User talk:DGG/Archive 135 Apr. 2018

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

New Page Review Newsletter No.10
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages! ACTRIAL:
 * ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing
 * Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking  place at: [[Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Can_a_subject_specific_guideline_invalidate_the_General_Notability_Guideline?|Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Gui

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Herman T. Pott National Inland Waterways Library
 * Draft:Ketut Gede Asnawa

Uruthikol
I just nominated Uruthikol as G11 - article creator is User_talk:Chennai_Information_Updater who appears to be a paid editor promoting films. I also just did a G11 Udhayan (film) by same user (the Reception section was copied to the film promo on YouTube. Not sure how best to handle the User name which appears to be business related or the repeated promo material and thought it best to bring it here. I saw where you previously deleted some of this user's promo material. Atsme 📞📧 11:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news
 * Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
 * Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
 * The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
 * The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news
 * There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous
 * A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
 * The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Michael J. Reed
 * Draft:Piotr Chomczynski
 * Draft:Russia and the United Nations Security Council veto
 * Draft:Walter Clemens, Jr.

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Brătianu'-class river monitor
 * Draft:Chandraprabha Saikiani
 * Draft:Clarence D. Martin Jr.
 * Draft:Dr. Nandini Sharma
 * Draft:Grégoire Hetzel
 * Draft:Hamed El Said

Amina Oyagbola returns!
The article you have deleted several times has returned under the new name Amina oyagbola. The "new" article was created by a new editor with no other edits, so can you provide me with the name of the editor who created the "old" version of the article so I can start SPI proceedings?--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks for notifying me. I did the checkuser myself and blocked as needed. No apparent connection with any sock farm.  DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Restore deleted Wiki Article
Hello dear Admin, We would like to restore the deleted Wiki-Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Prince_(Christian_apologist)&action=edit&redlink=1

There says, that is was deleted because of advertising/promotional reasons. We can't relate because this is a well-known name in Critism in Islam and at least since year 2000 has an Internet activism. He is also author of several books and has in Youtube thousands of videos. The search results about him in Youtube has ca. 4 Millions. When it comes to the topic Islam, Christian Prince is one of the first name.

Is there any possibilty to restore this article or to edit it? Thanks for your help.

Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightheaven09 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Considering that he has only one book listed in WorldCat--which is only in a single library, and that I can find nothing useful in Google  besides his own websites, and considering also that the article was a clear advertisement for his views and nothing more, I do not see how there is any chance for an article.  DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

International Journal of Statistics and Medical Informatics
Hello DGG, I have noticed several SPA's adding thinly-veiled cite spam for this "journal" (in Clinical data management and a few other topics) and have reverted these additions. The added site is www.ijsmi.com. As you have a lot more experience with academia-related topics, would you mind taking a look at this site please to double-check my assessment? Despite its fancy title and nice layout the site's editorial team consists of 1 member named "Editor IJSMI" who is also the author of all articles (see author list on site). I am pretty sure this is not a reliable academic source per our RS guidelines, but a second opinion would be great if you got a bit of time. GermanJoe (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 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 11 – 9 April 2018

 

The 100 Skins of the Onion
Open Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that.

Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron.

Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF. From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart.

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) 16:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Crossref as a new source of citation data: A comparison with Web of Science and Scopus, CWTS blogpost 17 January 2018, Nees Jan van Eck, Ludo Waltman, Vincent Larivière, Cassidy Sugimoto
 * Citations with identifiers in Wikipedia, figshare dataset
 * Making women more visible online—with Wikidata tools!, Wikimedia blogpost 29 March 2018 by Sandra Fauconnier
 * Village pump discussion, Turn on mapframe? We’re ready if you are reaches conclusions
 * The Power of the Wikimedia Movement beyond Wikimedia, Forbes 28 March 2018, Michael Bernick
 * Tracing stolen bitcoin, blogpost 26 March 2018 by Ross J. Anderson
 * }

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Jaroslav Cerha
 * Draft:Loide Pashukeni Shinavene

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Positive Entrepreneurship

Unblock please
Could you please unblock user:Fxiong. This is not an advertising / spam user but a student. It does say this on her main page. The article she created about the Chinese version of Wonga named Qudian Inc could have been phrased better but this is not created by Qudian Inc or anyone associated with that company. Its quite a blow for her to see her account removed. Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The prevalence of badly sourced promotionalism in WP is indeed likely to lead to occasional overly criticism.  But the article does need to be rewritten substantially.  I trust your knowledge of the author, so I will unblock, and move the article to draft space.  ( except I see you unblocked before I could get to it, which is certainly OK)  DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Amazing dissection of article sourcing at AfD
I thought this was an impressive analysis by user:Mduvekot - I've never seen this much effort put into an AfD before, and I wanted to share it.[] TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  22:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It's amazing, and impressive. So impressive that one can forget the individual data points are false binaries. I've discussed it in a little more detail at WP:Articles for deletion/Alexander Friedmann-Hahn. As the method is very likely to be used again, I'll try to give yet a fuller analysis. If not at this afd, at another.  DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Lawrence Memorial Hospital
 * Draft:Short Spine Syndrome

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox writer
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox writer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

curators and gallerists
On 4 April 2018 in an AfD for Jan Allen, you wrote: "Admittedly, curators are difficult to document unless they had published works that would qualify as NAUTHOR or NPROF,, but important curators do just that. The minor publications shown here do not." A few day later, in an AfD on ALexander-Friedmann-Hahn, you wrote: "We have no workable standards for gallerists. It is not just a business in the ordinary sense, but one of the auxiliary professions that facilitate the fine arts. Considering their significance in that professional network, I think we should be very liberal here; I would say the same about similar auxiliary professions in other fields, such as music and science. It's the nature of such professions to be overshadowed by the artists etc. they serve, and I've always thought we should interpret the GNG standards in line with the nature of available sources in the field." Earlier, you had commented in an AfD about Casey Caplan "I continue to disagree that the mere fact the art shows take place at a particular art gallery make either of them notable."

Can you help me understand that apparent discrepancy between those statements? Vexations (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I am still working it out, to be honest. There was a sentence that I wrote for the last AfD "This is somewhat different from my earlier position."; I in the end omitted  it to avoid confusion; I see I should have left it in.   In trying to figure out what to do, I will deliberately try to make a case for various positions to seewhat convinces me  or others. AfD needs to experiment a little before it settles down -- premature guidelines are often a lasting error.
 * The increasing number of articles (and discussions)  on fine arts, partly the result of Art+Feminism and related projects are showing our need for clearer standards. This is especially important because in advising new editors, we need to be able to tell them what is or is not likely to be accepted. That after all is rthe real need--not to decide what we would like to accept, but to guide contributors. Ifthe situation is unstable, as it is now, there's no good way to guide them. I have learned deal with it in editathons etc by telling them to play absolutely safe or their first article. The role of an advisor is to be conservative..
 * Some particular points:
 * Galleries vs Gallerists.  This is a problem with many similar professions where the business is essentially dependent upon the expertise or reputation of an individual. Rarely is it appropriate to make an article for both unless there's some really special distinction. If it'smulti-generational or a partnership, the choice is easy: the gallery/firm/etc. If the individual has a reputation beyond the particular gallery, then it's easy also--in other words, if he meets WP:PROF as an expert, or WP:AUTHOR. If unsure, I tend to go with the person because its easier to write bio  articles.
 * notability for the shows or the artist because of the gallery There may be some galleries whose selectivity can indicate the artist showing there is notable. It would take some degree of agreement between experts about which they are, and it would be nice if we could find actual sources for this instead of our judgment.
 * notability for the gallery because of who shows there. This shouldn't be a matter of our judgment--it should take sources.
 * Sources for notability. There are books about the profession of selling artworks, which do not have the possible bias ofbeing about individual galleries, which would ake good sources.  I know more about 19th c. UK, but there should be something  available for later periods also.
 * substantial . We need to stop using mentions as being adequate sources. We've done this in many circumstances before to show notability of clubs etc. There should by now be better sources available.  DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the effort. Let's say that the roster of artists they represent contributes to notability if most or all of their artists are notable. Sprüth/Magers for example, represents Kenneth Anger, Keith Arnatt Estate, Richard Artschwager, John Baldessari, Bernd & Hilla Becher, John Bock, Alighiero Boetti, George Condo, Walter Dahn, Hanne Darboven, Thomas Demand, Philip-Lorca diCorcia, Thea Djordjadze, Robert Elfgen, Peter Fischli & David Weiss, Lizzie Fitch, Ryan Trecartin, Sylvie Fleury, Llyn Foulkes, Cyprien Gaillard, Andreas Gursky, Jenny Holzer, Gary Hume, Robert Irwin (artist), Donald Judd, de:Axel Kasseböhmer, Craig Kauffman, Karen Kilimnik, Astrid Klein, Joseph Kosuth, Kraftwerk, Barbara Kruger, David Lamelas, Louise Lawler, David Maljkovic, Anthony McCall, Robert Morris (artist), de:Reinhard Mucha, Jean-luc Mylayne, David Ostrowski, Otto Piene, Michail Pirgelis, Nina Pohl, Stephen Prina, Pamela Rosenkranz, Sterling Ruby, Thomas Ruff, Ed Ruscha, Analia Saban, Gerda Scheepers, Thomas Scheibitz, de:Frances Scholz, Andreas Schulze, Cindy Sherman, Stephen Shore, Alexandre Singh, Frank Stella, Robert Therrien, Ryan Trecartin, Rosemarie Trockel, Kaari Upson, Marcel van Eeden, John Waters, Andro Wekua, Andrea Zittel, so that seems pretty clear. (Note that Sprüth/Magers have been messing with their page, their website has been blacklisted etc. It was probably the intern, but I don't trust 'em) Now lets look at the roster of another gallery, Galerie Friedmann-Hahn: Josef Fischnaller, Giovanni Castell, Thomas Kaemmerer, Markus Fräger, Edite Grinberga, Anders Gjennestad, Sasa Makarová, Daniel Ludwig (artist), David FeBland, Christian Grosskopf, Anne Leone, Laura Nieto, olf Ohst, Mirko Schallenberg, Guido Sieber, Marc Sparfel, Marc Taschowsky, Donald Vaccino, Maximilian Verhas, Mia Florentine Weiss. Note that that the first in the second list is a highly promotional article by an SPA and the second notable artist has an article that was written by the same editor who wrote the article about the gallery. There's more tp say about that editor, but I'm trying not to poison the well. If you compare these two, it should be obvious that Sprüth/Magers is a blue-chip gallery that deals with artists whose works are in the most important museum collections and that F-H is in the words of a German editor a "third-rate gallery", or as I would put it more generously works in the lower-to-mid price range of the market. What objective criteria can we use in a notability discussion to make that distinction? WP:PROF works well; can we do something similar for creative professions?

Deletion of Doug Imbruce page
You recently deleted this page. However, the inventor and entrepreneur is notable, having won over a dozen "highest level" awards in the tech community (Webby's, Apple's "Best of", Time Magazine's "Best Startup CEOs", Business Insider's "Top 100 inventors in Silicon Valley", etc.) - all easily identifiable via a simple web search - and created technology still in use by major corporations including Yahoo! and Apple, with dozens of patent filings and notable sources within online search results and printed materials. He was a pioneer of automating the creation of video from data, as demonstrated via many cited news sources, and awarded patents. Deletion of the page seems unwarranted. The inventor remains a sought after expert, and reference materials on him are helpful to the technology community at large. He has authored articles in major publications including, but not limited to, Newsweek (on page one of his search results), and his inventions have featured prominently inside the pages of MIT technology review, the NY Times, and more. Please restore, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.33.38 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * it was deleted by Prod, and therefore I have restored it at your request. Anyone can still send it to WP:AfD if they wish, as that's the place where notability is finally determined. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:NYO2

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Sustainable city ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sustainable_city check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sustainable_city?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added links pointing to Mercer, SEPA, State of the World and Dongtan

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What's ur opinion re viability for a Grant Hardy blp?
After my Ben Park re-creation fiasco, rather than boldly contribute something from the info below in main space, I thought I might ask what political hurdles or ones of a formal nature or moreso of Wikiettiquite I'll likely encounter were I to go ahead and fashion it into in a scholar bio for Grant Hardy.Articles_for_deletion/Grant_Hardy Closing admins' cough cough counts of delete-!votes I mean weighing of !votes supported by argumentation citing specifically applicable guidelines end with AfD deletes--as it did here--not defaults to keep per no consensus. The milk spilt, since 2012, Hardy has continued to publish, albeit mostly as editor. Hardy's status aside publications? Regarding wp:PROF's criterion # 6 ("has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution"), the AfD's reflex !voters thought, "Not so much," waving off Hardy's terms as U. of North Carolina Asheville's history chair as insufficiently impressive. (Meanwhile, reflex !voters recently found former head of a newly-stretched-to-for-year local college Joseph Bishop notable solely for his position when at Weber State College.) In any case, Hardy exchanged his history-faculty power center for that of UNC Ashville's director of Humanities. --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ: Maxwell Institute Study Edition, Grant Hardy, ed. (slated for Dec. 2018 publication)
 * 2) Oxford History of Histical Writing Vol. 1: Beginnings to AD 600, co-editor Andrew Feldherr (Oxford, 2015)
 * 3) Sacred Texts of the World, Teaching Company (2013)
 * 4) Great Minds of the Eastern Intellectual Tradition, The Great Courses series (The Teacing Co. 2011)
 * 5) Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Readers' Guide (Oxford U. Press, 2010)
 * 6) The Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition (U. of Ill. Press, 2005)
 * 7) The Establishment of the Han Empire and Imperial China, co-author Anne Behnke Kinney (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005)
 * 8) Worlds of Bronze and Bamboo: Sima Qian's Conquest of History (Columbia U. Press, 1999)
 * notable as author and historian. Ed. of standard non-LDS edition of Book of Mormon. non-n as academic admin--this only applies to heads of colleges, not depts. Whether it will be accepted is not possible to guess. If you do it, use Draft space and let me know.   DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Simon Gillespie

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Roadside Farm Stands

Advice on Antoine Blondeau article.
Dear David, I kindly ask for your advice on improving Draft:Antoine Blondeau assuming that you know a lot about Sentient Technologies having worked on Babak Hodjat’s article. I cleaned up somewhat 1/3 of the article after the “advert” tag was placed on it and would like to ask for some specific suggestions on how to edit it further. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * remove the minor material, such as funding from ... advisory committee of ..   Remove material that is primarily about the company, which has its own article. You should know this sort of thing already. If you're going to do paid editing, be aware that writing a proper WP article requires NPOV, and most people paying for articles don't want that, but would rather include as much flattering material to highlight their importance as they possibly can.    DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * very helpful, thank you. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Should I keep the part about his investments? He is a venture investor after all? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD for Ulisses Soares
Articles for deletion/Ulisses Soares--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Draft copy
Hi DGG, Greetings to you. I am one of the NPP. At times, I move a page back to "draft" space for the creator to further develop the article or provide source, and I do leave a message to their talk page and inform what is needed to improve the page. I encountered a number of cases that the new editor recreate the same article in the main space without changing/improving anything on the article. Since the is a "draft" copy existed and a new "main space" copy is created, I can not re-move the "main space" copy back to the draft space. I need advise on what should I do next and what should happen to the draft copy? Thanks in advance for your assistance.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kesari Tours
has asked for a deletion review of Kesari Tours. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 11:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Essay talk page templates
I saw that you were contributing to the essay: Gender bias and editing on Wikipedia and wanted know whether you think it is appropriate to place a wiki project template on its talk page. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  12:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Z. Jacobson
I filed a request, see WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mark_Z._Jacobson#Intro_discussion Rwbest (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Articles_for_deletion/Shehzad_Poonawalla
Hello DGG, Can you please takeout few minutes to comment on this. Articles_for_deletion/Shehzad_Poonawalla Regards Sonia89f (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia expose a review schedule for specific new articles that are still blocked by NOINDEX HTML tag ()?
Hi David, I think source code of new Wikipedia pages (e.g., 26-Mar-2018 created new article: view-source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemma_Senbet_Fund) have a NOINDEX HTML tag () for up to 90 days, which makes page invisible to search engines such as Google. Is there a Wikipedia page that shows status (or queue, or schedule, or backlog, or ETA, or reviewing user) of New Page Patrol reviews of any specific new Wikipedia articles? Thank you, sir. - Mary

P.S. I'm not rushing anyone, or asking to prioritize or expedite. I know there are 5.6 million Wikipedia articles, and only a tiny squad of Patrollers. And we (Patrollers, Administrators, Contributors, Editors) are all volunteers. But I really strove in good faith to create a Wikipedia article that met Wikipedia excellent standards (notable, useful, neutral, factual, encyclopedic, supported by 3rd party evidence, referenced, accurate, spam-free, advertisement-free, not vandalism, not hoax, not violate copyright, not defamatory, not exploiting Wikipedia to earn money, not orphaned, etc). I'm just trying to learn how to see review status. Marykartowski (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no schedule for reviewing. Everyone who does reviewing works independently on whatever pages they want to--some from the newly submittedarticles, some from the oldest, some picking articles that interest them.  DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (talkpage stalker) I took a look at the page. It's probably a notable topic but the page is not neutrally written. Tagged as such. Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, The folks working on the NPP backlog are at the point where the oldest articles we're reviewing are from 25 February at the moment. So the queue is approximately long. Lemma Senbet Fund is  old, so it will likely take (at the very most)  days to get reviewed. The problem with the Special:Newpagesfeed is that it's very difficult to find articles that are in the middle of the queue. It's actually pretty unlikely that someone is looking at pages that were submitted in March because they're difficult to navigate to. I've looked at the article and decided to skip it. I have no idea what to do with it. My recommendation would be to remove words like "prestigious", "top tier", "hand-picked", "prolific", "rigorous", "leverages", "in-depth". In fact, I'd suggest avoiding adverbial phrases entirely. Vexations (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
A request for arbitration has been filed which involves a previous incident of WP:OUT which you were involved. The filer of the request has an extensive history of canvassing outside of the project and I'd request that you review the particulars of your redaction. I believe that the material removed does not fit the protections provided by OUT and has substantial value in establishing a pattern of misconduct on the part of the filer. Thanks. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I shall refer this question to other members of Arb Com.   DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Request To Review
Hello! I am a student at UC Berkeley and have created an article on ResistBot for a class assignment. I noticed you have done some work on founder Eric Ries' article and thought you might potentially be able to offer some constructive feedback on my work. If you know of any other users who could also lend a helping hand, that would also be appreciated! Sweet inaara (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * some factors to consider: watch out for WP:Close paraphrase, in this case with Recode; Recode publishes both technology news and material indistinguishable from technology press releases; interviews with the founder of the company especially in local media do not show notability and are not really reliable for anything other than what the founder wishes to say. See WP:NCORP; because of that factor I am not sure about the actual notability of either this program or of Ries (WP can be rather skeptical about the notability of people who have done a little bit of a number of different things).    The program will be more clearly notable if it becomes discussed to a significant extent on mainstream national media.  DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Zenni Optical
Hey! I'd like to stick you with a question about Zenni Optical; the article was created three times, with the latest creation having been blanked by the author and subsequently moved to draftspace. The cross-namespace redirect was logically deleted, however, the draft remained abandoned and got deleted as well shortly after. Recently, the people behind the company asked me to restore and enhance their article, wherefore I started Draft:Zenni Optical using the deleted article and rewrote it using reliable sources only (I'm only not entirely sure about the reliability of MoneyCrashers.com, but it comes in handy for me to cite negative reception). Obviously, the article needs some oversight before it is published, and since I noted that you creation-protected, I wondered if you could do a double action for the draft: For once, could you check whether the article reads neutrally and whether it needs and work before being able to be published (Notability should be established through several sources that go in-depth with the topic, e.g. in the form of reviews). Secondly, as I meantioned, the target article is creation-protected; as such, if the presented draft is satisfactory, could you lift that protection and move the draft to mainspace? Thanks! Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 17:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * please abridge the sale section: the place to find out the details is their web site.(But it is not clear if the $6.95 is for the frame, or complete glasses)  Remove quotes from the company. We only include the CEO, not other officers. Replace most of the uses of the company name with "The firm" or "The company" or "It". Then let me know. And some of the pluses and minus obviously apply to all mail-order glasses: we may need an article on the concept.  Remember to declare your involvement on the talk page.    DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey again, I trimmed the sale section like you asked and removed two mentions of "Zenni Optical" from the history section, though I cannot fit "the company" everywhere given that I'm talking about multiple companies at times. Paid involvement notice is already present on the talk page.
 * Regarding the inclusion of officers in the infobox, what makes you say that we only include the CEO? From what I see on most articles, the people most relevant to the company (can extend over many titles, not just CEO) are usually included; our guideline also states that we should use "Up to four key individuals closely associated with the company" and provides an example with more than just the CEO. Because of this, I think it should be justified to include the three people that are mentioned in sources (you can see commented out two further people that are addressed by the company but never in sources, and as such excluded). That's also the way I'd put it in unpaid articles. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 09:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * our practice is to only include below the ceo for a really major company (e.g., there are some executives at companies like Alphabet who even have separate articles). The general approach I think should be parallel to WP:EINSTEIN. When you see it elsewhere, it is likely to be the results of promotional editing--it would be fair to say that at least half our articles on companies are unsatisfactory, because standards in the past were lower and very few reliable editors really paid attention to this field except for some areas of special interest like computers and automobiles.
 * a little more generally, the infobox guidelines and listings of permissible fields were particular loose in earlier years, but people are now paying infoboxes much more attention, and some of them are already been cleaned up a little.
 * Looked at in a different way, there is a difference between what you can get away with and what is best practice. When I give advice, I always give the safest and most conservative advice. Anything else would be unfair to people who do as I suggest and might be challenged. And it is important to recognize that the effective standards are considerable  higher for paid editing. Whether this is right or wrong may be open to question, but at the moment, that's the way people look at it.
 *  DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that position on how to cover key people in the infobox is more your opinion than common usage, but since every editor may have an opinion, I fixed the issue to not have it stand in the way of getting the article out there. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, any update? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Kosie Marais
Good day DGG

Your comment of today 26 April 2018 refers. I have added more citations specifically to show notability, regarding his Brandy, still made to his recipe today claiming world-wide recognition.

Thank you

User:Barry Ne

18:36:13, 26 April 2018 review of submission by Riptide360
Hi DGG. I'm not sure I can address the local nature of Hope Services as they only operate in Northern California. I did add an incident that is currently in national sport news regarding an NFL player sexually assaulting a Hope Services client sent to interview for a babysitting job. The trial is currently in progress, but has generated significant news coverage. It isn't exactly the focus of the wikipedia article but if it needs to be added to get over the notability hump then ok. As for the lack of citations I've expanded them further. Let me know if this is what you are looking for. Thanks - Stephen Inoue Riptide360 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Riptide360 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTNEWS.  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel ready to copy'n'paste to blp for Hardy
@ Draft:Grant Hardy. U think I shd I polish it (instead) or put it live?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * not yet. First, remove adjectives. Second, tho the material on the change of emphasis in Mormon studies is interesting -- and new to me -- don't use it as the opening paragraph--focus on him, and find a way to say  it   somewhere in the article.  Third,  cut down on the quotes. Forth ,, cut down on the infobox--too many thingsare specified.  DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)�
 * Okey doke.
 * rmvd gaudy bauble - & its sourcing - "seminal"
 * mvd intro prgf re development of field to its own section below 
 * incorporate a lot more paraphrasing,, &c.
 * gv haircut @ infobox
 * to glance over now rmvg unneeded, inadvisable (<--oop thmselves(!)) adj/adv-es if any--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)✅
 * --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David! I submitted it for a once-over or whatever the process is at AfC: my 1st sample of this avenue - diff -. -- I see process cd tk sev.-score dys.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft talk:Grant Hardy--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Request for comment
 * User:Legacypac said because I'm an established user there's nothing stopping me from throwing it live. Anyway, much thanks for your help!--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ya done as a copypaste... I've requested a history merge or someone can delete the page and move it properly. The Draft talkpage notes should also carry over to the mainpage. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Move as you like--I will do the necessary further editing in mainspace. I dealt with one of the long quotations; I remain concerned about the others. I point out once more that if it is desired  to keep the article, it helps to make it modest and unexceptional.    DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC).
 * Thanks, David. Taking a hint, after copy'n'pasting in a balancing Qt here - diff -, in the next edit I went ahead and tagged the blp with template:Quotefarm. Fwiw my next article genesis is @ User:Hodgdon%27s_secret_garden/sandbox/Book_of_Mormon_studies.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:New Francisco Biotechnology Corporation

Michel Thomas Method
I don't believe G11 applies to Michel Thomas Method. Can you please review. SaintNULL (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article's lede paragraph contains "students claimed not to experience the lessons as over-intensive, but actually enjoyable and exciting" and name-dropping about celebrities who have hired Thomas. The article contains almost entirely detailed descriptions of the content of the lessons, puffery about their virtues,  promotional quotations,  and a very detailed "List of available courses" and their authors. This is as promotional as an article can get, and I consider it a textbook example of the proper use of G11. We have an article on Thomas, and I need to check it  for similar.  DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked a lot of past revisions, it has been terrible for a long time. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Gunter Bechly
Do you have any suggestions for how to proceed with addressing the deletion of Gunter Bechly? I submitted a request at WP:DRN but it was closed because it was supposedly "out of scope." Nobody seems to care about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in this matter, but every dispute resolution option I'm reading about seems to suggest that there is no way to redress an illegitimate consensus.Snoopydaniels (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have a recommendation, the same one as before. Wait until I (or someone similarly experienced and not overly-committed to the issue) write a replacement article. Probably in 6 or 8 months, which is the time scale I use in such cases where re-creation is needed. I see aa perceived need to do it rapidly as over-committment. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Hallorans Hill Conservation Park
 * Draft:Lucia Suleimanova
 * Draft:Nmbrs

List of YouTubers
There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Journey into Night and Draft:Reunion (Westworld)
An editor claims these two article are not ready for mainspacing. A far as I know there is no rule that creating a sourced article is bold. His revert appears to be bold and against consensus as another editor has already thanked me for my edits. The discussion is here. Can you please return this to main space, I cannot do it because of the over edits It appears three editors there have already agreed with me. Valoem <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 15:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVAS: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. --  Alex TW 15:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion therefore canvassing is impossible. When an experienced editor asks an admin to mainspace an article it is not canvassing. Both Another Believer and Galobtter all came to the article on their own. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 15:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is posting on other user's talk pages to sway a discussion, instead of a neutral talk page. When a more active editor gives you suggestions, I recommend you take them on. --  Alex TW 15:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion therefore no canvassing. I moved a draft article into main space with admin support. Three editors stated you are wrong here, DGG is an arbcom member often asked to resolve disputes. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 15:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is discussion on at least five separate talk pages, before this post. --  Alex TW 15:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The only appears on the talk page of Journey into Night with consensus in favor of retaining the article in mainspace. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 15:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not the right one. Cheers. --  Alex TW 15:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , my being in arb com has nothing at all to do with content disputes. Skill in content building is not one of the things considered in elections, arb com has no direct authority over content, and arb com will not directly intervene in content disputes until they become so heated that conduct is also involved.
 * The reason I am sometimes asked to review content problems is because I participate widely at AfD and similar discussions, and therefore know in most fields not just the guidelines but the actual present consensus. I can therefore try to give advice that reflects not my own opinion, but what will or will not  be accepted.
 * It seems to me that we have articles about individual episodes on many major shows. Whether we ideally should or not, we do. The question is whether Westworld is a sufficiently major show. Considering how sources like the NYT discuss each episode both in advance but afterwards, I think it is. If anyone wants to try afd, they can, but I think AfD will give a result of keep.   In fact, I m was surprised to see that we don't already have articles on the most important characters), because we do have them on some similar shows.  DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As always your input is appreciated. I also have had issues with editors going from 0 to 100. I asked Graeme to main space the article and immediately Alex makes canvassing accusations which I don't appreciate, there was not even a discussion opened. In these cases I do not feel ANI is worth it due to how time consuming it is, I generally turn to the opinions of editors who I find knowledgeable. If you believe the article is worthy, can you mainspace it again for me. I cannot as edits on top require deleting the redirect. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 17:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tremendously confused here. Do I need consensus to create an article? Isn't creating then AfDing the proper procedure? It's strange the resistance I'm getting regarding an article on an episode of Westworld. Can someone main space it? <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 17:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Brigham D. Madsen

 * Also see--> William J. Hamblin

W concern academic authors, by what rough measures do you, as an editor, decide whether his or her work has: been cited/reviewed enough? received prestigious enough of awards? &c &c--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I use two standards.
 * Awards is relatively straightforward: the highest national or international level in the field.
 * Publications:
 * 1. the level of work which would qualify for full professorship or at least tenure at a research university of the very highest standing.  In the traditional humanities that is usually two books by a major academic publisher. For sciences, it goes by citations, and it varies by subject.
 * 2. Comparison with others in the field., especially those with such positions.
 * Books, as such: being the leading or one of the leading books in the subject, as judged primarily by library holdings (and to some extent by citations--allowing for the very long time lag.)  DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I should mention that with respect to Marsden, I just gave the opinion at the AfD that his books need further checking to show notability  as an academic, as some seem of more general rather than scholarly interest, but they certainly do show notability as WP:AUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow. Thank you so so so very much for your expertise, D. Listen: Most folks on WP won't be able to do much in the way of making effective examinations among these criteria. Wdn't it be great if some techie around here designed an um...algorithm(?)...that could crunch all this into some matrix of variables, each scored? (Come to think - Maybe A/I could edit WP. A topic for another day.)  Up the page (or somewhere else), you mentioned you find the history of the Mormon sub-discipline of Religious studies somewhat of interest.  Mormonism is a new religion, the more academically inclined studies of which especially intertwine with historiographic considerations. In any case, the old dichotomy, until the new Religious studies paradigm really came to the fore, was that between
 * WASPy/Catholic/sectarian universities' respective understandings
 * BYU's (Provo)/Graceland U.'s (Ind., MO)'s respective understandings
 * The former: those non-affiliated with Latter Day Saint Restorationism, whether sectarian or secular, who hold that the B. of M. was a fiction by the mountebank J.S. Jr.
 * The latter: Mormon or Community of Christ, who hold that it is a divine history revealed through the Prophet Joseph.
 * Among exemplars of the former: Jerald Tanner (1938-2006; Protestant); Fawn M. Brodie (1915-1981; secular academic).
 * Exemplars of the latter: Hugh Nibley (1910-2005; BYU); whoever was an analogue within the Community of Christ, out of Independence, Missouri.
 * The new dichotomy covers the above terrain but sifts it according according to the two categories below. (It operates in addition to the above dichotomy, making for four qaudrants (two to the second power, of course).)
 * Stuff publishable by e.g. Oxford University Press (i.e., "Religious studies"), which politely bracket whatever faith traditions' truth claims.
 * Stuff that's blatantly apologetic/counter-apologetic.
 * Among exemplars of the former: (1) Patrick Q. Mason, Philip Barlow, & Kathleen Flake, respectively holders of the chairs at Claremont, Utah State, and the University of Virginia. (2) the Maxwell Institute (post-Daniel C. Peterson era) (3) Grant Hardy (4) the John Whitmer Historical Association in Independence, Missouri.
 * Among exemplars of the latter: (1) the original Maxwell Institute (2) Interpreter journal, Provo, Utah (3) many in the Restoration branches movement (who broke off from the Community of Christ over its becoming too Religion studies tolerant) (4) various anti-cults publishers, many from out of Nashville, Tennessee.
 * Where does Brigham D. Madsen fit in? In my opinion, likely up there in that quadrant alongside Fawn Brodie, in that Brig wasn't careful enough to phrase his thinking in such a way as not to offend the LDS donor class (which funds both the three fully funded Mormon studies chairs, both the old and new iterations of the Maxwell Institure, the Interpreter journal folks, etc. etc.)
 * How about poor William J. Hamblin of BYU? (fully belonging in the original BYU-etc. quadrant)? There are lots of BYU profs who are moderate in their positions but Hamblin is of the old guard, "famous" as a public intellectual w lots of online back and forth in vociferous support of this opinion or that, and he co-founded alongside Peterson lots of things. Yet Hamblin himself doesn't initiate many of these forays, he was and is more of a follow-on-er, I think. Yet: Beloved by students and fellow faculty. Doesn't publish (secularly). Hence, within the new BYU paradigm, remains un-tenured as a prof of history. Yet IMHO he ought squeak by, per wp:PROF's "Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. [...T]his guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas."--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 1 About the necessary expertise :  It does take some idea of the academic /scientific world to judge in that area, just as is the case with articles on sport or music or computers. Even politics requires some knowledge of what's going on in the world. But  one can judge the books part who knows which publishers are serious academic publishers--and this can be seen discussed in AfD debates and simply by reading WP and seeing where the references come from. Anyone at WP can see which awards are important by our usual analysis of seeing who has received them.  Journal article citations to be evaluated properly require some knowledge of what the standards are in the subject, but here again AfD debates are a good guide, together with the comparisons I mentioned. Nobody at WP can judge notability in any area at all who does not know our standards, and the effective way to learn is to follow AfD and Deletion Review.     DGG ( talk )
 * 2 a/ WP:BIO sets the bar low only for those academics who do take part in public policy and the like, which is not most of them. b/ But it's no lower than for any other pundit or commentator b/we have fortunately been getting a little more rigorous about pundits and commentators.   c/ many, I hope most, public academics are also notable by WP:PROF  DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And you know as well as I that there's a medium-small minority of WPedians who refuse to believe that any topic in religion is worth an article, except for debunking it. Fortunately, there are many fewer of them than 8 or 10 years ago.  DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * cmt - I see your point re learning the ropes by following AfD's. Ppl can learn a lot of hinky stuff there too, sometime, though. Heck, maybe a "Check yes or no" bubble could pop up asking "Does your nomination or !vote avoid these arguments?" before their windows opens up for contributors to type in their nom, commentary, or whatever. Hmm, that's a thought.
 * cmt - Seeing Hamblin's quandary"The academic policy of BYU is to reward publications that have national or international merit. The catch phrase is publications “outside the BYU bubble.” I support this policy.  And, indeed I have published books with HarperCollins, Rutledge, and Thames and Hudson, all academic presses with international reputations.  The unintended consequence of this policy, however, is that (for whatever reasons) certain LDS-related topics–like studies affirming the historicity of the BOM, the prophetic authenticity of JS, apologetics, etc–will not be published by secular university presses and journals.  Hence they cannot be published in non-LDS publications.  This policy has nothing to do with a repudiation of apologetics or the Book of Mormon.  It has to do with the attempt to raise the academic reputation of BYU.  The problem is, if such studies are not done at BYU, they will simply not be done at all.  Hence the catch-22.  I edit and publish with Interpreter.  BYU administrators inform me that I should publish in other venues.  They are doing so in a sincere effort to guide my academic activities to meet BYU policy.  There is nothing insidious about it.  The result, however is that if I publish with FARMS or Interpreter, I am considered to have low productivity, because publications count as scholarly only if published outside the BYU bubble. ---link"make me see academia as an aviary. BYU doesn't wanna be "pecked" by the academical flock as an institution of unknown academic bonefides so in turn "pecks" idiosyncratic scholar Bill. ( He may well have continued on as editor of Interpreter, though, in which case he would seem to satisfy whatever the qualifying category @ wp:PROF in that regard ?no? )--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC) His co-authored book has been cited over a hundred times per Google Scholar.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * co-authorship involves determining whether one person has the principle responsibility, and which author that person is. . As this is sometimes difficult for us to do, we sometimes tend  to not to rate  co-authored books as  highly as if there had been only one author. In examining citations to a book, it is necessary to determine their nature--often they are just included in a bibliography of all books published.  There is no simple formula. Determining notability  must either involve analysis & judgement, or use an arbitrary level. T The most recent example I know is NCORP, where we now specific various criteria in detail for the key words substantial & independent instead of our earlier practice in accepting anything that looks like 3rd party. There are advantages to each method.  DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Erratum: Hamblin's '06 Routledge historical pub Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC: Holy Warriors at the Dawn of History was  solo- authored. Thanks for the headsup re wp:ORG. I recently created articles on the Ultra-Orthodox Hebrew WP mirror Hamichlol and on Denver Snuffer's fundamentalist (not of the polygamist stripe but neo- Reorganized Latter Day Saint) Remnant movement. Maybe I'll find I screwed up.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)