User talk:DGG/Archive 122 Mar. 2017

Fashionista: COI/spambot
Greetings, DGG. You've nominated a number of Fashionista's creations for CSD G11. I'm working through deleting some of these, and was considering an advertising-only block for the creator, but wanted a second opinion before I pulled the trigger. What are your thoughts on this? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * By the way, I've just nominated The World of Anna Sui (2017 book) for deletion. There is marginal evidence for notability, but on balance, it's just a promotional written-for-hire biography. You might like to take a look and see whether you agree. --Slashme (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG, for the balanced and insightful comments at the deletion discussion! --Slashme (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , I would suggest not blocking until the articles at afd and elsewhere are all deleted. I wouldn't want to deprive the ed. of a chance to reply.  DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not Slashme asking about the block, but thanks anyhow: that's a good point. And perhaps the various deletion processes will make the editor change their ways, though I am not particularly hopeful. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

NaadaKalasi
I'm sure you can think of something to do to this. The creator is a bit odd too. Softlavender (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is actually about a subject we already cover to some extent in Sagara, Karnataka. The other temples there have separate articles, so this one can have one also. I'll need to move the page to a more commonly used form of the name and do some editing.  DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the response. Before you posted it, I got impatient for some reason and posted it on Drmies' talkpage, and another editor trimmed it way way down and also moved it to the common name. You can build it back up, judiciously, if you like. Thanks again for the response. Softlavender (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User with likely COI
Hello DGG. Hope you don't mind me posting here, I don't really know any admins but I was recently on a talk page and I noticed that you seem to have a speciality with editors with a COI or paid by a company so I thought I would come ask for help. I think I have a problem brewing with a single issue editor on a page I am not happy about Niagara Therapy. It was a giant advert before I edited on it (you can see it before I edited it of course), and in fact the sister page Cycloidal vibration therapy was recently deleted for that reason. I think it's a reasonable assumption this editor works for the company (all the page before I edited seemed to be lifted from their own websites), and the claims for CVT I took out because Rexx at the wikiproject medicine (i think) looked at the CVT citations and decided they were not MEDRS. I don't know what would be the next step, I really don't want to start an edit war with this person just trying to take anything critical off, so do you (or I?) put a warning on the editor's page or do they get banned from the page as a single issue editor? Anyway thanks for taking the time to read, hope this makes sense, I appreciate any help. Cheers Mramoeba (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, I do seem to be doing this a good deal of the time. I wish it wren't necessary so I could work on things that interest me more,  but I think the extent of it makes it one of  the highest priority threat to Wikipedia. I left a warning for the ed., and will check further. I see on the article's talk p. that it was suggest some time ago that it might be a suitable candidate for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciated. Yes, I think I would rather do editing than worry about stuff like this! Cheers Mramoeba (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Harassment problem
Hello, I am experiencing harassment as a result of what this redditor is doing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chris_troutman In particular, this individual is abusing his Wikipedia privileges and is engaging in a pattern of actions, including vandalism, that is chilling speech on Wikipedia. I ask that you and other members of Arbitration observe his recent reverts of my content on different pages. He seems to follow me across Wikipedia and attempts to remove my content wherever I try to contribute. Therefore I think it is necessary for the Arbitration panel to get involved. Pcvcolin (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * have you considered filing a case at WP:ANI? There are many admins and others watching for new cases there. Please be advised that you are accusing another editor of WP:HARASSMENT and must 1) notify the other editor and 2) provide solid evidence, not just a feeling. - Brianhe (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * yes,, arb com only gets involved in disputes over conduct after other steps have been tried and failed. Try AN/I, br brief, and show the evidence.  DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Before you go to ANI please read WP:BOOMERANG. --Neil N  talk to me 01:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Will do.
 * Thanks. I have read WP:BOOMERANG.
 * Thank you. After reading WP:BOOMERANG and WP:HARASSMENT I realize there will be evidence I can present of actual harassment.  I'll consider carefully how to frame the matter and present the notification and evidence, and will go through the process as described at WP:HARASSMENT.

FYI
User talk:Prof. Biswajeet Pradhan

Best,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

'Outcome' of the school notability RfC
It seems to me as if the closer (or closers) here has ben lulled into believing that peripheral discussions that are not part of the RfC statement, can be summed into the conclusion in order to create a consensus. Not only do I belive the 'consensus' - if that's what it is, is ridiculous in the extreme, but I'm half a mind to challenge the closure. But Im a bit busy this week in RL.

You made an issue over schools notability on my RfA 6 years ago. I wouldn't say though that I have a COI, but I've been a coord of WPWPSCH even longer and and don't need an inconclusive RfC to prove the obvious: a tacit agreement to to keep certain types of schools as evidenced by thousands of AfD closures.

If that was a consensus, well, considering that some RfC consensus gets thrown out for being only 60%, if the strength of the arguments had been properly taken into consideration, I see a very different result. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * [ping] Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Later tonight.  DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Philippe d'Albert, 13th duc de Luynes
Hello. I didn't see this PROD. Can you please restore it and potentially take it to AFD if you still want to delete it? Please reply here. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I wil lrestore; do you also want the articles on the 11th and 12 duc restored also. )I personally have no opinion, and will let the ed. who nominated them for Prod take them to afd if they want to.). My advice, however, is that unless you can find additional material, they are likely to be deleted, on the basis of how similar articles were handled. Perhaps you would  prefer to move them to draft??  DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please restore them. I would argue that dukes are notable--we're not talking about low-level counts here. There would be many reliable third-party sources in royalist publications, but I'm in the wrong country to find them at the moment.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.  DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Zigzig20s (and DGG too, I guess), just letting you know that I've taken the above three articles to AfD here, in case they're not on your watchlist.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  13:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sociology of film
Did you even read sociology of film closely? None of the sources talk about sociology of film. The article from The New York Times is here and says nothing about it. The remaining content that uses the term "sociology" is completely unsourced. There has been zero demonstrated basis for this topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you didn't look for sources yourself.  I'm aware of multiple books on the subject,  so I added a few, along with some convenient sourced definitions. This is a distinct academic field, and appropriate for an article. Based on your user page and the work you've done here, you must know this yourself, much better than I.      DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Unprotection request for Paul Joseph Watson
I want to request an unprotection of Paul Joseph Watson, a page that you create-protected in June 2016. While the AfD at the time was correct, as there was very little in-depth coverage of him at the time, there were subsequent stories about him published in August 2016 (about his controversial stories about Hillary Clinton during the election) and recently in late February 2017 (about his offer to fly a journalist to Malmo in sweden). In-depth sources include the BBC, Huff Post, Independent, the Guardian, and other reliable but less known sources. I have rewritten the draft article Draft:Paul Joseph Watson to include these new sources, but I can't create the stub until it is unprotected. Some help would be appreciated. InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * unprotected. There will inevitably be an afd, of course.  DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly, the sourcing seems sufficient to survive AfD at this point however.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Only one way to find out. If I thought it was hopeless, I would not have unprotected. If there's an afd, please notify me.  DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Page ShubiHusain
Dear Sir, it seems that due to some vested interests you have got the wrong impression about the page. We had seen that the page was being fiddled by some third party by adding their name to Ms Shubi Husain's page. This was in all likelihood some agency Power Brands that wanted to take advantage and link back from Ms Shubi Husain's page to get clicks onto their page and so we had observed sometime back that they were putting up the link again and again despite deletion. The IP address can confirm what we say.

Hence its a request that please see the credentials and repost the page. The name of the individual Ms Shubi is also being used as a brand name for some programs and hence might have conveyed the wrong impression. Its a humble request that please verify for yourself and if you deem fit, please restore the page.

Many Thanks & best regards Rajeshagarwal01 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * every version of this article is promotional. They do seem to be different, but none of them are acceptable.  DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

wonder how you got the impression. Links from NDTV.com and Times of India as below cant be termed promotional and are a result of decades of toil & hard work that earned her recognition. Writing so blatantly on her page is being impolite to someones hard earned reputation. Never thought Wikipedia could be this insensitive. Pls see for yourself and i can only request to amend such harsh language and let her page up and running. Yes, we didnt visit it for past several months and so didnt see the notification of PROPOSED DELETION, else would have acted upon.

As for rewording pls let me know, will reword in some more neutral way that you suggest. Even though the present one wasn't written by us.

How to get back in shape after motherhood - Experts Ask The Fitness Expert Contribution towards Nutrilite WOW

Rgds Rajeshagarwal01 (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I consider every version of the article hopelessly promotional. The purpose is clearly that of advertising. In any case, the column in Times of India is not about her ; rather she was one of several people who wrote a section of it. Writing a part of a single column in a newspaper is not notability . You cannot use her own writing to prove her notable.  DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The Gadget Flow
DGG, you were in on the comment section that deleted this article back in 2016. I've added to the draft additional sources from AdWeek, Entrepreneur, Huffington Post, Inc. and Forbes.

LMK if you can move it live? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Gadget_Flow   JanisWilloughby (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * before I give an opinion, I think it would be helpful to know if you have any connection with the company; if there is a financial conflict of interest, I remind you of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure  DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As an early client (they have some 6,000 now) I have a different type of bias in that I've paid them-- not the other way around. I think the consensus aspect here is important.JanisWilloughby (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC) I've updated my account to reflect my time at Amazon to get you more context.JanisWilloughby (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

March 18 Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA (and beyond!)

 * Mar 18 -SVA Library
 * 12pm	- 5pm
 * in New York, NY
 * Eventbrite event

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
 * }

Anthony Gill
Hi DGG. Is notable? You're better than I at accessing the notability of academics. The article was created by HM8383, a member of this undisclosed paid editing sockfarm. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely notable, but see my comment at Sockpuppet investigations/Arunkapadia/Archive :
 * My view is that all articles written by this group should be deleted regardless of notability. The TOU are foundation policy. Our COI policy is based both on that and WP:NOT, which supersedes all consideration of notability. Attempting to advertise someone highly notable, is still advertising, just as advocating the worthiest of causes is still `advocacy. Some of the people being written about are so notable, however, that an article ought to be written. I considered whether to rewrite the existing articles, but decided not to, because it would take rewriting from scratch. I think the only way we can enforce our rules and deter promotionalism is to first delete, and then wait a bit  and communicate with the subjects to make sure the lesson is learned, and then rewrite.  DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker here, with a minor point. The PROD template might benefit from a special-purpose parameter. As it is now, the wording is unfortunate. I quote: "If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy." Of course contradicting the reason for deletion. (And of course I have no objection to the idea of deleting this article or those like it. Just a matter of wording.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a way a undeclared paid editor can actually save the article, which is by declaring and then rewriting. I do not think there's an actual guideline, but so far we have generally granted amnesty retrospectively, in order to encourage people to do things properly. Of course, it a situation like this there would be considerable explanation needed. Anyway, I was thinking of using speedy in analogy with G12. I know it would be to IAR, and IAR is rarely used in connection with speedy. We could have another speedy criterion, but I don't want to propose it until consensus about the tou is more firmly established. It's cases like this which will show the need for it.  DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am in favor of nuking the articles created by this group. There is a list of remaining articles at WP:COIN. An IP has heavily trimmed this one. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Fashion Institute of Technology Wikipedia Editathon
Because of security policies, if you're planning on coming please either give me your real name or sign in on our Eventbrite site to that I can give it to the security desk. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/international-womens-day-wikipedia-edit-a-thon-tickets-32323437271?aff=ehomecard

27th St and 7th Ave, 5th Floor Goodman Center (SW Corner).

Please bring photo ID that matches your name. --Librarianhelen (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

COI/BLP issues
I came across 501 7th Avenue, SeaRise Office Tower, and 111 West 33rd Street and originally thought that it was a paid promotional editor and so put a paid editing notice on the creator's user talk page. Looking a bit closer at the user's created articles, it seems that they might actually be trying to spread information about Qatari owned businesses that have terrorist funding connections, and have created several BLPs/recent deaths that make terrorist funding/terrorism claims too: Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, Ismail al-Salabi, Mohammed bin Hashim al-Awadhy. I'm not sure how great the sourcing is on the BLPs, but given the sensitive nature of the topic and a near laser focus on it, it raised my eyebrows. You deleted Pamodzi Sports Marketing as G11, and since that was the last deletion on the talk page, and I know you have experience with COI type subjects, I thought I would get your thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have generally thought most large buildings in major cities notable, though it is difficult to say an exact size, and t will depend on the city.

Searise & W33rd St are I thing large enough; 7th Ave isn't but it was built by a famous architect. But what we really need is an article for the company that owns them (and the Empire State Building), Empire State Partners (fpr,er;y Empire State Realty Trust), which is mentioned in the Emp[pire State building article); it is a NUYSE company and has an interesting history. None of this of course answers the question of whether we should keep articles on notable subjects by undeclared paid promotional editors. I've been arguing that we should not--for those that are so notable as to be essential, someone else can rewrite them -- after a gap, because there is no other way to convince people that it is not helpful to pay for an article. If your suggestion is correct, it's still by a promotional  editor, because it's advocacy which is considered as  promotionalism , but that isn't considered nough reason for deletion, if the subject is notable  just for revision im;ess it's so bad revision is hopeless and it falls under G11.
 * I'll look at the BLPs tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Mustafa Naseem
Hi David, could you cast an eye over Mustafa Naseem? Vast number of references, very polished article created by 40-edit newbie, feels very promotional and wouldn't pass WP:PROF, but perhaps the refs are enough for WP:GNG. There's just something dubious about it. Pam D  15:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I listed it it at  Articles for deletion/Mustafa Naseem DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear DGG, About Mustafa Naseem, can you tell me if Wikipedia is your personal property? Why Newbie is not allowed? Have you checked the notability of the topic before nominating it for deletion? Macrolancer (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I merely nominated it; the decision is made by the community at the AfD and the consensus is assessed by another administrator. Just in case it applies, I remind you about our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure. I also remind you of our rules on WP:sockpuppetry -- have you ever edited here under another name?  DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

DGG Here Mustafa Naseem is my first article and I created two article after that. Made here many editings but No, I do not have any other account or never make any editing from any other. But I am not happy with your action of article deletion even it has citations from high authority sites. I hope you will encourage and help instead deleting.Macrolancer (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Deleted Page Nelson Nigel
Hi David, I’m trying to recreate a page “Nelson Nigel” which—according to Wikipedia—you’ve previously deleted March 9, 2014). I’ve already added some things and rearranged everything within that page, will you be able to help me publish it? Thank you. --SamRHeartron 16:45, 9 March (UTC)
 * Based on current evidence, I am not sure he is notable. For one thing, the article lacks references except to his own appearances. You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements  DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

08:06:52, 10 March 2017 review of submission by 86.166.71.210
Hi

I am an archivist/researcher and have been asked by Holiday Extras to ensure that their entry complies with your guidelines (I also uploaded your Jim Phelan entry). I fully understand your notability requirements and I will put it right. Holiday Extras is a great company with a wonderful environmental, community and employee philosophy so I know it will make a worthy addition to Wikipedia.

If I was to resubmit the entry as it is would you let it go live give me seven days (by Friday 17th March at 17:00 BMT) to make it compliant and the end of which you can delete it if it doesn't?

I hope you can agree to my request.

Best wishes

David

david@davidcowell.net

08:27:02, 10 March 2017 review of submission by 86.166.71.210
Hi again

I have started working on the content of the Holiday Extras entry and notice that in the first 37 references, 30 are genuine third party articles and certainly meets your verifiability criteria.

Kind regards

David


 * I shall take a look in a day or two. If the organization is paying you in any direct or indirect manner, be sure to make the full declaration as required by our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure .  DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)  t

]

Reply to Deleted Page "Nelson Nigel"
Hm, just to be sure, even with the growing Kidmoto Technologies, would he still not be notable? I don't know if you can see the page I edited, would it still not be worth publishing? --SamRHeartron 15:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, no, because since all subjects like these are evaluated and based separately, his company is not a convincing factor and, also, the sources are all simply announcements, press releases (or highly suggestive of it), notices and similar; altogether or separately, there's not the significance in notability and only appears as a business profile. SwisterTwister   talk  23:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at the deleted article, which I can do but ST unfortunately cannot, the deleted article was written in 2013/2014 at an earlier stage in the individuals career. It was a valid A7 speedy, because it made no claim other than that he had founded a company. which  is not by itself a rational claim to enough significance for a WP article. The current article draft is more substantial, because it dies have some reference, but the  same problems apply. I am unable to find a reliable source for the sba award. If this draft were moved to mainspace, it would be quickly deleted. Incidentally, have you ever edited WP under another name, such as that of the editor of the deleted article,  and are you ware of WP:COI and our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure  DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Review some JzG deletions
Hi, JzG's talk page notice suggested contacting you for review of deletions. He also seems to be on a wikibreak. Please have a look at my query at User talk:JzG, which came about from a request at Requests for undeletion. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * fwiw, those deletions stem from this ANI thread, Vipul's paid editing enterprise, where there have been some calls to delete company timeline articles created by the group under discussion there. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh and i just saw this: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. oy. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I would probably support a CSD criterion modeled after G5, for undeclared paid editing, but we do not currently have one, and using G11 for the purpose is stretching it very far. This is especially true when the actual article was probably not written as promotionalism or advocacy, but as a unfortunately misguided good faith approach to improving WP.  is very much around,  and I do not intend to do this without notifying him, especially because I entirely respect and totally agree with his desire  to rid WP of blatantly improper editing.  I consider the speedies to be misjudgment, not absolute error.    I will undelete them tomorrow unless there are arguments otherwise., and they can then be taken to AfD  I fully understand why the deleting admin did this, and I totally sympathize with his views on this sort of editing. But G11 is really not the appropriate method.   These need to be taken to Afd if they are to be deleted, because this is a disputed situation and requies explicit consensus. Speedy is not appropriate when the consensus will be debated, only when the deleting admin can be reasonably sure that the consensus would certainly support him. I do not think there's the case here.  and the best course would be for JzG to do that himself.  My own suggestion would instead be a merge, and therefore I will not personally take it to afd after it has been restored, for AfD is not needed to do a merge..  DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * So, first of all, I already proposed a speedy criterion for material created in violation of the terms of use, and it was rejected. Getting any kind of broad community consensus on what to do with paid advertorial is difficult, not least because there is a group of people who for whatever reason seek to make it impossible. Not all of these are associated with the Sangerites and their fawning over Kohs. Some have a genuine, if in my view misguided, belief, that Wikipedia's need for articles overwhelms the problems of people subverting Wikipedia for profit.
 * That's why I only removed a small number of articles. There are several medical timelines, for example, all paid for by the same pyramid scheme, which I did not touch.
 * The articles I did remove are promotional in intent and designed, in my view, purely for SEO. They are timelines of commercial entities, paid for by Vipul (who engages in SEO as well as his Wikipedia editing pyramid scheme), replete with numerous links to other commercial entities, several of which are owned by Vipul. And that's what pushes them over the line. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , You may be right, but you shouldn't be making this decision by yourself, especially because there is disagreement about the nature of Vipul's motivations. Please undelete and send them to AfD. This particular case very much needs discussion, and preferably not just between the two of us. . As for the speedy criterion, the main problem I see is exactly what is presented here--the difficulty in determining motivations (and identity, usually, though not in this case).  DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any disagreement about Vipul's motivation by now, but whatever. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * is free to hold whatever views they want to hold about paid editors. They shouldn't be calling all of them as "vermin", "dogs" and "parasites" - that is at least a gross violation of WP:NPA, and a BLP violation as well, if anyone cares. But, the least they can do is not to delete stuff bypassing consensus. Feel free to AfD the articles, but don't act unilaterally. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 19:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Read again for comprehension. I did not call them dogs. Parasites, of course, is entirely accurate according to the definition of the term. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not that interested in the dehumanizing language you use for people you don't like. But is someone (you or anyone else) going to undelete the "Timeline of..." pages? The deletion under CSD deletion G11 is clearly not applicable because it is not an unambiguous case of blatant advertising; indeed DGG agrees on that point. The CSD process is meant to deal with clear-cut cases with minimum of WP:BURO, not a method to shortcut consensus on an issue on which reasonable people may differ. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You also keep repeating that Vipul is running an SEO spamming operation (despite them denying it) and a pyramid scheme. Might I remind you that pyramid schemes are illegal in the US? This is as blatant a personal attack as can be imagined. Just because you think you're right doesn't mean that you can go around flouting rules with impunity. If you can't keep your head while dealing with the subject, let other people deal with it. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to comment on this further, since at least some aspects of this might be headed for arb com. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

08:48:11, 13 March 2017 review of submission by Davidcowell42
Hi

I have removed all the references from the original entry and found ones that match your nobility criteria etc. I intend editing the entry with photographs but will resubmit so I have the confidence that I have solved the problem.

Many thanks

David
 * Don't forget to declare your status as an employee. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , you haven't removed the promotionalism. Please remove all adjectives & phrases of praise of judgment or evaluation, and also remove detail that would only be of interest to prospective employees or customers.  DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

15:22:56, 13 March 2017 review of submission by 86.166.71.210
Hello DGG

Thanks for your comments on the Holiday Extras' site. This will sound really naive but could you give me a couple of examples of the adjectives etc you want me to remove as the article reads quite well to me and not indulgent.

Your help appreciated

Kind regards

David To start with,
 * " It doubled in size between 2008 and 2013 and is set to double again by 2018." No data is given to support 2008/2013, and the forward looking statement for 2018 is intrinsically impossible to document--a pure advertising claim.
 * "to offer an easier and cost-effective way for travel agents to book airport hotels for their customers" -- advertising claim
 * "the then Marketing Director remembers working with their new esales manager on the forecast and its claim that 70% of bookings would be on-line by the end of the year was met with some scepticism but by the end of the year that is exactly what had happened." not documented and any possible documentation would be his own say-so about his own company.
 * the various shares of the partners is of interest to them and nobody else.
 * there is documentation for only one of the awards. Most of the awards are  trivial and not even worth trying to include.
 * The meployee perks section is of concern only to present or potential employees.
 * The community section is vague.
 * the claim to be an exclusive partner with Cook's is an extraordinary claim that needs excellent 3rd party documentation.  DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Davidcowell42 (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Thank you DGG. That gives me a good idea of what would meet Wikipedia's criteria.

I think a rewrite is in order.

Resubmit soon

Best wishes

David Davidcowell42 (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Request on 19:12:23, 13 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Davidcowell42
Good morning DGG

I was pleasantly surprised to see your "speedy deletion" option on my iPad when I woke up this morning as I felt we were moving towards a possible compromise. By the time I got to my computer it had been deleted. How can this be when I haven't even had the chance to consider your suggestion?

I have emailed the deleter:

Good morning Jimfbleak

Can you kindly explain to me why, following days of constructive dialogue with DGG and Sistertwister a swift deletion option appeared early this morning from DGG and before I had chance to get to the site to consider what was being suggested, you delete my page?

I have complied with every request made by your colleagues and I am firmly of the opinion that the entry would be of interest particularly to business students and start ups.

Can you reinstate the page as it was so I can consider DGGs considered suggestion?

Thank you.

David

Your stance of being a friendly site is becoming questionable and I hope you can reinstate the site to as it was earlier this morning.

You must have seen that I had done everything that you asked and more.

Kind regards

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcowell42 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello DGG

Thank you for sending your decision and not only am I understandably disappointed but also quite confused.

Can I please ask you:

1. Each of the references were chosen as true independent third party sources with independent journalists as authors in the case of articles. Indeed the first about the company's founder is from a book written and published and neither parties having any connection to me or Holiday Extras. Can you please tell me which references do not comply with your nobility and verification criteria and why?

2. In your previous reply you asked me to remove the "adjectives". When I sought clarification you chose not to offer it and went straight to the refusal. Can you explain that please?

3. Can you explain the difference between my submission and the Thomas Cook Group and On the Beach entries both of which have more own generated sources than mine?

I merely want the story about this company, whose origins and growth are a story worth telling, to be told.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

David

Davidcowell42 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Refs 1 & 2 don not  mention the firm. Ref 3 is a press release. Ref. 4 is an architect's advertisement. Ref 5 is from WP which is not a reliable source, Ref. 6 is a collection of anecdotes in the voices of the company founders, & the firm is just one of the 40 included. Ref 7 is a mere listing, Ref 8 is a customer's press release, Ref 9 is a press release about a lecture a company representative gave, Ref 10 is an interview where the company head said whatever he wanted to & therefore a first party source,   Ref 11 is a listing.
 * 2) . I was giving you advice for the next version, but I now conclude it's hopeless.
 * 3) We have many improper or inadequate articles on WP contributed when standards were lower. The least we can do is not add to them. The article  for On The Beach needs improvement, but the firm is on the LSEm, which we accept a notability . As for Cook, see WP:EINSTEIN.
 * You say "I merely want the story about this company, whose origins and growth are a story worth telling, to be told.". But the article is written refering to the individuals by their first name, and uses the second person," we". It does not seem likely to me that you have just an interesti nthe company and not a conflict of interest.  I call your attention to WP:COI and put our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure.
 * I've listed it for possible speedy deletion as advertising. Another admin will decide.  DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ivan Milat
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ivan Milat. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Institute for Fiscal Studies
Hi, you added a POV tag to Institute for Fiscal Studies. Could you explain on the talk page why you think the page is POV? Thanks. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * commented/  DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Problem Question
You are much more knowledgeable in this area than I so I hope you don't mind if I ask a couple of questions. Yesterday, while searching for sources at this AFD , I came across a book where it appeared that the article had been copied in it's entirety from the book. I checked the article's creation date (2005) and the current publishing date of the book (2015). Some book sales sites list the book as 2015 edition which, to me, indicated that there may have been a previous edition. As there was no footnote, nor in line, indication that the text came from Wikipedia, I filed an investigation request at Copyright problems. Several hours later the article creator reverted the notice from the article's page with the comment "Based on dates edit summary and the reviews on the book and date of publication, "Total Card Games!" looks most like a copypasta (sic) of articles from Wikipedia. See comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bisley (solitaire)." In doing further research in the book I found on page 505 that Wikipedia is listed as a source which didn't pop-up last night or I missed it. My questions are: 1. Should the article's creator have removed the "Investigation of potential copyright issue" notice in the manner that occurred? 2. As it now appears that the book (at least this edition) did copy the material from Wikipedia, should I remove the article from the WP:CP or should I let the investigation run it's course? Thanks for your help! CBS 527 Talk 20:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many reverse copyvios such as this. That it is a reverse copyvio is evident not just from the publication date but from the evidence discussed at the AfD. This is obvious enough that  the copyvio investigation tag can be immediately removed, but it's better that it be someone other than the contributor. As for the listing on the noticeboard, there seems to be a technical problem there, and I cannot edit it. If I could, I would simply remove it as admin. The rules day to wait for 5 days, but this is so obvious as to be IAR.  You shouldn't be the one to do it, but if you can edit it, you should add a line that this was a mistake. Books of this sort can be spotted in many ways: they almso never have library holdings in worldCat, they often tend to contain meaningless links and see alsos from the WP article, they contain topics whose range is   the same as a WP category, they are either self-published (like this one, at Lulu), or published by one of a number of exploitative publishers who charge large amounts of money for free material (it's legal, if they give proper  attribution), but it's still an attempt at exploitation unless they charge a reasonable price and make the nature of the book clear in an obvious and unmistakable manner),  . Unless it actually gives the full attribution for each article by at leas a link, it's additionally a violation of our user's copyright, and any of the contributors can and should complain about it if they can find a place to complain to.  The WMF does get involved in major cases ofblatent disregard, but this isn';t a major case.  DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was able to edit the listing on the CV noticeboard that the listing was a mistake. Thank you again for your help.  CBS 527 Talk 02:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Notable museum...?
Or dictatorial spam? The Museum of the First President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * both.  DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Global Action Platform Deletion
HI. I recently spent several hours writing and sourcing an article about the Global Action Platform think tank. They are definitely notable, as they are a United Nations think tank that has been active for more than 5 years working with the world's top leaders to discover and fund sustainable global solutions. Could you undelete it? I will work to make the language more encyclopedic. Either way I would like to get access to the information I wrote and sourced. I spent hours on it, I would like to save it. Thank you!Labadvocate (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * it is not part of the UN. The article was an advertisement. There were no usable sources. Do you have any connection with it?  DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"Do I have a connection with them?" Yes, I spoke at their annual summit in 2015. I believe in their mission. They are notable. They are developing 1.2 million acres in the Philippines in cooperation with its govt and a coalition (that they started) of hundreds of tribes in Caraga. Its efforts have created thousands of jobs all over the world. It provides rural tribes with a way to take advantage of their hidden assets and effectively climb out of extreme poverty. It's a worthy effort, considering how destitute the Philippines has become. 85% of the people don't have sewage. It's really a mess. Global Action Platform is not only rebuilding their economy, but training new leaders, developing its agro, rescuing street kids, providing them homes, and so much more -- and that is only one of their many projects. As I stated in the articles talk page, I just needed a few days to dig up better source material. I was just getting it seeded. Below is a list of source links. There are many more, but hopefully this is a good enough list to prove my case. Thank you for taking time to look at this. It's amazing how much you have done on here!

In terms of GAPs connection with the UN. It is not "by" the UN, you are correct, but it is a private global think tank and university-business alliance that has worked in partnership with the UN since its inception 5 years ago. The think tank is made up of thought capital from their annual summits and reports, each of which are gathered and convened in coordination with the UN, the World Bank and others. It's participants include the who's who of world leaders from fortune 500, Ivy league research institutions, NGOs and inter-governmental organizations, governments, etc. It's annual host and lead spokesperson is Fareed Zakaria from CNN.

Here are a few more source links I found about the Global Action Platform, Global Action Reports, Global Action Summits, Chairman Scott Massey & host/spokesperson Fareed Zakaria:
 * http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/16/global-action-summit-fights-hunger-disease/19139227/
 * http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2014/11/15/challenge-winner-us-biologic-fights-lyme-disease/19101507/
 * http://www.diplomaticourier.com/tag/global-action-platform/
 * http://www.diplomaticourier.com/2015/09/23/the-world-we-want-the-2015-global-action-report/
 * http://cic.nyu.edu/news_commentary/global-action-platform-and-fund-forced-migrants-proposal
 * http://www.mars.com/docs/default-source/doing-our-part/principles-in-action/2014-summary/mars_principles_in_action_summary_2014_pl.pdf?sfvrsn=4
 * http://www.mars.com/docs/default-source/doing-our-part/principles-in-action/2014-summary/mars_principles_in_action_summary_2014_pl.pdf?sfvrsn=4
 * http://www.mars.com/japan/ja/press-center/press-list/news-releases.aspx?SiteId=88&Id=6273
 * http://www.gstss.org/2016_Berkeley/documents/GA_Platform_Summary_2page.pdf
 * http://www.onec1tynashville.com/event/2015-global-action-summit-nashville/
 * http://www.meridian.org/news/policy-priorities-for-abundant-food-health-and-prosperity/
 * http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2014/05/why-fareed-zakaria-is-partnering-with-nashvilles.html
 * http://thebridgetank.org/en/2016/10/14/new-york-opening-week-of-the-71st-session-of-the-general-assembly/
 * http://www.venturenashville.com/aegis-health-security-global-action-eye-impact-investment-partnership-cms-1189
 * https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/media/press-releases/2016/11/danone-recipient-of-the-global-shared-value-award.html
 * (G7 Magazine pg 38 & 66 in ): https://gcelstorage.blob.core.windows.net/download/G7%20Japan%202016.pdf
 * (G20 & G8 - search Global Action Platform): http://g20summitmagazine.imirus.com/Mpowered/index.html?volume=g813&issue=7&page=1#0
 * http://www.nashvillepost.com/home/article/20469074/summit-announces-1m-competition-focused-on-global-nutrition
 * http://www.isc.hbs.edu/resources/courses/moc-affiliate-network/Pages/participating-institutions.aspx
 * http://www.idlo.int/news/events/%E2%80%98sustainable-solutions-abundant-food-health-prosperity%E2%80%99
 * http://www.vanderbilt.edu/vigh-sac/case/2016.php
 * https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site:diplomaticourier.com+%22global+action+platform%22&*
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=vdbtBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=global+action+platform&source=bl&ots=4ddWDuweGg&sig=QnZj5fnXLQV_NSBi8tS4CaQZffk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja0PHnue3SAhUK-GMKHfCuBNs4FBDoAQg6MAY#v=onepage&q=scott%20massey&f=false
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=vdbtBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=global+action+platform&source=bl&ots=4ddWDuweGg&sig=QnZj5fnXLQV_NSBi8tS4CaQZffk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja0PHnue3SAhUK-GMKHfCuBNs4FBDoAQg6MAY#v=snippet&q=global%20action%20platform&f=false
 * https://futurefoodsummit.splashthat.com/
 * http://www.lipscomb.edu/news/archive/detail/105/30558
 * http://www.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/185993/billion-volunteers-help-meet-post-2015-goals.aspx
 * http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/En/20160922e.pdf
 * http://www.philippineembassy-usa.org/news/5260/300/CARAGA-DEV-T-PROJECT-FEATURED-AT-GLOBAL-ACTION-LEADERSHIP-FORUM/d,phildet/

VIDEOS:
 * UN Secretary General Opening Remarks - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxN7_MUJoo0
 * Caraga Model - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgmTaBjwufg

Since Global Action Platform is a private think tank that does not invite press, it is harder to track their efforts, but I would refer to their annual reports, as it clearly outlines their efforts, impact and world class participants.

I would be very grateful if you would undelete this article and either give me some time to make it better (I'm still learning), or help me make it great. Thank you so much for all your help!

Labadvocate (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This is just a friendly reminder about this article. I know it is a lot to consider, and you have a ton of other stuff to look at as well (plus a life of your own), so take your time of course. I just wanted to bring it to the top of the inbox in case it was out of sight, out of mind. Thank you again! Labadvocate (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

re: Draft:Eroplay
Hi DGG,

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eroplay Thank you for the review and the suggestions. I have edited the page and have been waiting for a re-review, but it has been a long time. Would you be able to take a look at it again in a reviewer capacity? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleximalenky (talk • contribs) 08:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * See the comment I just left. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)`

Thanks, DGG. I have a few questions ... When you refer to point #3 from your previous comments, this point had talked about the boxed quotations. The boxed quotations are now gone, but I do include one quotation from Frank Moore, which seemed appropriate since it is his basic definition of Eroplay. So I wanted to confirm that you are referring to the one quotation from Moore, and are you suggesting that it be removed?

Also, you refer to point #4, which was about the photos. So I wanted to clarify that you still think the one remaining photo could be problematic?

Finally, when you say, "the question for acceptance is whether this is notable separately from the artist and in any other context", how is that determined? User:Aleximalenky ( talk ) 21:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-03
Latest news from the Wikimedia Collaboration team, about Notifications, Flow and Edit Review Improvements. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.

What's new?

We have focused all our efforts on the New filters for edit review. You will discover these filters on your wiki soon (see below).

Edit Review Improvements [ More information • Help pages ]

Recent changes
 * Translation icon cropped.svg The documentation concerning the new filters for recent changes has been written and marked for translation.

Future changes
 * We will release the mw:Help:New filters for edit review beta option on Portuguese and Polish Wikipedias March 28. This beta option adds powerful filtering and other tools as well as an improved filtering interface to the Recent Changes page (and Recent Changes Linked). To try out these new tools on these two wikis, go to the Beta tab of the Preferences page (after the 28th) and select.
 * In the weeks following the initial release to Polish and Portuguese Wikipedias, the New Filters for Edit Review beta will go out to the following list of Wikipedias in waves (schedule to be done):
 * Persian, Dutch, Russian, Turkish, Czech Wikipedias and Wikidata.
 * English Wikipedia.
 * All other wikis.

Flow [ More information • Help pages ]

Recent changes
 * shortcuts are now working on Flow visual editing mode. Type a shortcut in the visual editing mode will open the control panel for the chosen option.
 * Concerning, footnotes will be automatically included at the end of the message, unless if they are displayed elsewhere in the message by the appropriate template.
 * Flow has been removed from Metawiki.

Future changes


 * The way you switch between wikitext and the visual editors in the desktop view has changed. It will be a drop-down menu. This is the same as in the mobile view.

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. 17:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Touche!
Hi DGG, I just wanted to thank you for having a spirited but civil discussion at AfD. Your points are good, as I believe are mine. Your good demeanor is refreshing. I didn't want to clutter the AfD page up with this, but wanted to say "Thanks!" Jacona (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Sunday March 26: Action=History Wiki-Hackathon @ Ace Hotel
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Commenting on Vipul/Riceissa related matters
Hi DGG, do you think I should refrain from commenting on Vipul/Riceissa related matters? I decided to leave the following note on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Riceissa/Spokes (replication system): "Note: I was a part of the same paid editing ring as User:Riceissa, so that is a COI I hold; I am not getting paid for any of my comments related to the Vipul/Riceissa ordeal, they are of my own accord. I was not asked by Vipul or Riceissa or anyone else to make any of the comments below." If you think I should stop, I'll stop; I don't want to get blocked for paid MEATing or whatnot. Sincerely, Ethanbas (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're skating on pretty thin ice already, so I would strongly recommend you keep well clear of anything even tangentially related to this mess. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guy/JzG. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not comment on any thread any longer; however, I reserve the right to comment on talk pages of users involved in this mess (making sure they know I was part of Vipul's project) Ethanbas (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Marwadi University
hEY MARWADI UNIVERSITY PAGE HAS BEEN DELETED BY YOU. If u feel that the information which was there shouldnotbe there then I willdelete the content, but please atleast relive the page dont delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richa1011 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I deleted it as pure advertising on Mar. 20. Less than an hour after you posted your note here, you re-entered it, with most of the advertising content still there, and another admin deleted it within a few hours for the same reason.  An acceptable article can presumably be written about the university, but perhaps you are not the one to do it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Indexing
Here, you say "About reusing drafts: the unlikelihood of anyone else reusing a drat is one of the faults of our current system. I think there are at most 4 people (including myself) who rescue old drafts. I generally only do them in my primary field of interest (academic faculty and related), but even so I have a very long list, and very rarely have time to do one. We do not even have a system where when someone starts an article, it shows whether there is a pre-existing draft on the topic. The default Wikipedia search does not pick them up, and even if set to Everything only finds them if spelled the same way. Kudpung, you know this system best--is there any reasonable solution?". Maybe INDEXing the drafts is the solution? Ethanbas (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * this has been proposed, and decisively rejected. Drafts contain unverified material, including copyvios and advertising nd possible BLP violations. The whole idea for drafts is that they are not yet reasd to have a prominent position in external indexes. They do show up in our internal search, if one knows the title and specifies a customs search.T
 * he solution that has been suggested several times and could have been adopted years ago, is to categorize them in at least rough categories, so people could at least scan them. The objection has been raised that there are not people willing to do this manually, but there are two other methods: a simple weighted keyword approach, which, however inexact, is at least a start, and more recently an AI system. There has historically been a dichotomy--at least a perceived dichotomy--between the people who work with the WP infrastructure and the people who work with articles. Fortunately, under the current Executive Director, there seems to be a possibility of some improvement.  DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Re article
Greetings. My name is Bianca and I work for the Telamar Group. We've been recently hired by Horizon Media to elucidate what happened to the Bill Koenigsberg article. Would if be at all possible to retrieve the deleted content so that we could work on it, or was it permanently deleted? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiancaTG (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article was only deleted via PROD (Proposed Deletion), which is reversible on request. So the way to proceed is as follows: 1. You already have an account. On your user page indicate your affiliation and client, just as you did above. 2. I shall move the text into Draft space as Draft:Bill Koenigsberg 2. You can work on it there.  3. When ready,there should be a button labelled "Submit", and someone will look at it to see if it is likely to pass a deletion discussion. 4. The article has two problems--it is worded with some promotional language ( suchas the list of his company's customers, which we consider as spam), and it does not adequately show the notability . We judge notability according to WP:N   (in particular,WP:BIO: it requires references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements References to things he himself has written do not show notability, nor do interviews where he is allowed to speak at length on his own good qualities.
 * Presumably you will want an article on the company. The rule here is WP:CORP, but approximately the same factors apply. If you do write it, do it in draft space, as required by WP:Conflict of Interest. And be careful to avoid duplication. To acertain extent, advertising agencies do tend to be closely associated with their founders; it is often better to do just one article, and make a redirect from the other possibility.
 * and on the edit summaries for your work on a draft or an article always mention that you have a paid COI, linking to the declaration on your user page. I appreciate your direct disclosure here--it makes the discussion much simpler.  DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a few questions...
1. Why was the Cell Clinic article deleted? It was a draft. 2. Why didn't you notify me of it? It seems like you deleted it for retribution for the protests I had made earlier. 3. Is there any way I can recover the 4 hours of hard work I put into researching and putting together this article?

Thank you, Jkmarold55 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I did not delete it. I nominated it for deletion and another admin, Seraphimblade, deleted it.  There should have been an automatic notice placed by the software--it is possible to bypass that, but I never do, so there must be some error. I'll check a few more examples. But I manually  warned you at 22:07, 25 March 2017. I will look at it again tomorrow. If what wrote above does not apply to you, the flood of incoming advertisements may be causing us to be a little over-suspicious.  DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Draft talk:High Performance Alloys, Inc.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Draft talk:High Performance Alloys, Inc.. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No edits since March 2010
Hi. I've always found it funny to see users who are clearly gone since a long time still getting messages for whatever reason on their talk page. Sometimes I even wonder if I should revert when I see those with the edit sum "can you read".

I notice that you posted an automated Twinkle message regarding articles for deletion message on User:AreJay's talk page who hasn't edited since 2010. I know it's an automated bot run but still it must be waste of resources on the system. Slight Smile  16:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * for all anyone knows, they might still be reading WP using their login name, and  would then see the message.  DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a point. I still think after a reasonable time we can assume they're gone with the wind. Anyways thanks for the reply, I've been meaning for a while to bring up that issue so now it's done. Best. Slight  Smile  15:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Bryan Caplan
You have an interest in professors, so this may be of interest to you: Articles for deletion/Bryan Caplan (2nd nomination) Ethanbas (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that Vipul did not mention he is associated with Caplan when he added so many primary-sourced references to Caplan's blogging into articles. Funny how that goes, eh? Guy (Help!) 00:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , there are two alternative approaches to COI problems: one is to simply judge the subject for notability in the usual way; the other, for which you have been arguing, is to judge the intent. I certainly understand the point of your way of doing it: I would support a rule that undeclared paid editing be deleted rather than fixed on the same principle as we delete articles from banned editors (otherwise the prohibition is toothless), and I would probably also support a rule that grossly COI articles also be deleted rather than fixed unless someone actually rewrites them, as we do for copyvio. There are also arguments against either proposition, and I think the strongest two are that usually we cannot tell, so it will remain toothless, and that is that paid editors can be persuaded to declare, and COI editors taught to write properly (though both seem to be quite rare occurrences).
 * But at present the community supports neither rule. I doubt we could get the necessary support to explicitly change either of them, and I am very reluctant to propose that until there is some chance ofsucceeding in the argument Another way to change the rule is to change what we actually do at AfD, because the rules here are what we actually do, rather than just what we say; this is the method you;ve been pursuing. I've been doign the same thing, but I am trying to concentrate on the individuals without significant notability, not clearly notable people like him DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC) response

Draft:High_Performance_Alloys,_Inc.
Please move the Denied article to my sandbox for further work. I would do it, but I fear what would happen. Contributor 1972  Discuss with me  21:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You cannot keep it there indefinitely any more than you can in draft, so I don't seethe point.If you can fix it, you can fix it where it is.  DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Global Action Platform
{{U|Hello. I recently posted on this page and it seems to have been deleted. I am new to this forum, so please bear with me. I have spent a lot of time researching sources for Global Action Platform, and I would be very interested to know your thoughts. I posted almost 30 or more sources to prove it's notability, including opening statements by the General Secretary of the UN. I don't know what it more notable than that... Thank you for your review! Labadvocate (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * {{U|Labadvocate}},   still there, at March 23. I apparently removed several weeks worth of material in error. Thanks to your notice, I figured out what went wrong, and  I have now restored it. I will reply to you tomorrow. My apologies for the confusion.   DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries whatsoever. Thank you so much for taking the time to review this! Labadvocate (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

African Legal Support Facility
It probably wasn't clear from the way I worded my tag, but I had done searches. I was also hoping that the page creator (who seems to be a SPA whose only edits were to that page) would return to offer an independent source or defend their contributions, which I think most page creators should do. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. But the most likely way to see if anyone else can find refs is to take it to AfD. I know we pretend otherwise, but in practice, it is sometimes the most effective way to get an article improved to minimum standards.  DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:European Graduate School
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European Graduate School. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Why Was Michael Dickson (Teacher) page deleted?
Hello, I have followed the rules, included sources. Why was the page deleted? Not trying to argue, just trying to understand, Can you please elaborate on the reason? thanks. YZM1987 (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * there was no indication of significance . Being Executive Director of  StandWithUs would be an indication of significance, tho not necessarily enough notability to pass AfD. But being  Executive Director of its Israel office is not. And the refs were entirely to his own blog & facebook. You might want to take a look at WP:BIO to see what is necessary for an article.  DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * @YZM1987: You need third-party reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines. For example, if the New York Times wrote an article about him, that would be a great source, although you need multiple sources to prove notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Can a scholar well known as a writer of reviews be considered notable not only under wp:BIO but as an author under wp:AUTH
Sorry to bother you but I wonder if you'd be interested at all to weigh in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales or User_talk:Jimbo_Wales.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I commented there on the general issue of trying to manipulate rules to favor a particular instance. fortunately, we need not do this, for we can decide any AfD by IAR if there is sufficient consensus. I commented on your talk p. over the specific question.  DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just read my talkpage comment. Thanks so much! (Now I'll go over to Jimbo's.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC) I very much appreciate your very thorough and thoughtful contribution to that discussion, DGG; thanks.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)