PBS logos, which you closed as "delete"? If the AfD is relisted, I will comment in the AfD with sources about the subject. I also noticed you previously commented about the article at Articles for deletion/PBS idents (6th nomination): "Five previous AfDs failed to delete it. With enough tries, anything can be deleted. Not just keep, but since this AfD is less than 6 months after the last one, establish a 2 or 3 year moratorium before another bite at the apple. (The nomination is defective, giving no valid reason for deletion except that it appeals to only a niche audience. So does most of the encyclopedia-- different niches, of course. This is essentially IDONTLIKEIT, in the variant, ITINTERESTSONLYOTHERPEOPLE." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, I relisted. Perhaps we need some clearer general understanding of the meaning of "cruft" -- the results of   the many AfDs using it over the years shows great variability.    DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DGG. I agree that a clearer definition of "cruft" would be useful. Would you restore PBS idents, Dash and Dot, and Talk:PBS logos, which were deleted per the AfD? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone got there to do them first. Perhaps it should be in the programming of "undo" but it may not be frequent enough & there may be too many complications.
 * The real question about "cruft" is how much detail is appropriate in a WP article. The conventional answer in our guidelines, is "as much as supported by the sources." with the unstated understanding "unless it become ridiculous" My own view is that it means  or should mean "as much as is appropriate to the importance of the subject and is supported by he sources". I consider that implied by the meaning of "WP is an encyclopedia" because that is what distinguishes encyclopedias from accumulations of information. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The Hidden Curriculum
Since we've discussed academic book articles before, could I get your opinion on the sourcing in this one? czar 01:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did, saying in essence, I do not know what we should do with such articles.  DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC).

Worldcat holdings
Hi, I wonder if you could help determine if this would considered a notable author? Ronald Smelser. Are there any tips or guidelines on how to evaluate such holdings in general? I've seen holdings mentioned at several AfDs but I'm not sure how to apply them. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (talk page watcher) Hello, happening to look, he is certainly notable in that the numbers exceed 8,000 and the largest book of which is at 861 libraries (imaginably, reviews will exist and those would ultimately help of course); usually the best convincing ones are going to be at least 1,000 as that's sufficient to suggest major; it also then varies by what the highest held book is, and whether he was the primary or at least secondary, and also whether that said book is a majorly published and major book, in that case, the person would be notable, yes. Also, closely related, there are some that may still be notable by a special case, for example, one author may have 860 library holdings, and they only published one book, but that one of them is held at, say, 850 libraries, that would be sufficient for notability, especially if reviews exist. Cheers, SwisterTwister   talk  04:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ,, it is not quite that simple. An arbitrary figure  makes no sense whatsoever, )(any more than there is a single arbitrary figure for h-index.) Library holdings of books are very field dependent, and very language , date, * country dependent.
 * First, field dependency: In esoteric fields with a small number of people working, such as notably archeology or linguistics, some aspects of academic religion, even 50 or 60 holdings of a book is quite significant.  In other academic fields, such as the study of mainstream literary figures, 300 of so would be needed. I can think of not academic field whatsoever where 800 copies would be needed to indicate notability of the book or the author. In popular non-fiction or fiction, the genre has to be considered--some fields can have very high holdings, such as science fiction or mysteries, or childrens fiction series, or bios about people in popular culture or current politics or about how to succeed in business or current vogues in spirituality-in many of these it would take several hundred to be even mildly significant.   But remember that WorldCat figures measure only books in libraries some of these fields, including radical literature or alternate sexuality are rarely held in libraries, even now and almost never before the 21st century.
 * Second, date: popular and childrens fiction of earlier generations is very rarely kept by public libraries. They concentrate almost entirely upon what people are likely to ask for, which is what has been published in the last few years, and discard them when they no longer circulate--Even important popular or childrens fictions from the first half of the 20th century will have very low library holding.
 * But the most important variable is country. WorldCat includes essentially all academic and most public libraries in the United States, with somewhat less intense coverage  of those in Canada, and only the major ones in the UK. Elsewhere there is a sprinkling of public libraries is Australia/New Zealand, and a few major university of national libraries elsewhere, but essentially no public libraries. A few European countries have good national listings, but I am not familiar with using them. Elsewhere in the world there is for all practical purposes nothing accessible. Therefor even    UK fiction is represented less than US, and the most popular childrens book in Italy may have a few dozen WorldCat holdings at most,  and one published in India in Hindi, essentially none.
 * This is relatively little problem in evaluating academic work, as the general rule is that we consider notability under WP:PROF as international (tho this is unfair to fields that are inherently national, such as political science or agriculture of a particular country) . For publicculture in the usual sense, it's critical.
 * There are also peculiarities in publishing practices,and in WorldCat: Books published in e-book packages are often bought by libraries as a package, just as e-journals are, and even high holdings may indicate little. Worldcat is erratic in combining forms of authors names, even for Western authors.  Some books are published in multiple editions or versions, and Worldcat does not do well in combining them.(and earlier eds. of many sorts or works are routinely discarded by libraries) Worldcat counts from the individual book pages and those from the author summaries are often widely divergent even up to ±50, for reasons I do not understand . Libraries in the past have rarely bought textbooks; nowadays if they do, they almost never keep the older eds. So for this genre,they may be a drastic undercount or overcount. I would be very reluctant to sum up holdings of different books in worldcat as a number because of these anomalies. Doing it right for a major author is a research project.
 * There is a very sensitive bibliographic technique which can be used in some cases:comparing the book with others in the field. (These needs to be done with great care, not just relying on LC subject headings, which, by and large, are much more erratic than even WP categories) .But I have used this to show, for example that a particular dictionary of a very minor language is the most widely held one in that subject. I'll do this sort of analysis on request if i thin it important enough.
 * And, as Swister Twister mentioned, there is the question of publisher. For academics, only the university presses and the academic societies and the few specialist commercial publishers count at all (this is not just a recent phenomenon--its been true from the 18th century on at least). For popular works, only established publishers count, but there can be confusion with the multiple imprints of major houses, which usually do count, and with the very few fields whee self publishing may occasionally  be significant, such as sci-fi.
 * There is another trick: if you look up the author search page in WorldCat eg.  (not the author summary page, eg.  at the very end, aftre the books and the journal articles he wrote in JStor and Muse journals --which are the only ones WorldCat sually analyses for articles--, are the book reviews of his books, at least those in the Jsstor and Muse journals


 * Now, the case you brought up, Ronald Smelser, has multiple books with extremely high counts even considering that the Nazi era is a widely populr topic in modern history., mostly from academic publishers of importance. There is no question whatsoever that he is notable. Had he even one such book with such high counts, he probably would be, but WP:PROF usually requires two, which is the standard of the highest quality research universities for tenure. This is not the same as showing that his views are widely accepted--that requires other sources. That we have no article on him is incredible. His book The Myth of the Eastern Frontpublished by Cambridge University Press.  is a major work, and worth an article. Based on the article, the question is whether his view is the academic consensus. It can not be determined solely fro the reviews, but by other major publication on the subject.  (It is not uncommon for reviews in the humanities to be written by other specialists in the field , who are necessarily owe's rivals) But it is certainly enough to qualify him as an expert, if not necessarily the expert.  DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Now there is: Ronald Smelser; thanks to for moving it from draft. Surprisingly, an admin was questioning the subject's notability on the Talk page: Talk:Ronald_Smelser :-). They apparently do not spend enough time at AfD to be able to evaluate notability of authors and academics, as both WP:AUTHOR & WP:ACADEMIC are met by the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Koshy (actress)
Hello! Can you please undelete the page above and put it on VFD first? And can you unblock me? I'd hate for this to have to go to wikipedia:arb, because I prefer peaceful solutions first. Thank you and God bless you! Antonio The Notorious Gig Martin (Dime por aqui) 06:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The logs suggest you have not been blocked at all. What makes you think you have? Deb (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What I did block was re-creation of the page, which has now been attempted 6 times under several forms of the name, by 5 different editors. All of rhem except you made no other contributions.  DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

restore deleted page
Hello, could you please restore the [Alpha Academic] page as a draft, so i can make the relevant amendment, as I can now add a reference to confirm it provides vocational education. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constancelyn (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * does it lead to a degree? do you have any 3rd party RSs that are not PR? Unless you do, there may be not point in claiming it as an educational institution, because it will be nominated by deletion & probably deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!
DGG, Thanks for moving my Whiting article! It is a relief to get it done, and to be able to focus on other things for a while. But hubby and I still plan to attend some meetings and editathons. See you there! Mfrm123 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

John Gilbert
Hi, could you please redirect John Gilbert (scientist) to Non-stick surface. I don't know how to do it. His experiments using the fluorinated polymer as a surface coating for pots and pans helped usher in a revolution in non-stick cookware. But I don't think there enough sources for him to warrant a separate article. Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.238.110.55 (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we would need a better reference. even for that; the physchem posting just mentioned it in passing.  DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's another ref. I DON'T think he deserves a separate article. But he should be mentioned somewhere in Non-stick surface article, and he is mentioned. I just want his article to be redirected to the general Non-stick surface article.--128.238.110.55 (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable, and I shall do it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Aubrey
Ahem! Just an innocent slip, I'm sure, but you've "!voted" twice within Articles for deletion/Aubrey Wade. -- Hoary (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks. This comes of doing things not in a single pass thru afd looking at everything the way I used to, but only partially, in various directions, I'm gradually learning to check first.  DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

please could you restore / help me re-draft an article
Hi - I'm getting in touch about an article I wrote on the AO Alliance Foundation that you recently deleted. To give a bit of back-story: I published it directly the first time around, and it was deleted (A7 & G11). I re-worked it and submitted as a draft in the hope that if it still didn't meet requirements for being on Wikipedia, I'd be assisted in making the necessary edits. Thus, it's disappointing to see it deleted again (this time just on G11). I'm struggling to see the difference in tone between the AO Alliance Foundation article and articles on other international NGOs (International Rescue Committee, Open Society Foundations, AO Foundation, etc), and fear that it's being deleted because I'm new to Wikipedia editing and haven't yet hacked writing with an encyclopaedic tone, rather than that the subject matter is intrinsically problematic. Please could you restore the article / advise on how I can re-draft it to ensure it meets Wikipedia's requirements? Many thanks, PetePete.harrison93 (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , both the draft and the article was indistinguishable from a web page written to promote the group, and most of the content is devoted to saying how great the need is and how good their work is. That's promotionalism As for the other articles you mention,  There are several hundred thousand 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. Specifically. the IRC article is indeed a problem, and I've tagged it for improvement.   The AO article needs checking . The OSF article seems reasonably descriptive for me, and a good deal  of it is devoted to criticism.
 * As for writing a draft, do you have  references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements> There are none in the draft. If you do not, there is no chance of an article.  Perhaps the best course would be to add a paragraph to the article on the closely related AO Foundation.
 * Even more important, it would seems to be reasonable to ask if you have any connection with the group, because if you do, it would constitute WP:Conflict of Interest, and needs to be declared. In particular, if it is in any sense a financial COI,  you should see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure.  DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Highgate Private Hospital
I would be obliged if you could restore this article so I can finish it. I don't think it's reasonable to delete a new article at an hours notice. Some of us have other things in our life apart from Wikipedia. Rathfelder (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , there was no indication of importance and there seemed unlikely to be any. Normally in a case like this I'd restore to draft space, but since you're an experienced editor,   I will restore it, and check again in a week or so.  DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I think any substantial hospital is notable. The difficulty, for commercial ones, is finding information which is not disguised advertising. But lack of information does not mean it isn't notable. And this article is not intended to be advertising.Rathfelder (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Notable in the world is different from what we call "notable" in wikipedia. In the past, most medium sized hospital afds have ended up in deletions. I used to defend them. but gave it up as hopeless. What I suggest when possible is combination articles for a chain. In one of its more rational sections, WP:N suggests that for things that are technically notable under its rules but for which there isn't much to say.  DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Singapore
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Newchellberry fissure
As you declined something on this, I thought you might be interested in the current situation. I've declined a G3 hoax as there are three pages of ghits (mostly if not all looking unreliable), but there are three pages for Newchellberry all by itself. And none with -fissure in the search... Why would a brain fissure be named for a non-existent person or place? Peridon (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say I've taken it to AfD... Peridon (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I declined  a speedy for nocontext, as that didn't actually apply. I didn't look further to check if it was a hoax. Glad you followed up.  DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

LA Times
Just FYI, in an offsite forum, I have criticized your statement claiming that the the Los Angeles Times is not a reliable source for non-entertainment news. You are welcome to respond here or there or both or neither. Cheers. -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's actually more than that: When we say a source is a RS for notability, the meaning is that we think it is sufficient to indicate that the subject in question is suitable for an article in an encyclopedia like WP. It depends as much on what you think suitable for an article in WP as on the source. Depending on what you want in WP, so you evaluate the sources for notability.
 * When I was a novice here, I thought the GNG very clever. But I soon learned how easy it is to use it for arguing in any desired direction.  DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And, very opportunely, I just saw Liz Spayd, "Reviewing Toaster Ovens,and Selling them, Too" (ThePublic Editor) New York Times Pct 26, 2016, from which I quote "The New York Times ... earlier this week ... purchased a popular website called The Wirecutter that recommends a variety of consumer products to its customers....If a visitor to Wirecutter’s site purchases a product by clicking a link to, say, Amazon, then Wirecutter gets a percentage of the profit". So much for the reliability of the NYT  as a RS for notability: direct financial COI for the products it writes about. I didn't think things were quite this bad, DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)