User talk:DGG/Archive 133 Feb. 2018

Do not add comments here; this is an archive of earlier comments

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:University of Strathclyde Centre for Sport & Recreation

Books and Bytes - Issue 26
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 26, December – January 2018  Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Lookout (company)
I gather you came across this page some way or another after seeing Lookout co-authored a report with the Electronic Frontier Foundation exposing a major state-sponsored hacking campaign. Given the company's recent press coverage, why prod the page now? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I removed the product listing. It might help to expand the last sentence into a description of the firm's role.  DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Jay's deletion
Could you provide a link to the article that was delete? Thanks--A21sauce (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you mean Joseph Betesh, the article is still right there, during the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Betesh. It will not be deleted until the end of the 7-day discussion period, and then only if the consensus is that it should be deleted. If you think it should be kept, comment in the discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Deprodding of Research software engineering
I have removed the tag from Research software engineering, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! I've added more information that shows how RSE differs from SE and it's a topci by itself, more will be added in the coming days. Let me know if you still think this is not enough. Thanks Dvdgc (talk)

Re Airline product tagging
Hello, if you examine the page creator's talk page and contribution history, the user has a history of edits which are to add information from and links to his book on the subject of air transportation. That's why I tagged it as promotional, they are talking up their own book and linking to it, I respect your decision and am not challenging it in any way, I simply wished to explain. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Frankly I've never heard of the term "airline product" which sounds like an industry insider term; perhaps there is a better name. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware there are likely to be problems of that sort. First thing to check, tho, is whether it should be speedy deleted for duplication of existing entries. That would be the simplest way to deal with it.  DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is good advice. Thank you 331dot (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Bloomsbury Square
 DGG Stop reversing the original "Letters to John Law" citation for the language relating to the duel of John Law and Edward Wilson on the Bloomsbury_Square page. You have clearly lost both your objectivity and credibility as a Wikipedia editor in relation to that edit as you have invented several incorrect reasons to justify your edit: justifications that are simply incorrect and baseless. Firstly, you claim the book is a "self published source" - that is simply incorrect. It is not. It is published by an established independent publisher. Secondly, you claim the book is "almost unknown" - again, that is simply incorrect. It is not: is on the reading list for the history of economics course at MIT (http://lawandrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Finance_and_Fraud_Syllabus_3-7-14.pdf). Thirdly, the language stated in the article is taken from the Adams book - it is not from the Gleeson book you seem intent on incorrectly citing for the language from the Adams book, and that is because the Gleeson book does not deal with the duel in anywhere near the same extent as the Adams book. Fourthly, that citation and its corresponding text was inserted on the page in question (not by me - check the history) 5 years ago, and has quite correctly stood as the correct text and correct citation since that time, before you arbitrarily decided to erroneously remove it. Might I suggest you take a step back and attempt to regain some objectivity about that edit as you are damaging both the integrity of the article, and your own integrity as an editor by making inaccurate and unsubstantiated edits and inventing incorrect reasons for making them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siolio (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I asked you, did you or an associate write the book?  DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * DGG As, I responded to you - NO. I read it at MIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siolio (talk • contribs) 01:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll deal with this later.  DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * DGG You can 'deal' with whatever you like, whenever you want to. But I suggest you take an honest reflection of your edit on this article (especially given what you say about editing on your own user page - as your position here goes completely against the standards you claim to maintain) as you will see that you have completely lost objectivity over a perfectly legitimate source (which was not inserted by me) and have made erroneous edits in relation to it and attempted to substantiate those erroneous edits not with facts and objectivity but with completely incorrect and contrived statements that are baseless have zero credibility. In this respect, your edits are doing a disservice to the page in question, a disservice to the Wikipedia community, and damaging your own credibility.

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:School of International Studies, JNU

Please comment on Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Public library anon editing and account creation versus rangeblocks
Hi, I have a question about anon editing from public libraries in general and NYPL in particular.

Background: The purpose is for awareness and for workarounds at our Cascadia Wikimedians events where e.g. King County Library System seems to be blocked more often than not. I went to my local branch today and verified it is currently in this state (206.188.32.0/19 rangeblocked, I think) for a system with 700,000 members and ~2 million in its service area.

Just a bit earlier today, I saw a contrib from a NYPL anon and was a bit surprised as I thought they were usually rangeblocked too.

The questions for you: Is NYPL usually or just sometimes blocked? Do rangeblocks pose a problem for you at public events such as editathons? Is the workaround simply to have an account creator at the editathon? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: If you didn't know, KCLS and NYPL vie for busiest system in the U.S. We pulled ahead in 2010 or 2011 but are now back at #2. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Bri, could you please check: Ido not find it on our lists of blocked sites. The usual block prevents only anonymous editors. If you are blocked again when you edit with your username, please email me a copy of the message you receive.


 * At NYC we have about 10 or 12 admins (+ 1 crat + 2 arbs), and are able to deal with this sort of thing. Cascadia seems to have very few. (more about that on your user page). Otherwise, there are various methods available, but first I want to see what the situation is.  DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I emailed the IP block message to you for checking. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Advanced Internet Technologies
Hiya, hope you don't mind but I stumbled across and de-PRODded this primarily because I felt that while it had issues, it's not a clear cut case of non-notability or using exclusively primary sources. Please feel free to AfD it, I think additional input would be helpful on this one. In the meantime, I've tagged it for issues. Have a nice week!--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 06:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * never a problem.Thanks for letting me know.  DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018

 

m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look.

Wikidata as Hub
One way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites. Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8.

External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL.

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What galleries, libraries, archives, and museums can teach us about multimedia metadata on Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Foundation blogpost, 29 January 2018, by Jonathan Morgan and Sandra Fauconnier
 * The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref/Connect, 2018 institutional participation in the #1lib1ref campaign
 * Newspeak House queries, created at 3 February 2018 event in London led by
 * Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative, Wikipedia Signpost special report 5 February 2018, by
 * What is the Last Question?, 5 February 2018
 * }

Genesis Mining
Hi DGG, my name is Marco Krohn and I am one of the co-founders of "Genesis Mining". I just tried to create a stub about Genesis Mining, but noticed that the article is blocked because it was not considered noteworthy in the past. I have not edited Wikipedia for a long time, so please bear with me, if I do not follow the right route by directly asking you to unblock the article. Any guidance would be highly appreciated! Please note that my intention is only to create a stub for the company. I do not want to be involved in the article itself; this should be done by the Wikipedia community.

The reason why I think that "Genesis Mining" is fulfilling the criteria as per Notability by now, is the extensive coverage by international media, including:


 * CNN, Quest means Business
 * CNBC
 * Galileo ProSieben - major German TV channel
 * ARD - majore German TV channel
 * Forbes article about the founder of GM Marco Streng
 * The Telegraph

Any help/pointers from your side would be highly appreciated. -- mkrohn (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the frank disclosure, so I assume you have read WP:COI. The protection was because the article was re-created twice by the sock of an editor who had been banned as a undeclared paid editor. I have just deleted the version that was in draft, because it was also created by a banned editor. I am glad you realize that is not the way to proceed. You can proceed to write an new article in Draft space, and when you are ready we can look at and see if the protection should be lifted to create it.
 * But interviews with anyone associated with the company are not reliable sources, because they are not truly independent--the person can say whatever they please. The company however is prominent enough that you should be able to find real news articles that discuss it in a substantial way.  DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Travel industry articles
DGG - need your thoughts on travel promotion and use of travel destination "key words" or "coined phrases" such as Blue Cruise and Greek Island Hopping. Will it end up like what we've got in schools, geographic locations, and the music & film industry - almost anything goes? Atsme 📞📧 14:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * see my comments at Articles for deletion/Greek Island Hopping;I haven't checked the other yet.  DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 14:09:44, 5 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by JaneStrauss
Hi! Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I've read the feedback, but it seems a little broad. I would appreciate some specific pointers as to how this can be improved. I appreciate your help. JaneStrauss (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for declaring the coi. The manner of writing here is very distinct from PR. As a rough guide, anything suitable for a press release or newspaper interview or company web page is unsuitable here. More specifically:
 * 1) You can not rely on interviews in alumni magazines or trade magazines to be reliable sources. In such an interview, the subject says what they please. This is in fact true of all interviews with the subject, which can really be used only for routine facts about his life and career. They're not independent.
 * 2) It's over-focused on his opinions and feelings about the various steps of his career, all based upon what he says in interviews, e.g. "The Beck's distaste for the department store model" "left Beck dissatisfied". And watch out for adjectives--many of them are better removed
 * 3) Material such as "Beck oversees all operational aspects of the company including ..."is true of COOs in general.
 * 4) It's over-focused on his opinions and feelings about the various steps of his career, all based upon what he says in interviews, e.g. "The Beck's distaste for the department store model" "left Beck dissatisfied"
 * 5) As minor points, everything in the infobox needs to be in the article too and justified by a citation; and, use his name only once a paragraph at most. "He" is the best substitute.
 * 6) The material about the growth of the company belongs in the article on the company, not repeated here. The material about him personally belongs here, and not in the article in the company if there are going to be two articles. I'm not sure there really is enough material for two.
 * 7) In a positive direction, try to get a photo of him that can be released under a free license. A photo of one of the company'sstores would be appropriate for the company article.
 * 8) Much of the above also applies to the article on Bluemercury, which I consider over promotional and would not have acceptedas it stands. Fix it also. You can't use phrases like " noticing the appeal of Apple's white stores" but, "The store design was modeled after ...." if there's a good reference from a third-party independent source. Remember that most interviews are not fully independent. If not fixed, I or someone is likely to nominate it for a deletion discussion. I would not have accepted it from draft. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Much clearer now! May I get back to you once I take care of these draft modifications? When you say "fix it also", regarding Bluemercury, should I request these edits at the article's talk page? Or perhaps I could provide the code for you to review that too? Thank you, JaneStrauss (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * for Bluemercury, suggest either corrections or a completely revised draft on the talk p. But first consider if you really have enough for two good articles.  DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, you have been most helpful! I will request the edits on the talk page and make modifications to the draft. As for the photo, am I correct in following the instructions in Requesting_copyright_permission? JaneStrauss (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * yes. It should be uploaded to commons. See also Wikimedia Commons and Uploading images Remember to do one for a company location--one good one only for that article. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll see how that goes! Are you saying that the Bluemercury article needs only one image? I found a few already on Commons, luckily. I will take care of the request then and wait for the new photo to be uploaded for the biography, finally proceeding to resubmit after significant modifications. Thank you, JaneStrauss (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

17:20:03, 5 February 2018 review of submission by Jmpinnell
Our question is this: How big is big enough to be a separate page? We are just getting started with this page and have hundreds of events that we will be adding. We have a couple hundred newspaper articles that we've collected and will be referencing. We even envision subpages being necessary. This page will cover 40 years of history. We started this page because it would make the Nebraska Wesleyan University page too long and actually push other elements down page in an extreme way unless we restructure that page to have the history at the end, but even then the history section will be small book length. We will have sections on students and student life, buildings and grounds, faculty and staff, administration and governance,campus activities, alumni and advancement, and athletics. We get questions all the time from alumni, students, faculty and staff asking for this information. Having it be accessible via Wikipedia would be a god send for us all.

'''What size should we build to before asking for a re-review? ''' Thanks! I appreciate your guidance in this. Jmpinnell (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * See WP:SPLIT. But in general, there is no need of it except for the very largest and most famous universities, usually the state flagships. I see no comparable articles in WP. Equally important, it is almost always better to put this sort of material in paragraph form, not a list. A list emphasizes minor events and does not highlight the major ones--and many of the items on the current list are minor indeed such as individual campus lectures. For an example of a good university history articles, see History of the University of California, Santa Barbara. There is some material that should go on the main page: the list of presidents of the college.


 * WP is a general encyclopedia, and its material is meant for the general public. Material of primary interest to people at your university should be published elsewhere. The library web page might be a good place for this. Even better, who owns the copyright of the book? Could you put it on the web?


 * The draft gives the impression that it has been written partly for the purpose of emphasizing the role of the Dept. of Special Collections at the library. It would deemphasis it a little to put the explanation of the source at the bottom, not the top. And Please see WP:COI. You need to explicitly declare your connection with it on the draft talk p. as you do on your user page.


 * For general information on what's needed at WP and how librarians can help, see The Wikipedia Library/Research libraries,our principal current project, general advice and contacts. We are still experimenting with the best way to base WP pages on library archival descriptions. I'm a (former) librarian myself, (and many other wikipedians are librarians also). I'll be glad to help you further.  DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Camilleri
I'm interested in what you'd have done, if anything. Camilleri follows a classical pattern I have observed numerous times, often over several years, where an expert contributes his expertise only when accompanied by cites to his own work, but I am a nasty suspicious bastard and I completely accept htat I may well have been excessively impatient. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I've just checked his contributions, including the UTRS. You're right. I had previously seen just the new article. But now I see the prior placements of the references to his work in various articles, and then the talk p. warning, and after that the new article. The UTRS says nothing helpful. All in all, this does mean that he intends to ignore the rules, or that he not know the rules and does not want to learn. Either way, there's nothing useful here. I had hoped for better.  DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Even a cynical bastard like me would like to be pleasantly surprised occasionally. This was not the day. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 22:36:14, 6 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Mursimon
This is a question regarding your rejection of the page on Tom Palazzolo. You said “first, you need to show notability by substantial 3rd party published reviews of his work”. It is unclear to me why the published articles I included aren’t sufficient. I have listed articles from The New York Times, Washington Post, PBS, Chicago Sun Times, Chicago Film Archives, Light Millenium & Film Studies Center, Chicago Art Magazine, Facets Multimedia, The Smart Museum & the Chicago reader. Your comment indicates that these aren’t “substantial 3rd party published reviews”. Please tell me what you consider to be substantial reviewers. Thanks for your continued objective evaluation. Murray p.s. I couldn't find a "Save page" button as indicated in the instructions for this page, but I did find a "Publish changes" button. I hope that works.

Mursimon (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Mursimon (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , Yes,the publish button is the save button. We've tried both wordings, but neither avoids misunderstanding.
 * Sorry. I didn't see them because you forgot to format the reference to show the sources, and I didn't notice they were in the external references. Please use the cite news template, --check WP:REFBEGIN. References to sources that documentthe aticle go in as references in the text--links to freely available websites thatsupplement the article go in the external links -- and the external links can contain only one personal website of the subject, no additional social media links. After reformatting the ones you have, the next step is to try add an exact reference for as many of the screenings or shows at major museums-their web site will do, or any other published notice). Otherwise, we assume you are just citing you published CV, which is not a reliable source. You also need a source for the grants.
 * You need a reference to WorldCat or equivalent for the books. It would really help if there are reviews of them.
 * In the descriptions of the videos, there has to be a source for them--extensive descriptions like for Rita on the Ropes need to be shortened..
 * As for the connection, if it was a non-financial connection you should just mention it somewhere on the article talk p.

Sorry to have been unclear.  DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Request on 22:43:03, 6 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Mursimon
I forgot to indicate that I have known of Tom Palazzolo since the 1980s. I became more personally acquainted with him about 10 tears ago. Since then, I decided that he was significant enough & should be included in Wikipedia. So I started a topic on him.

Mursimon (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

BlueMercury advert template
Hi, I just edited the Bluemercury article to remove advertising-like tone, and as you were the editor who added that template, I wanted to check with you to garner your support before I attempt to remove it, which I will not do without your OK. Please have a look at the website at your earliest convenience and let me know if I may do this. Thank you for your time!  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   01:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you! Please also review the photos in the talk page's hidden text and consider if you'd place them when you have the time. JaneStrauss (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello
Hi there. I worked very hard on the Livin Lite RV article to source it and be objective. To the extent that it could be perceived to read like an advertisement, that is due to the limited sources that are available (though I don't agree with the advertisement assertion). All content must be verifiable. I've written and edited many Wikipedia articles (not that that makes me any good). In working on this one I looked at other RV manufacturer articles. This new article is one of the best out there. It contains basic facts about the company that are all sourced and verifiable. I request you reconsider this tag or advise me on what I can do to meet the standards as you perceive them. Thank you.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

PS--I went ahead and removed some of the external links.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I see you've been working on a number of companies in this field, among other topics, so it's clear that your intent is not promotional. But compare this with the article on Thor Industries. The key problem here is is the repeated emphasis and excessive detail about the lightweight construction. When you fix it, let me know. .  DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I made a number of edits. One thing is, the lightweight construction is something that makes this product different so it seems particularly noteworthy to discuss it--as long as it's sourced. Thanks for your work on wikipedia, I hope you'll find the edits acceptable.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Also, dealers are saying Thor/KZ is on the verge of shutting down Livin Lite. There isn't much material other than talk in chat groups and one dealer did a blog post about it. It's not enough I don't think to add that fact yet, but as soon as an RV news outlet covers it (as it seems likely that they will) I will add it to the article. I found the company interesting because it appears they produce something unique in the RV industry, which is notorious for poorly built products. I am a huge fan of Airstreams, but in some ways the Livin Lite products seem to be even better built than Airstreams. At any rate, the way they construct their trailers is what got my attention and what got me interested in it.--Utahredrock (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think there is still too much emphasis on detail, and I may edit it further myself.  DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Summer Rayne Oakes
Hi. I'm working on an article about this rather well known "eco-model" at User:GRuban/Summer_Rayne_Oakes, but noticed your comment about "need an increased level of scrutiny" at the epitath for the previous incarnation, Articles for deletion/Summer Rayne Oakes, and respect your opinion.

So, said solicitation: scrutinize! Starting sources - some silly, some seriously substantial. Seemingly sufficient? --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As a general comment, remember that in many recent afds we considered interviews with subjects where they say what they please not to be truly independent sources, but rather primary sources, with all their usual limitation. But I think almost any press on an entertainment or society figure or model or the like, is instigated by PR, but in theses field insisting on real freedom from PR might make it almost impossible to have an article, unless the person is actually famous.
 * My general view is to adapt the requirements to the field, to some degree, and interpret them so we can justify articles on the most notable, without requiring actual fame with academic books on them. I am not one of the people who want to adjust standards to decrease our coverage for fields in which they have no interest. We all have different ideas about what fields are important, and we need to accommodate each other. I don't want to impose my own views about importance to the world upon others--and I expect others will do similarly in return.
 * For specifics, see the draft talk p.  DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of page: Introduction to Modern Application Development
Hi DDG, I noticed you had deleted my page on Introduction To Modern Application Development. I would like to understand why. You had given the reason as 'unambiguous promotion or advertising', but everything in the article was sourced from independent, highly reputed news sources. Could you please explain why? Tanmaig (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I deleted it after it has been listed by another experienced editor. It is indistinguishable from a straightforward advertisement for the MOOC, including an outline of course content and information of getting academic credit for it. This is not encyclopedic content.
 * I'd say just the same for your article on The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. The book is notable, but the absurdly over-detailed article is promotional--it is 10 times the length of the articles on his other books. Articles do not have to be intended as an advertisement to be promotional --we cannot judge intent. We judge content. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:YouScience
Why do you think the sources already in the article aren't enough to establish notability? Also, why do you think the article as written seems like an advertisement? Let me know so I can try to improve the chances of the article getting accepted. Every morning  (there's a halo...)  13:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed my comment to just be about notability . It would help to get some source from out of the immediate area.Or just ask for another review.  DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Recheck

Second Opinion
Example source: Article-text this source is used to support: Dominic Barton "was hired by McKinsey & Company to work in the Toronto office in 1986." Question: Does WP:AGEMATTERS prohibit using this 2009 source for events taking place in 1986? Context: This is regarding the feedback I got from on a draft I prepared for the Dominic Barton page (see Talk). This feedback effects most of the content covering his career before he became famous in 2009. CorporateM (Talk) 14:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Finding a contemporary source for bio details before anyone is taking notice of the subject will be tough, and the source would be primary. TKe it back further. Unless you can find a newspaper birth announcement, a birth certificate would be the only contemporary source for a subject's birthdate. Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Age does not matter for a source for factual information such as this. Nothing in the section quoted has anything to do with this sort of situation. Furthermore, a birth certificate is a primary source,and does not definitively seytle the question of birthdate in any event--they can be misdated accidentally or deliberately. I will take a look at the article.  DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Example source:
 * Draft article-text this source is used to support: "He was hired by McKinsey & Company to work in the Toronto office in 1986 and worked in Toronto for eleven years."
 * Clarification: I reviewed this claim statement and was concerned with its mentioning events taking place in 1986. The claim statement in the draft version said that the subject worked at the Toronto office for 11 years. But according to the source proper, the subject worked in Asia for 11 years. Both claims cannot be true, unless the source meant that Barton worked in the Asia sector department at its Toronto office for 11 years. The WSJ does not ultimately specify which was the case. It was this discrepancy and the uncertainty surrounding it which led me to mark the Thurm source as unapproved for use on its first claim, which I felt needed clearing up, while marking it as approved for use on its second claim (that Dominic Barton won the election in 2009 and became Managing Director of McKinsey & Company on July 1st). Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   09:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi David. Just wanted to check-in and see if this was still on your radar. No rush. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

AfD rename proposal
I saw you nominate several articles for deletion so in order to find your individual reasoning behind what I had assumed was a deletionist attitude I started reading your user page and found that you want "AfD" to stand for "Articles for Discussion"... Well, on Dutch Wikipedia I've seen this in action and it (unfortunately) doesn't work, many people are confused about the rename (from years ago) and think that if they nominate articles to the "Articles for Discussion" (well, a more literal translation would be "Articles for Assessment") that other users will give valuable input on how to improve them, but in reality it remained a deletion list, and articles that would've otherwise have been improved get nominated because the nominator genuinely believes that they are just brainstorming with the community so such a name change will backfire. I encourage you to try and change it, but judging from how things have turned out on Dutch Wikipedia I wouldn't trust the name change as anything other than cosmetics. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 10:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

23:47:07, 12 February 2018 review of submission by MSKTC
Hello, on January 6th the Wikipedia entry 'Burn Model Systems' was rejected. The reason stated was because it reads too much like an essay. I was wondering if you could provide me with specific examples from the entry. I think this would help me visualize how it needs to be re-written.

MSKTC (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That was probably not the best term. I re-reviewed it to indicate the actual problems. The article is promotional, and in addition lacks references to show notability . It promoted the work of the Program, as shown by the discussion of the harm caused by burns--in a press release that's a major component, in an encyclopedia article one just makes a cross reference. It relies on a presentation of accomplishments in bulllet points, another technique suitable only for a press release. It included such directly promotional language as "See "Development of the life impact burn recovery evaluation (LIBRE) profile: assessing burn survivors' social participation". and learn more about the LIBRE project at http://sites.bu.edu/libre/" As for notability : a WP article needs to show notability by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, but everything here is from the organization itself.  DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Chess grand masters - notability
I was having a look at Category:Chess grandmasters (over 1,000 entries) because I came across a new article with only one source and I nearly PRODed it as an insufficiently sourced BLP. Don't they need to meet GNG? Are they considered inherently notable? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * there's a current discussion at WT:Wikiproject Chess. Just as I think we should have extensive coverage in areas that interest me, I think this is also true of those areas others find of interest. Just as we've figured out criteria for what counts as encyclopedia - worthy for academic faculty ,they can do the same fo chess. More limited coverage in some fields can be best justified by limiting the opportunities for 1promotionalism, or lack of sources for WP:V. There's also the possibility of a general feeling of the community as a whole that some areas are simply not encyclopedic if carried to the extent their fans desire. This tends to get worded as problems meeting GNG, but in my view, it in practice is actually done by adjusting the meaning of the GNG to produce the desired result. I don't think the coverage is that outrageous: Personally, I think it perfectly reasonable that in the world in general there have been 1000 notable chess-players. There seem to be about 9000 bios of basketball players. Though I have never watched more than a few isolated minutes of a basketball game, and have never in my life wanted to know anything about any of these 9000 players, other people are as entitled to their interest as I to mine.  DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Brief statistical comment here (I will copy this to the WikiProject discussion): if you look at List of chess grandmasters (1780 entries, of which 184 are dead [of which there are 17 without articles], so there are around 1596 living GMs on the list), you will see that the article says that there are currently (November 2017) around 1594 grandmasters on the FIDE rating list (the figure for the February 2018 list is 1595). If you assume that all the blue-links on the list are the 1066 articles in Category:Chess grandmasters, then you get a figure of 530 red-links at List of chess grandmasters, and presumably 17 of those are the dead ones without articles (some of which should definitely have articles) and there are around 513 living GMs with no articles. Some of these will be very obscure, certainly in English-language sources, though all will have some record of their chess-playing activity and the award of their titles can be sourced. Carcharoth (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion - Draft:G Fuel
I tried to repair this page Draft:G Fuel after another editor had submitted a page that was fairly advertorial. I believe I added enough reliable/reputable third party sources to establish notability, and tried to write the article in a neutral tone. RHaworth deleted the page as unambiguous advertising or promotion so I reached out to him to see if he had any recommendations as to how I might be able to rewrite the article. RHaworth suggested that I reach out to you to determine notability. Would you mind reviewing and let me know if there's any additional info needed to determine notability? --Bughunter92 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * the New Yorker ref is a mention in a general article, the abc is an interview with the founder, which is not independent, and the NYT is also inclusion in a general article. Npmne of the others are usable. You'll have to find more than this. And when you do, don't have the article mainly consist of a list of flavors.  DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Pradip Sawant
Hi DGG! Thank you for taking the time to review my submissionDraft: Pradip Sawant. I've read the feedback, but it seems a little broad. I would appreciate some specific pointers as to how this can be improved. I appreciate your help. And also please tell me some example of good 3rd party references, cause i have used Times of India as reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnybcn1 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Source notability -- usefulness of non-notable sources
Hi DGG, Many thanks for your many productive contributions to the Wiki community. I'm a noobie here and am working on my first contribution, Draft:Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (Thanks for the helpful suggestions). I've cited a mix of notable and non-notable sources (more of the latter), since the non-notable citations provide useful information. Does including a large fraction of non-notable citations detract from the article, per Wiki standards? Should I remove the non-notables (almost) completely? I've resubmitted my draft, and it's awaiting review. ~Cheers~ David Fieldsde (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The requirement for sources is not that they are notable, but rather that they are reliable; for material in an article, the rules are at WP:RS, with details discussed at the very large number of discussion in the archives of WP::RSN, the Reliable sources noticeboard. The special conditions for sources that are suitable for showing notability are at WP:N, which can basically be summarized as references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The interpretation of that general phrase varies with subject, and to some extent tends to reflect general feelings about what our coverage ought to be.

With respect to Draft:Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop: We generally have been relatively reluctant to make articles of series of conferences,or organizations that sponsor them, unless there is very firm 3rd party evidence that they are regarded as the most important one in the subject. The sources in the draft are almost entirely publications by the organization itself or very closely related organizations, and therefore not independent. My role in screening AfCs is not to decide on accepting the article, but to try to estimate whether the community will accept it. The place where that decision is made is in an AfD discussion, and it goes by consensus. The way we do things here, nobody can fully predict the result of such discussions, but on the basis of my experience in many thousands of them, the article is unlikely to be accepted in its current form. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ←
 * Thanks for clarifying that the need is for more reliable (independent) sources that show notability. Please continue contributing to the Wiki effort. Best regards. Fieldsde (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Teenage notability
If my memory serves, is it not customary to not include BLPs for single event notability for children (teens included), including National Spelling Bee winners, National Science Fair winners, National teenage beauty contest winners, and so forth? Atsme 📞📧 21:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * List_of_Scripps_National_Spelling_Bee_champions has a few linked bios, but generally not only for the win. Interesting, a search for "Ananya Vinay" turns up a heck of a lot more substantial RS coverage (major news outlets) than "Sophia Dominguez-Heithoff" does (social media accounts, youtube, pageant and fan sites). Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - not sure where this link goes, but it broke the section title so I'll add it here. Atsme 📞📧 23:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that WP should not cover them, but there have recently been at AfD keep decisions for a surprising number of bio of young people who have had some press coverage for accomplishments which would not have made them notable had they been adults. I am therefore somewhat reluctant to bring AfDs for the people listed in the table. We would need a rule similar to that for sports, where only adult competitions indicate notability--but those who believe in the unthinking application of the GNG without considering the subject field would probably oppose that also.


 * Of the spelling bee champions, the only one who I consider clearly notable as an adult is L. E. Sissman, who became an unquestionably notable writer. Frank Neuhauser as winner of the first bee might be another exception. The other with articles had at most minor roles in the very notable film Akeelah and the Bee about the spelling bee. (Of course others without articles might prove to be notable also.)  DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

deletion of One With Life Tequila page
I would like to understand why you deleted the above referenced page - the cited reason was promotion/advertising. This page provided all factual statements about the company supported by independent sources. While the page is about a particular tequila brand, not unlike the numerous other tequila brand pages on wiki, all of the statements were factual and pertinent to the new brand. Can you specify more particularly the issues and concerns? If these were legitimate reasons for the deletion, then why are the other brand pages not also deleted? Thank you in advance for any guidance you can provide.\Philacevedo (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * when it's a new brand, there is very likely to be nothing to say but advertising. With established brands, eople may sometimes write about it, if only with respect to the cultural significance. What was available here was either very specialized awards whose very purpose was allowign for promotion, and local notices, which are indiscriminate for local industries.  DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the clarification. Though, still a bit dismayed, as the rule seems to be selectively applied and this particularly brand targeted. Additionally, there does seem to be some distinction and societal importance to this brand which sets it apart from some of the other new brands with pages. That is; it seems to be one of the few created and owned by a woman. This in a male dominated industry seems important. Philacevedo (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many articles were accepted in earlier days when standards about notability and promotionalism were much lower. It will take us many years to remove them, but the least we can do is not add to them.  DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about a mention of a ban
Hello, David. I see that at Articles for deletion/Nuri Katz you said that the creator of the article, EricFisch, is "now banned", but I can't find any record of a ban for the editor, and the account has never been blocked. Is there a ban recorded somewhere where I haven't been able to find it, or was your comment a mistake? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * sorry, meant "blocked." DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as I said above, the account has never been blocked, as you can see in the block log, here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Rahul Verma (social activist)
Hi, I recently recreated Rahul Verma (social activist) after Allow creation decision in deletion review/Log/2018 February 9 with sources that have appeared since the AfD (specifically the front page NY Times article about the subject. NYT international print edition). Closing editor stated that ''There was also a somewhat theoretical discussion about whether an allow recreation result makes the new article G4 proof, or whether there's always an implied right to recreate an article if it's not salted. No consensus on that, but I'll state here that any new version certainly will need to meet all of our requirements, and if anybody finds the new version is still lacking, they can bring it back to AfD''. During the discussion one editor stated that ''Also, if the circumstances have changed: recreate the article and let's see if an independent admin thinks it passes G4. DRV should not be used to G4 proof articles where editors on the "losing" side of an XfD think it has changed.'' I should have created this article under WP:AFC to get some review but since it was not mandatory I took a chance.

You were one of the admins who voted Delete during AFD. So is it possible for you to please have a look and if you feel it really need G4 or any other discussion related to deletion. Actually I am asking you this question because since last year I was looking for some sources and finally I got some and not sure if it meets the notability standards or not. Sorry for taking too much of your time. Thanks Shibanihk (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I would only consider using G4 if an article was almost unchanged, and even then I'd prefer AfD, since the situation is obviously contestable.
 * As for the article: I will not usually try to delete an article with a directly relevant NYT first page story. However, it is the only usable reference, and it is equally about him and about the overall problem. The NYT International Edition account is just an abridgment of the NYT account, not a separate item. The Gulf News article is a reprint of the NYT. The 3 together make one source. The Asian Age article is a brief promotional article about the cause. The CNBC item is a primary source: a statement, not even an interview with a reporter--just a video statement. It was misleadingly described in the Del Rev as a " video featured about his work by VNBC-TV " It's no different from from any other charitable promotion. So are all the other sources in the present article. I have not looked again in detail at the sources in the previous version, but almost all of them were at best advocacy.  DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your valued feedback. I will keep on adding more appropriate sources as and when appears. Regards Shibanihk (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

School AfDs
What we feared is happening, users are now trawling school articles looking for ones to delete. You can tell these rampant deletionists this: ''Thank you for patrolling new pages. As a New Page Reviewer, you are expected to know our deletion policies inside out. Please see: WP:ATD-R and please note that this is a policy, not a mere guideline. Thanks.'' Change the wording if they are not NPR rights holders. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's also just a suggestion (may have a title that would make a useful redirect, emphasis added). You're obviously welcome to ask users to curtail their "rampant" nominations (if they're doing so) but to require them to abide by a suggestion in a policy is a bit much. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And for what it's worth, the "you" was referring to but I have a bad habit of using the royal "you" for general instances anyway. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The policy that we should redirect rather than delete if a suitable target is available is one of the most ignored parts of deletion policy, almost as much ignored as the part that says for subjects that might be notable with no significant information, a combination article can be preferable. I'm not really sure that any of the section on alternatives to deletion is actually followed enough to make it an accepted policy. I prefer to use policy vs guideline arguments for only the most basic policies, such as NOT ADVERTISING.  DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , who's talking about 'requiring'? Just pointing to a policy is not the same as handing out orders. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I often word it as "suggest" . or, "you might also want to consider" in giving advice, especially when it's a question of trying to tell people they should be doing something differently. Even so, it is sometimes seen as a little aggressive. Sometimes it is helpful to simply correct it, and see if they get the idea.  DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Uday Foundation
I have tried to do major clean up. Still not sure if any further clean up required. Pls see if you can remove advert tag now or suggest what needs to be done. Thanks HelloDolly89 (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt is enough non-repetitive non-promotional content for both an article on the sponsor and on the foundation. But I will take another look  DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for consideration. Removed almost majority of text and link. Regards HelloDolly89 (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Wood Lock
You speedy deleted this page as unambiguously advertising, but the page talks about recall of the product and so I think it is not. If RSs for the recall can be found, then the article might survive an AfD, in any case, I think it should go through the AfD process. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Wood Lock Medicated Balm is imported by T.C.UNICORN LTD in Toronto. The genuine Wood Lock Medicated Balm is packaged in a 50mL bottle" is representative content. I consider that such blatant advertising that I will not restore. .  DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. My request came was on behalf of someone who had asked on WP:RfU; I've informed them there. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Rare Book & Manuscript Library
A large section of this draft was added by a user (on your suggestion) to the text of Main Library (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign) but in such a way that no indication of its origin was given and thus no credit was given to the original author(s). That needs to be remedied either through a history merge or through a deletion of all the subsequent revisions of the merge target, removing the copyvio content from the history (otherwise it is only too likely to be restored).

My suggestion would be to (1.) merge the history of Draft:The Rare Book & Manuscript Library with that of The Rare Book & Manuscript Library (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign), then (2.) delete the copyvio-violating edits from the history of Main Library (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign). If you still think the latter to be unsuitable for an article of its own, the third and final step step would be to (3.) redirect and re-merge parts of The Rare Book & Manuscript Library (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign) with The Rare Book & Manuscript Library (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign) but with an edit comment indicating the origin of the content. --Hegvald (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the article should be rather of the Libraries of the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, and I will make the appropriate merges and links. The history may have to remain for the time being in the history of the redirects, because the only times I have done so, I have made a total mess out of it.  DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates (4th nomination)
Starting a DRV is probably equivalent to peeing against a strong wind.... but I'm minded to do so because, had I seen that discussion, I wouldn't have closed that yet. While there was a clear majority vote to keep, the majority of the keep arguments weren't grounded in policy, and much of the delete arguments were. Therefore I don't see that a real consensus grounded in policy had emerged by the time you closed it. Many of the arguments were "already survived 3 other AFDs" but the counterargument would be "been nominated 3 other times which suggests we have a problem." And that problem of whether the list is a noteworthy topic hasn't been addressed.

I would like to see the discussion re-opened and continued. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Frankly, that article should die in a fire. It freely mixes people form a period where being a member of an organised church was the default, people who are professed Christians but not in any way active in promoting that, and people who are outliers in their field by virtue of religious faith. It exists solely to promote one religion, and actually largely to support the anti-science end of that religion. Being a Jewish Nobel laureate 100 years ago was a big deal. Being a Christian Nobel laureate in the field of evolutionary biology now would be a big thing. Virtually everything about what it means to be a Christian and a Nobel laureate has changed from the earliest tot he latest entries in that list. Its like a list of poeple who believe the white race is inherently superior. It will include virtually everybody at one point and virtually nobody at another,and tells us exactly nothing about either category because the same would apply if you replaced Nobel laureate with doctor, engineer or anything else. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thinking it over, I realized I am not neutral, and to avoid any doubt, I have reopened. I do not think I would have needed to do so, since I was closing according to what I think a very clear consensus, with which I happened to agree. I usually do agree with the consensus at AfDs that I close. None of us limits our closes to the ones that close against our opinion, or therewould be no admins atall for most AfDs.  DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * btw,, I don't see that any Nobel prizes were ever awarded for evolutionary biology, so I'm not sure of the relevance of your example.  DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Le Palais Royal
Good day DGG! Why was "Le Palais Royal" deleted without an AFD if the article that I wrote was not promotional? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "Because I consider it entirely promotional in its current form: "has spent more than ten years designing and developing the castle with the goal of creating “something completely different than what’s been done in America." ; "With more than $7 million in 22-karat gold leaf" ; and "Also included is a room for your dog with an computerized watering system included ." Any article written in the second person that way is indistinguishable from an advertisement.
 * I recognize that was not your intent, but that was the state of the article; I could restore the article in the state you originally wrote it in 2014, and semi-protect it. Would that be OK?  DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 *  Reply - The entire history should be revived, but the page should be brought to the latest revision that is not promotional. We can discuss the matter at WP:AFD if there is disagreement as to whether to keep, redirect or delete the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to restore advertising even in the history, but I've restored the whole thing, and I hope you will keep a watch that it does not get re-added. If you want meto semi-protect, ask me.  DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Please feel free to semi-protect the article, and to report those who advertise on it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * awni-protected. but if theee are further problems, please let me know--I work on too many individual articles for me to effectively watchlist them.  DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Historian Ben Park, subsequently to his blp's being deleted, became published...
...@ Cambridge Univ. Press (and accepted for major book publication @ Norton). Should his recreated blp become deleted a 2nd time, anyway?

Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_E._Park_(2nd_nomination)

If you recall, at the time of the original deletion, you'd said in a thread this: There are a few areas where we actually do have rational standards, though ewe sometimes call them only "presumed" notability. The most distinct one, and established as not presumed but definitive, is WP:PROF, which is based upon the actual criteria which those in the subject field being covered use themselves to determine significance. It's the soundest and most rational of our guidelines; it does have its limits--the decisions people make sometimes do show prejudices against areas that some people here have considered unimportant or of lower quality (the most notorious one is the bias against academic areas where women have traditionally particularly numerous, such as education or nursing or home economics.) You are arguing above in effect that Mormon Studies is one such affected area, and I have indeed detected some bias against the academic field of religion. But it is still a more rational guideline than the GNG, and we need to establish other similar guidelines (In practice we already interpret "presumed" to be definitive in some cases, as for Olympic athletics, or populated places.) However, it is unreasonable for those who dislike the result in a particular individual case to try to change the general rule to favor the particular person or other subject that they want to include. Bias here is best fought by making people aware of it, with the assumption that most of us here -- to some extent more than in the world in general-- have a predisposition to correct it when pointed out to us.) It is furthermore unnecessary to change the general rules to accommodate particular cases, for we do apply the fundamental rule of WP:IAR in determining notability. Whether we apply it depends upon whether people are convinced by the argument, and under our general system for making decisions, there's no other possible basis. (Whether the result is one I would agree with in the particular instance being complained of is totally irrelevant. It is better to have a fair & definitive manner of decision even though the result in any one particular case may be wrong, than to try to manipulate the system to get what one personally wants in a particular instance.) DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC) --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * commented at the AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a snip from the start of a roundtable discussion sponsored by the Organization of American Historians.
 * "Trade publishing exists in the commercial economy. Here, you try to expand your audience, rather than more deeply penetrate a closed market, as in academic publishing. You do that not by dumbing down, but by maximizing the reading experience. The ultimate goal of the trade book is not to advance the state of the field, though it certainly may do that, but to succeed as a book—as an organically complete and satisfying work. In trade books, the emphasis is on reading pleasure. That can come from many sources—not only storytelling, but also provocative new research and arguments. You can still engage in debates with important scholars and situate your work within current historiography, but unless it serves the experience of the reader, relegate all that to the notes."
 * Another snip from further down:

"due to challenges in the marketplace, I get the sense that trade publishers are taking on fewer "small" and midlist books. My hope is that this means university presses are able to sign up more of these books that may have some crossover potential, to help their bottom line."
 * LINK--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * you have found a good quotation to show that writing general books is a second-level publishing venue in history if one cannot publish an academic research book.
 * I've seen instances of prejudice here against academic studies of religion, and of Mormon studies. The AfD in question is not one of them. You made the argument that he's influential within Mormon Studies. But his book on Mormon history is not by the major specialized published of such titles--or by any of those listed in Mormon studies. If you wish to write additional articles on notable scholars in this field, the easiest way would be to take the 5 named chairs in Mormon studies that are given in that WP--every individual holder of such a chair is explicitly notable by WP:PROF.  DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Park's book won't by any stretch of the imagination be a popularization of existing scholarship. He's been soaking up a lot of the era he's to cover's sourcing a good percentage of his time for years now. Indeed, per the proposal his agent shopped around, "It draws from a broad collection of primary sources, most of them overlooked and some of them used for the first time...." And Rob't Weil, the renowned ed. @ Liveright, bit!--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think WP is improved with a Park blp but your opinion differs.
 * In any case, I'd imagine that what's now been reborn as this literary/scholarly imprint at Norton, Liveright, will be considered exponentially more prestigious among the Mormon studies community than, say, Signature Books of Salt Lake City, and any of the half-dozen Mormon studies chairs would give eyeteeth to be published there. Scholars published there certainly can garner reviews, too.
 * Here LINK is a Google Scholar search for scholarly reviews/citations of Annette Gordon-Reed's 2016 tome pub'd at Liveright.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to Liveright.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia: "Books published by Weil for the Liveright list include, Edward Sorel's Mary Astor's Purple Diary, S. Jonathan Bass’s He Calls Me By Lightning, Jack Davis's The Gulf, Jim Holt’s Why Does the World Exist, George Orwell’s Diaries, Max Boot’s Invisible Armies, Jules Feiffer's Kill My Mother, Harvey Sach's Toscanini (all of which were reviewed on the front page of the New York Times Book Review review), as well as Gail Collins’ As Texas Goes, E. O. Wilson’s The Social Conquest of Earth and The Meaning of Existence (National Book Award Finalist), Michael Gorra’s Portrait of a Novel (Pulitzer finalist) and Allan Gurganus’ Local Souls. Other books edited by Weil that were reviewed on the front-page New York Times Book Review include, SPQR by Mary Beard, The Complete Works or Primo Levi, and "The Most Blessed of the Patriarchs" by Annette Gordon-Reed and Peter S. Onuf." -- "Robert Weil (editor)"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * and not a single one of these are academic books at a research level. (it's a odd argument anyway, because the NYT has never or almost never put an academic book on its front page, & very few Pulitzers or NBA awards go to such books. I never said they were not an important publisher in what they do.  DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)