User talk:DGG/Archive 68 Sep. 2012

About: Deletion of Trident Academy Of Technology,Bhubaneswar
Hi DGG, The information about Trident is not a promotion.It is still a reputed institute in East India.I have started it to give a clear idea to aspiring student to know about the institute. I show in wiki that lots of similar page about institute exist. Please let me know what should I do so that it will not violate any policy.

14:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Abinash


 * I re-read it, and it is entirely composed of praise of the institution, with almost no information. If we have overlooked any as bad as that, let me know and I'll remove them. Additionally, writing aimed at getting prospective students is promotion, as much so as writing aimed at getting prospective customers. We never allow that; an encyclopedia  is written to give basic factual information to the general public who may have heard of the institution.  Try writing a descriptive article with no adjectives, and with reliance upon external references.  See WP:FIRST and WP:COI. After you have understood them, it might be best to use the WP:Articles for Creation process.  DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Bradford
Hi DGG! When you've got a moment, I'd appreciate you taking another look at this article, just to make sure I got it right. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. The way I found the article somewhat confused me, as there appeared to be references nested within references. I tried several different scenarios in preview mode but still wasn't convinced that it was what you had intended. Thank you for returning and making things right. I'll leave it exactly the way it is . Have yourself a great day DGG, stay well, and happy editing! -- WikHead (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Still out of pocket
Left my still high and dry home in Algiers to ride out the hurricane in Laplace. I'm still in Houston until I can clear my head and get back to NOLA. Here are some news interviews I did for Fox 4 in Dallas:


 * Before: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/19388456/isaac-threat-to-gulf-well-beyond-new-orleans
 * After: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/19418416/50000-evacuations-ordered-as-dam-fails-in-miss

Thanks for keeping tabs on my page. ''Cheers! Stella'' BATPHONE GROOVES  16:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Francis_Anhalt
Hi DGG, would you be interested in taking another look at the target article, which has been edited since you last commented on it for AfD? Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I commented there. Unfortunately, I think the same as earlier.  DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

home for deleted entry?
Hi, Can you recommend a wiki for the Unified Theory of Snacking? It certainly deserves a home somewhere. Entries like mine, although well intentioned, are probably why college professors are (or at least used to be) hesitant to allow citation on from Wikipedia. I am glad to see that the process is probably stricter at this point than any encyclopedia in history. I think that widespread dissemination is also a factor, which is why the phrase YOLO is included in Wikipedia, but other things are not. Do you have a recommendation, if not a wiki, for where The Unified Theory of Snacking can become widely disseminated, and receive its well deserved fame one day? (Reddit)? FInally, I have included this section from the "good faith" entry for your future reference, and formally protest that you have listed the entry as vandalism. "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrbrown (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I do not see how an attempt to publish your original joke is a good faith effort to improve it, or that you could reasonably have thought so.  DGG ( talk ) 12:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
GregJackP  Boomer!   20:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Independent Contractors of Australia - Resubmit
Hi DGG Re: your three concerns. Thankyou for your advice.

Re: Promotional
I have rewritten the the paragraph beginning "More". Although I do not believe it was promotional - merely a statement of attestable facts without any evaluation of their value or otherwise, it was not well written. So I have redone it to make it absolutely clear.

Re: Repetitive
I have studeously removed any repetitive content.

Re: Notability
I have revisited, revised the references addressing the notability of ICA. The organisation is principally a lobbying organisation on behalf of 20% of the Australain workforce. The lobbying is directed at politicians and public servants and undertaken by its Executive Director. As a result external references to the organisation are mainly in response to his public statements, papers and research at conferences and public inquiries as well as newspaper (Australian Financial Review and The Australian) and on-line (Business Spectator) articles.

On this basis I have resubmitted. Henry Austen (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I reply on your talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trinity-Antonian Cricket Encounter
As you may know, this submission was apparently copy and pasted to Trinity-Antonian Cricket Encounter by User:Cossde with no mention of the AfC user, User:Sajeewashaluka. I would like your advice to know what should happen as a result of this. At one side, I believe it may be useful to move the article to AfC space but I also believe it may be useful and possibly easier for the AfC user to continue his work at the current mainspace article. One of the causes of my leaning towards moving the article to AfC space is that the article continues to be insufficiently sourced, as you mentioned at my talk page two days ago. Any thoughts? SwisterTwister  talk  18:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, i find it increasingly difficult to decipher the histories of materials in AfC, & I think this will become increasingly a problem. Usually the situation is that someone gets impatient at afc, or doesn't really understand the need for improving the article according to the criticism, and prematurely moves it to mainspace. I agree with your interpretation of the history, but perhaps it is one of them trying to improve the work of the other? Once moved, I think it's usually better to work in mainspace if it seems  that the article has a reasonable chance. The question is whether this does have a chance--afds have often not supported borderline articles on such athletic rivalries. But  there is considerable general interest in cricket and the people who know the subject are more likely to work on it in mainspace. But there's another problem:  fairly close parallelism between the first part of the main section and the Static.espncricinfo.com  reference. It had better get fixed quickly, by whomever, wherever. So, hoping that what I am doing doesn't make things worse with a sport I do not understand, I'm  doing some rewriting.
 * This highlights the real problem with AfC --every improvable but deficient article takes considerable work, and it is difficult to teach the original creator. In mainspace, there is cooperative editing and successive improvement--if AfC it all depends on the ability of whoever has seen it. It is seldom that several of us work on something at AfC like we are doing now, but it's routine in mainspace.  DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Rare Earth
You mean ol' deletionist, you; I worked on that article! -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * you asked very rightly for better references, but nobody listened. But what you imply is true, the recent activities of the PR people, along with my greater awareness of their earlier ongoing activities, have turned   around my attitude towards some sorts of content. I used to regard promotionalism as fixable, So most of it might be, but it is beyond the abilities of the honest & competent & interested  people here to fix it.  Weak notability is not a problem by itself, and I continue flexible--it just expands the encyclopedia little more than it would otherwise, doing no direct harm; but promotionalism destroys NPOV; it tends to make us not just a little less focused than we might be, but untrustworthy and  therefore worthless. The combination of borderline notability and arrant promotionalism is not worth improving, given the current people and priorities--all we can do is remove it. These two  factors   frequently go together, but not necessarily, and I will still support borderline notability and rewrite promotionalism for the   highly notable.  DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records
I wasn't sure which of the two outcomes you supported? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * right. I didn't say. I decided to limit myself to attempting to clarify the general considerations. Either way can work if done right.  DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Because you were a participating member of the Deletion review for Category:Gay Wikipedians, I've contacted you to let you (and all others involved) know about and participate in the current category discussion. Thanks for your participation! Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
You may be interested in this discussion. I'm notifying you because you participated in the first deletion discussion and/or the deletion review. Lady of  Shalott  16:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Aspen Marketing Services
Would you provide your input here? I nominated the article three weeks ago and it has been relisted three times with only one vote ("selective merge"). I appreciate it! SwisterTwister  talk  19:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That was the right solution; I said the same. In my opinion, I might have boldly done the merge and redirect instead of going to afd. It seems clear that there is getting to be too much of this type of material that we have a hard time keeping up with it.  DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I will close the AfD momentarily. Thanks for commenting! SwisterTwister   talk  21:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

PC RFC
I don't want to get too "meta" in the RFC (i.e. whether it was premature, etc.) ... but at the moment, it looks like it paid off. In the last RfC, most of the comments on both sides give the impression that they read few of the comments on the other side, and a general sense of grouchiness and disbelief was in evidence. In this one, people are reading each other's comments, taking each other seriously, and agreeing on a course of action. Quite a change. So now we've got a wider spectrum of input than we've had so far at WT:PC2012, and higher expectations for the outcome of the tougher RfC to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, same time stamp on our statements :) Okay your second statement is a little stronger, so I'll copy this over there. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * David, per the paragraph I just posted at WP:PC2012/RfC_1, are there any ground rules for further discussion that would satisfy you enough to secure your participation in committee work? Btw, my reading is that at "Vote on closure", we're doing what I understand you to be asking for, which is to put off a decision pending further work, rather than asking for the question to be decided now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-published works
Can you explain how not including self-published works here is probably a BLP violation. Not sure I follow. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * removing somebody's accomplishments is preferentially removing positive material about the person,and thus overbalancing the article in a negative direction.  DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)
Hi DGG. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping clear out the A7 CSD nominations for schools that Cossde placed. In all, there were about 85 schools with A7 tags. I often review the CSD tags to reduce the workload for administrators. I either leave the tag; remove it with a note; or cleanup, edit, and add citations to establish notability. Hopefully it helps reduce the load a bit. Again thanks with clearing out the A7 schools. I was feeling a bit swamped. Cindy ( talk to me ) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * what you are doing is very helpful--I knew I could leave off without finishing because you'd take care of the left-overs.  DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion work
Hi, I have to agree with what you say. But it seems that all these articles contain no more information that their name and location and no RS could be found other than administrative lists. Cossde (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been considerable discussion over whether it is wise to enter articles from such lists--most of it over lists of villages from government documentary sources. There was strong opposition, but the consensus  has been that that it is OK to do them if you do them right (there are several cases where people have done large groups without due care  & they've been a nuisance to fix.)  I can see both sides of the question, but the consensus seems to be settled.   DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

R. U. Troutman & Sons, Inc.
This article that I wrote was deleted. You said that it was a promo page. There are pages for other businesses such as this. I put a lot of time into writing this. I am new to wiki and feel that newbies are attacked from what I see. I added various references for this article. I have seen other articles on wiki with no references. Should I flag them for deletion? What would make this article "not a promo". It is factual information that I found on this business which by the way, I do not work for and do not own.AmericanCitizen1 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Gregory Awards deletion
Hello DCG,

I created a Gregory Awards page (basically the Seattle regional theatre awards), which you deleted because you claimed it was a non-noteworthy award. Could you please explain your rationale? There are Wikipedia entries for other theatre awards: the Barrymores (Philadelphia), Helen Hayes (DC), Dora Awards (Toronto), Chapman Awards (Wellington, New Zealand), to name just a few.

Lawlerfa (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD commenting
Would you comment at Articles for deletion/Child Foundation and Articles for deletion/Center for Medieval Studies (Pennsylvania State University)? The latter has been relisted because a redirect with parentheses is unlikely. As mentioned there, I am willing to merge the little content the article contains to the university's article. The question is, where would I place it? SwisterTwister  talk  06:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * you may have to construct a section for miscellaneous academic units, and merge it there.  DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
GregJackP  Boomer!   03:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

DRV question
Hi DGG, what is your opinion about this: Deletion review/Log/2012 September 10? Thanks for your time, IZAK (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I hate to do this to you...
...but I have concerns that this might have worked its way from project to advocacy over the last while, putting it beyond the scope of what we do here. Your opinion is requested. There are many issues, linked at my talk page, that tie into this. Mediation is going to be needed, which I think we have covered, but your experience and guidance along the way is always appreciated in complicated situations like this. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * perhaps I can do something to focus the discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Swatjester and I are taking a close look at several of the editors in question, and it looks like the three of us had already been observing the trends. At some point, a larger discussion may be needed, we will see. I notice Lionelt created the Conservatism portal and project, which actually would have great purpose and utility if properly focused.  If you were inclined, a discussion with him may be helpful since he is the primary content creator for that project. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is his content creation a problem. or are you hoping for his effect on the less reasonable.?   DGG ( talk ) 12:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My words failed me. I mean Lionelt started WikiProject Conservatism, the Portal, and is responsible for the majority of the content of the Project itself, including the newsletter.  Literally over 90% of it.  He has shown great skill at organizing and coordinating, and is responsible for the direction the project takes, for better or worse.  If there are concerns about the direction, generally speaking, the buck stops with him.  I haven't looked at his article content (and we both might take a peek), but I have seen him at ANI and other boards regularly during flare ups.  He isn't always the most vocal, although usually visible.  If you are working on the actual Project pages (an excellent use of your skills, I might add), he is the one to have in the loop so there is a full understanding on how to move forward.  SWAT and I are currently working with the two more visible editors in these disputes on my and their talk pages, something I am more used to handling.  I think dealing with these three concerns is the most effective way to find a neutral and peaceful resolution, end the constant stream of ANIs.  Most of the other issues will take care of themselves along the way.  Hopefully, this will allow us to avoid any RFC or drama filled board resolutions as well, since this is an election year and there is already enough drama in the political articles.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, it looks like there are plenty of admins on the scene to help explain the issues and work with the editors. I will let you get back to writing and fixing articles, a more important task, to be sure. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Any objection to boxing up the RfC?
You were one of two opposers at WP:PC2012/RfC 1 ... any objection to boxing this page up with a discussion top template while we wait for The Blade to close? The 11-2 vote suggests to me a consensus to move discussion over to committee work. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * that consensus was one week ago, before most of the discussion. If you want to discuss closure, start a new discussion on it now that the matter has been debated.  DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

James Robinson (Manassas, Virginia)
Hey, DGG!

I was asked by another Wikipedia editor to create a page on James Robinson. I wanted to use a template for biographies, because I like the feel they give your articles. It said to select a link and paste it into a new page then hit return. That's what I did that triggered your speedy deletion. I had no idea that the deletion would happen so quickly, so I continued to edit the article to bring it up to snuff.

Meanwhile, you deleted the article, apparently. I noticed that, but did not worry about it, because I was continuing to edit the article. However, when I tried to repost, that's when I found out that it was now "blacklisted." What do I have to do to post this referenced, notable article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkhemet (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * obviously I moved too quickly--I have restored and marked that it is underconstruction.  DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Antonio Dennard
What a minute what do I do with this article now?, that somebody already created the same page I just did. How to deleted this page that got rejected? 24.227.93.118 (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. The article will probably soon be deleted. American football players who sign with professional teams are not notable until they have have actually appeared on the field in a regular season game, unless their college football careers have been particularly important. If you have such information and references for it, add it to the article, and it might not be deleted.  (the AfC submission need not be deleted; it can remain, to build on if he does become notable ).  DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks. 24.227.93.118 (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Gregory awards
Hello DCG, I created a Gregory Awards page (basically the Seattle regional theatre awards), which you deleted because you claimed it was a non-noteworthy award. Could you please explain your rationale? There are Wikipedia entries for other theatre awards: the Barrymores (Philadelphia), Helen Hayes (DC), Dora Awards (Toronto), Chapman Awards (Wellington, New Zealand), to name just a few.

Sincerely,

Frank Andrew Lawler

Seattle, WA

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Massimo Bacigalupo
I am considering whether or not I should accept Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Massimo Bacigalupo, I feel that the article may be cluttered with too many subsections...and possibly insufficient references? I think that all of the subsections aside from "growing up" could be renamed as simply "Career". Would you provide your perspective? SwisterTwister  talk  06:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * An article having too many sections is never a reason for rejection at afc, because that can be edited. IU think the references are sufficient to show notability ; if they do not support all aspects of the article, the article can be edited to remove unsourced material. I    therefore accepted it, and will do some editing.  If all an article at AfC needs is some obvious editing, I have frequently done this  either just before accepting them, or just after. If it needs radical revision, that's another matter. (Several good editors did some work on the article before I saw it, so it may have been substantially more problematic earlier.)   DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Imagniary Lines
Hello, DGG. I saw your comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music. Since then, Imaginary Lines, as well as CygnusWave Music, have been put on AfD. Feel free to contribute to the discussion here. Happy editing. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD commenting again
Would you comment at Articles for deletion/The Beat Goes On (Cash Cash album) (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Society for Companion Animal Studies, Articles for deletion/Tittsworth and Articles for deletion/Dimsum (organisation)? Thanks! SwisterTwister  talk  22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Would you also comment at Articles for deletion/Etheric Networks? Thanks! SwisterTwister   talk  19:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michelle Chia
I was accepting this article when I received a notice that the page "Michelle Chia" had been protected from creation as a result of a copy violation from this. However, the AfC submission seems to differ from the link and appears to be properly sourced. Would you unprotect the page? Thanks! SwisterTwister  talk  19:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * done. The reason for protection was spam; the repeatedly recreated article was spam, but the protection was set for infinite, and should have been set for a lesser time, so someone could eventually create an article. Infinite create protection would rarely be appropriate except on topics for which nobody but an troll would ever create an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Memento
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Memento. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Changemakrs stub
Hello, DGG. I recently got a "decline" from Wywin on my article stub. Based on your comments on his talk page here and here, and what I know as a long-time contributor and Articles for Creation participant, I am aware of what a proper Wikipedia article needs. Too, I understand Wywin was just "going through the motions" (not only with my article) without giving each article a thorough look.

I submitted the article again, in hopes that someone can get it another look. Of course, I'm also looking for your opinion on the article stub.--Joel Kirk (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I reviewed it. Wynwin was completely right--just as they said, it does need better sources. I read the present sources in full, and I wrote on the AfC page an explanation in some detail about why the present sources are not adequate, and what you'll need to have. If you don't yet have them, wait till they are available. There is no point moving to mainspace an article that is likely to get deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response.--Joel Kirk (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG, would you mind giving the article another look? There has been some content added with additional sources.--Joel Kirk (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Daniel Smith (professor)
Do you have an opinion? Bearian (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mopping up that spill. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

On Deletion of Tim Miles Author
Tim Miles is a speaker and author.

He Spoke at Tedx Missouri event - video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9_kvlOZYnA

Published his book Good Company: Making It - Keeping It - Being It. listed at http://www.amazon.com/Good-Company-Making-Keeping-Being/dp/061566511X/ref=sr_1_1

Featured in news sites

Missouri University student newspaper http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2012/4/17/students-collaborate-mu-bring-tedx-campus/

Columbia Tribune newspaper http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/apr/15/tedxmu-fosters-free-flow-of-ideas/

2012 Indiana Governor's Conference - Tim Miles was keynote address http://savi.org/savi/conference/2012/agenda.aspx

Biblio.com site http://www.biblio.com/books/527748720.html

Tower Books http://www.tower.com/good-company-making-it-keeping-being-tim-miles-paperback/wapi/123268805

Canada Post http://www.canadapost.ca/shopper/items/12522288/Good-Company-by-Tim-Miles-061566511X?locale=en

Clearly he's notable. I've read about creating articles and living person criteria.

I've seen your expertise. What do I need to do to make this page live?

Alexandermagic (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Status on this DGG?

Alexandermagic (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The author has no plausible indication of any good faith notability. Asserting authorship of a book counts, except for self published books. But this this book is self-published by his private company. It is not even in WorldCat. which means no US library ever purchased it, and if it was sent to the library of congress, they thought it not worth cataloging. The references you give above are product advertisements or routine articles about speakers published in campus newspapers. According to his web p., which is much more informative than the article submitted,   "he runs an odd little communications company that helps owner-operated companies do more with less" operating under a franchise arrangement called Wizard of Ads, started by   Roy H. Williams (author), who is notable, and about whom we have an article. It's a promotional article, though, and it needs and will get some editing. The individual people operating under his brand are not, and are not even suitable for inclusion in the article about him. They are mentioned on the web page for his service, and that & their own blogs  is where the information belongs.  DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

On Deletion of DMCI
This is in connection with the deletion tag for DMCI Project Developers, Inc.. Another article for the same subject has been created erroneously under its parent company which is a holding company. My article has been created to correct that error made by the other author. Having extensive research on local real estate companies in the Philippines, I believe that mine should be preserved. Thanks.

bedcrawl 06:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an  article about the parent company, which I moved to  the name of the actual parent company,  DMCI Holdings, Inc.. I redirected DMCI Holdings there--normally we make a single article, under the name of the overall firm. That article, by the way, has some major problems--it consists of too much content which is promotional, belonging only on their web page, and has been marked for improvement by another editor. I shall get to it in a few days. It might help if you went to it first and removed information praising it, rather than providing sourced encyclopedic information. As a start, try to remove as many adjectives as possible.  I doubt a listing of all its projects is suitable, either--this normally is better on its website, except for those that might be notable enough to have individual WP articles.   DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

About the Deletion of James Cuff
on Sept 9th The James Cuff article I started got deleted, rather summarily. Admittedly the initial article (29 Aug 2012) was a cut and paste from http://scholar.harvard.edu/jcuff/ which I mistakenly assumed was published under GSS or Creative Commons, after getting an automated email/warning I update the content based on the scholar.harvard content in my own words and cited the source. The quality of the writing may have been poor, but I would have thought that that would have at least negated the copy write concern. At which point, other editors updated content and formated the page. It seems like even a quick google search returns results that I *think* accommodate the required standards...   Please help me get this page restored I think it's actually a valulble page, and no less worthy of publication then many similar pages.

http://waesearch.kobv.de/authorSearch.do;jsessionid=247857EDC22ACE06E7EEC2334AA43ED0?query=James+Cuff&pageid=1344073624427-559370508735784 http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=fdEjP58AAAAJ&hl=en

Co-Author of Jauth https://github.com/mclamp/JAuth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxindustria (talk • contribs) 05:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * see my note at User talk:Paxindustria for how to best proceed.  DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

DGG Thanks for the help and feedback, I've put together a page in my sandbox which I think meets all the criteria, would you mind taking a look? - Pax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxindustria (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

DGG Thanks again for the help, I've made a couple more edits and posted to the main space. I think it should meet Wikipedia standards. Thanks again for your help!

About Breves, Pará
Hello, DGG, thank you for your help with Breves, Pará and Breves, Brazil. It's been taking me quite a lot of time to rename all those articles that'd been created as "NAMEOFTHECITY, Brazil" or "NAMEOFTHECITY (NAMEOFTHEBRAZILIANSTATE)", etc, so I'm pretty likely to CSD G6 some other pages within the next days. Now to the bad news: the content from Breves, Pará (originally found at Breves, Brazil) is gone and the page is redirecting to itself. Is there a way to fix it? Thank you, Victão Lopes I hear you... 01:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will deal with it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I restored the content at Breves, Pará. If you have a moment, please take a look and make sure things look okay. - Eureka Lott 02:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * seems OK. thanks.  DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Onrust project
DGG, I have declined your speedy deletion on Onrust project. I believe that the project does assert significance; the fact that Don Rittner was involved in founding and running it, for example. Ironholds (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You have mail. K -150.135.210.76 (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, a recently created Greta Wagle bio which  was not  a bio, but  rather an article about  the Onrust  project, has been redirected to  Onrust. This article was actually more informative thean the current  Onrust project  article. I  would suggest merging the Onrust project with  perhaps some of the Greta Wagle content to  Onrust leaving a redirect. I  see no  need for separate articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've redirected Onrust project as well, as searching for books, news and other info came up rather thin. Perhaps in the future, but right now it is better served in the one article, which itself is fairly short and could use expanding.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Supervote?
I see you closed the Articles for deletion/Scott G. Stewart as delete. Subject asked for deletion, then two editors asserted keep with reasons based on policy, then two SPAs with editing histories suspiciously connected to the subject show up and !voted delete. While I disagree with your close, obviously, I'm also disappointed with your rationale, as a classic supervote. I'm not going to take this further, but we disagree on this. As a two term national officer of a huge political machine (one according to sources connected to multiple cases of misbehavior), the subject is a public figure, IMHO, and can have little expectation of privacy. BusterD (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider myself an appropriate admin to close this, because I take a very narrow view of blp, and I almost never support paying attention to the subject's request, and in fact ignored that aspect. The principle was WP:UNDUE. I only close disputed afds  when against my general position.  DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * UNDUE is an editing matter, not a notability matter. In my opinion, a bad close — but close enough to the Keep/Delete border that an appeal isn't worth the time. Carrite (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * UNDUE is involved: if the incident were not discussed, there would have been no notability. thus they overlap. This sort of situation is not unique, and it is not always clear how to handle it. Includa similar situation ing the article is such cases has often resulted in an bio article that says essentially nothing. the argument would have to be that it would at least alert people  & if they went back in the history they would find the material and could find the information.  a similar situation also arises when all the material on something of any importance is inherently  hopelessly promotional, and we end up saying that a hotel exists.  I closed after a relisting--if any admin had thought it was a clear keep, they could have closed earlier.   DGG ( talk ) 13:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My feeling was that the discussion had inadequate participation. Other than the nominator (and his sock/meat puppets), the only !votes were keeps from two experienced wikipedians. The discussion had almost 60,000 edits (on the keep side) as opposed to a mere sixteen (on the delete side). Normally I wouldn't judge a discussion purely on these dubious merits, but in this case I would have rather seen a second relist so that people actually here to create an encyclopedia might have weighed in. BusterD (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering my point of view. BusterD (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC) (I relisted -- I don't usually insist on my own conclusions in something like this.)  DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Friendly note
I have made an argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interface: a journal for and about social movements (2nd nomination) which I base on my interpretation of a comment of yours (linked there). You may want to review it to see if you agree with how I use your comment :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, that's what I mean, but unless there is some indexing, I doubt the article will be kept. But FWIW, it is an interesting journal, which I had not known about previously.    DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Etheric Networks
Hello and thanks for your comment, David, I have closed the debate as no consensus but I have plans to renominate the article after a few months have passed. Cheers! SwisterTwister  talk  02:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

TB
User_talk:Sitush,. Not sure if you are watching. - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dimsum (organisation)
User:Stuartyeates has commented at my nomination suggesting that the article be merged and redirected to British Chinese. However, I'm curious where I should move the content to. Would you help me? Thanks! SwisterTwister  talk  02:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

PC
FYI. And FWIW, on a slightly  different  note regarding NPP, although I am not entirely in favour of creating a right for NPP, I fear that  the question may become inevitable when the NewPagesFeed is finally  released for general  use and has been monitored for a while. The reviewer right (whatever that will  be) could be a possible guideline, and might incorporate both if need arises. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I expect and hope & will try to get such an interpretation of PC that the reviewer right will be almost unused because almost nothing will be subject to PC, one could argue that it might as well serve some potentially useful purpose. I agree that if it is based on mainspace edits it might serve for both. But I think the priority is to get AfC and moves from user or other space into a single queue along with New pages. At the moment I'm working mainly on the afc part because the majority of advice being given people is inadequate, when not plain wrong. I think that proportionately more errors are made there than at NPP.    DGG ( talk ) 13:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's possible. I don't  work  at  AfC but  the articles I  come across through  other lonks demonstrate that a lot are not being  accurately  closed and/or with  inadequate advice to  the creators. I dn't  know what  kind of a percentage this represents. AfC seems to  me to  be a necessary  process but  unnecessarily  complicated; I  could well  envisage a single queue where unpublished IP  creations could pass through the same interface as the New Page Feed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Your decision to keep Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel
Has been described at ArbCom by one editor as the article passing with "flying colors" the Wikipedia test. Perhaps you care to comment there? The thread is Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is now at AfD again at WP:Articles for deletion/Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel. I closed an earlier AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel in Jan 2011, saying "The consensus is keep--whether to retitle or even divide needs to be discussed, but should be discussed on the talk p"  The  decision was not mine but the community's: 29 keep, 12 delete, 4 merge. 3 of the keeps may have been socks, giving 26:12:4. Several deletes had been changed to keeps after the renaming during the AfD discussion.    I think any other close would have been challenged and overturned at deletion review. Rather, those who objected chose the better course, to wait a considerable time, and then renominate.  The consensus was so clear it was not necessary to analyze the strength of arguments, but many of the delete arguments were irrelevant, being  based on dislike of a portion of the current contents of the article, ignoring the possibility of improvement.
 * I see no need to comment at arb com, as it is unrelated to the issue raised there, and the arbs seem to be reasonably deciding what was asked of them on the basis of that issue.    DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Decision to delete USAgainstAlzheimer's
Hi DGG, just noticed you deleted the USAgainst'sAlzheimer's wikipedia page and I wanted to discuss how the article can be reformed for reposting. The organization is a legitimate player in the field of Alzheimer's advocacy and has had several legislative accomplishments and has been covered by major media outlets, both nationally and regionally. Look forward to learning more about how to get a more appropriate article on the organization approved. Thanks!! Saints1364 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Based on all this, I give you the advice that unless you do have better references, it may not be possible to write an article that will meet our notability requirements.
 * 1) The general principle is to provide what someone seeing the name might want to know about the organization, not what you want to tell them.
 * 2) If they need to know why Alzheimer's is a problem, we have an article on it.
 * 3) they only need things said once
 * 4) some things--especially things that frequently change, or which the general reader is likely not to be interested in, such as lists of board members or featured speakers-- they expect to find on your web site, not an encyclopedia.
 * 5) They expect to find financial data showing the organizations significance, and also the % of internal & fundraising expenditures.
 * 6) They expect to see what it does, not just that it vaguely "supports" good things. If it just publishes advertisements and promotional websites and literature and endorses work done by others, why would anyone care about it?
 * 7) In writing, the general guide is that if it sounds like a web page, it's wrong here.
 * 8) Avoid all adjectives of praise or importance
 * 9) Say everything once only.
 * 10) Avoid multiple references to your own site.
 * 11) Avoid multiple use of the full name of the organization. "The organization" or "It" makes a good substitute.
 * 12) Use only the necessary subheadings. Avoiud excessive typographic emphasis.
 * 13) It is also necessary to show the notability, which requires third party substantial references. Not a single one of yours' meets this requirement:
 * 14) References that only mention your organization as having supported something, or someone as having supported your organization, are not substantial coverage.
 * 15) References your organization has published do not show notability
 * 16) The testimony of your president in congress does not show notability
 * 17) Avoid duplicate articles. They will be removed also.
 * 18) The article on the founder mainly duplicates this one, discussing primarily his work related to Alzheimer's,
 * 19) It uses the same peripheral or non-independent references
 * 20) Like this, it repeats his name as many times as possible.
 * 21) Like this, it was written by an account that has written nothing else. Though the name is different, the close similarity of  manner and references indicates   that they are likely to be alternate accounts for the same PR firm.
 * 22) As this is only one of his projects, he is more notable than the organization, so his article is the one worth preserving. I did some editing to remove the promotional faults there.
 * 23) There is another general principle: if your organization is notable, other people will know it, and write the article. That you have to write it yourself tends to show just the opposite.

Normally, I explain this on the user talk page. I write it here, not because what you are doing is worse than others, but because it is not unique, and this may serve as a  general guide to eliminating the sort of articles that threaten to collectively destroy the purpose of they encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 15:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 23:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, that the Dispute Resolution wizard is an improvement over the present. So it can be, but I explain there the drawbacks also in making our processes seem even more mechanical and less human. And it tends to perpetuate  the larger problem  that we have too many places for dealing with this.   DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The amount of dispute resolution forums that exist are definitely a problem, but I'm a realist. My fellowship (and therefore most of the logistical and technical support I have access to) would end well before any agreement is gained on cutting down the amount of dispute resolution forums, but the DR wizard that has been used at DRN has shown promise. A lot of thought has gone into this idea - simplicity of filing a request is easier on the end of a requestor if only free text is required, but then volunteers are less likely to read through an unstructured, unfocused thread - it's often too confusing or just TL;DR. And if there's no volunteers willing to resolve a dispute, then it will just go nowhere, so creating some structure (and in the process eliminating the need to decode complex templates) benefits both volunteers and editors in general. So my plan really is to get some agreement on a universal DR request system, and once implemented, work on simplifying the amount of dispute resolution forums. Regards, Szhang (WMF) (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Presbyterian Medical Care Mission
Would you comment at my nomination? The debate is nearing a second relisting and I would like to establish a consensus. Thanks again! SwisterTwister  talk  06:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with new user, please
We have a new user working at Addison's disease in canines. Have tried helping him re: adding links and directed him to the Teahouse. There seems to be a COI as he appears to be the owner of the website for the refs he's been adding. I've listed his site in EL, but the page has been broken quite a few times over the last 24 hours when he tries adding references. I have no intention of edit warring--just want to keep the page unbroken and avoid COI refs. Thanks, We hope (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article needs some extensive editing to remove duplication, which will also solve some of the formatting problems. I am now doing it. See the talk page for an explanation of my changes after I have finished. And then I'll check those COI references, and tell him the rule:  he is supposed to suggest them on the talk page, for others to add.    DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As always, Thanks!!! We hope (talk)

Biography Model
My question concerns why the page was deleted Biography of Stefanie de Roux (Miss Panama), she was a remarkable host of Miss Universe 2003 and is a well-known TV presenter in the country besides walkways Supermodel in Panama and outside the Panama.  Evanex ( talk ) 23:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * this was deleted  because it was proposed for deletion for 10 days as not notable, and not challenged. In such circumstances, anyone may ask it to be restored, and I have therefore restored it.  I suggest improving it quickly with some additional references and a clearer statement that she was in fact Miss Panama,  before the article gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process. I am not sure just which contests in this field will be considered notable by the community, so the article should be as strong as possible. references in Spanish are just as good as in English.  DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok'll add some references of his life both as a model and Miss Panama for item not enter deletion process, thanks for your attention. Evanex ( talk ) 02:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Manual Talkback
You have a message in my TP. Sorry, I don't know how to put the TB template. Thanks for your time. --E4024 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there an "edit request" template? How can I use one? Could you be kind enough to place one on my "edit request" at the article under the provisional title Ceviche? Thanks in advance and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Extant Organization template
I would be curious as to your thoughts on the template now that it has been adjusted based on DES and your feedback. Corporate 00:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

how do i resubmit article on john f. mitchell
i have attempted to follow your instructions and have reduced the size significantly