User talk:DGG/Archive 92 Sep. 2014

About WikiProjects
Quoting you from wikimedia-l:
 * I completely agree with Liam that the way forward in many areas is with the Wikiprojects. They need further development, but I'm not sure how much of this requires additional software, rather than additional active participation. We should learn from the most successful, such as military history. (or chemistry or medicine) They're a self-organizing feature, with the advantage of not requiring funding or help from the foundation. Some have however on enWP become somewhat of a closed circle, immune to community views to the point of trying to maintain guidelines the community does not support .he remedy for this as for essentially everything else is increased participation.

I personally like WikiProjects because they should be, in theory, the point of contact of a newcomer with people who have deep knowledge in the relevant area.

What software would WikiProjects like to see? Should I open a call for software suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject? (I personally thought of enabling Extension:Dynamic Page List for them to view fresh category members, but it is supposedly a large load, while Lua can't do that either. I am not very happy about using JavaScript user scripts or gadgets for this, although that could be a last resort.) --Gryllida (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I cannot speak for Wikiprojects in general, or even for the wikiprojects of which I am a member. In general terms, my personal opinion -- one I think is very widely shared-- is that the role of Wikiprojects should be in organizing the  creation and improvement of   articles and the encouragement of good editing in their field. They have a key role in proposing relevant guidelines,  but   all final decisions and all enforceable policies and guidelines must always be the responsibility of the whole community.


 * The immediate question is the role of Wikiprojects in the screening of new articles and article drafts, and the education of new editors. My personal opinion, and one I think is shared by a number of others working with new articles and new editors--is that the only practical way of dealing competently with the large amount of material is to organize the work by Wikiproject.
 * To do this, I do not think we need any additional software, though we could use some modifications in existing software.  The necessary mechanism for the allotment of articles to workgroups is already available at WP:Deletion sorting, though the algorithms (and perhaps other elements) would benefit from adjustment and simplification, and  some minor modifications are needed   cover draft space.
 * My own position-- and I do not know how widely it is shared--is that this should replace the current AfC and Draft procedures. Perhaps some new programs and procedures will be necessary, but I have not  devised  a fully developed workflow--the person closest to having a proposal for this is , and I am very likely to follow his lead in this.    Some of the existing AfC templates are procedures presumably will need to be adapted to work with Article Curation, but this depends on the proposal. The principle   software change I think we we need is to remove the AfC procedure entirely, except for processing the articles currently in it.


 * This is not a technical problem, but one of convincing individual people here to do the necessary work. I am not thinking in terms of adding procedures or programming--I am rather thinking of removing many of them. Sometimes small amounts of well-devised mechanical devices can facilitate work, but WP has been much too dependent on a ridiculous number of complex and overcomplicated ones. At present the amount of overhead in many WP processes, including AfC, impedes rather than facilitates work. I manage to do my work there by ignoring much of the structure, often replacing the automated unhelpful notices with my own personally tailored and individualized  messages. It's not that I would want to institutionalize my preferred wording--I think all explanations of to new editors should be written from scratch for the specific article, explaining things in terms that are   accurate, directly applicable,  and likely to be understood.    This takes much more work than applying prebuilt templates, but it is the only way to give good results.


 * It has been years now since I have made a formal policy or guideline proposal. I just do the necessary work, and try to teach others likewise. Like any teaching there is a role for technology, but technology is not the limiting factor. I do not want to downplay the pleasure I feel at of your request; I have often wished I had the time to do some such work myself. What automation is needed should be done much better than it now is, and any assistance there will help. Though we're not currently at that point, I want to keep in touch.  DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already said what  I  think  about  project participation  on  AfC and why  it  doesn't  work at  WT:AFC this morning. Most  project and/or their members however, are not  aware of lots of little gadgets that  help  them keep  control  and overview of articles within thier remit. I  do  this for the WP:WPSCH and for the WP:WORCS projects. They  provide me with  real  time dedicated watchlists and notifcations if they  are edited or tagged,  but apart from  major project  such  as MuilHist  or Medical, I think most  other projects are very  much  less active. Even at WP:WPSCH which  is one our largest  projects, it's only  really  the project  coords who  are watching  anything and we certainly  don't  have time to  dedicate to  the 1000s of school  articles that  need attention -  the best  we can do  is intervene when some clueless patrollers wrongly  tags them for deletion or send them to  AfD - and sometimes even that  can take up several hours a day. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The way to deal with inactive projects is to combine them, until they reach a reasonable level of activity, and to active try to persuade people editing in the area to take a role in screening I think we could probably mange to cover about 2/3 of the submission with active projects. . But essentially Wikiprojects is only one way of dividing it up by subject, and any similar way would work equally well. The present afc system--and NPP is not set up to do this. Myself, I tend to prefer NPP because it gives enough context that Ican go through a select the ones I am likely to be competent or at least interested in. With AfC, it's impossible *except for the special situation of pages declined for a subject -specific reason, such as not meeting WP:PROF, but that doesn't help with new submissions. So in working with them, I think that I necessarily spend too much time dealing with things others could do better, and don;t get the opportunity to deal with what I know. (It's not primarily a question of knowing subject specific notability guidelines or howe we apply them, but rather of knowing how to most easily improve an article in a particular subject.)  DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about  merging  projects, even largely defunct  ones. That would be a matter for the projects themsleves to  decide and another leg in  the AfC malady to  be amputated first, and it would probabl;y  take years. On  the other hand, the beauty  of the NPP  system software is that  it  provides via it  feed and curation  overview all  the background of the article, what's wrong  with  it, and about  the creator and possibly  what's wrong  with  him/her too. The actual  use of the system from the point  of view of the patroller is that  it  does permit  the patrollers to  be immediately  selective over what  they  want  to  patrol. The only  downside is that  most  patrollers lack  the required experience and only go for the low hanging fruit. Indeed, they  do  little else than add Orphan tags (because that's easy  because the software has already  told them) and tagging  for deletion. They  imagine that  some magic fairy  is going  to  fly  past on  a broom and do  the rest of the cleaning up. She doesn't  come of course, leaving  fully  indexed articles alive in  mainstapce for months, or even years until  someone finds them and does something  about  them.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You are right that the context provided by NPP/page curation is enough to select articles to review. Some however will need specialists in areas where nobody is checking. The Wikiprojects' role is to get qualified people to look at the list of incoming articles. At least the ones with active projects can be dealt with that way--my estimate is about half. Half the rest is easy, leaving 1/4 problems for generalists.
 * However, the indexing problem for incoming junk is a significant one, that's the point of the draft workspace. A single feed of incoming articles cannot eliminate it. I think the initial hope was for it to be done in the first few minutes, but that's proved impossible. I do not know how to deal with this, except to delay indexing for a day or two for everything until reviewed--and that is very likely to be resisted, even possibly by the foundation.   DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about AFC templates and workflow
I remember, in early stages of the AFC script rewrite, I tried to convey some thoughts on semi-automation, more comprehensive reviews, etc, on IRC; Theopolisme had mentioned that such ideas need a redesign of templates first. I'm asking others to consider doing it, now, in here. Please have a look. --Gryllida (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw this after I had written my reply above. I'll follow up tomorrow. But my first reaction is that I would rather work with no templates at all. There is no way for mechanical messages to handle this, because no matter how good they are, the important thing is not to be mechanical.  DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Rhode Island Philosophical Society
Hi,

RIPS had already been speedied and successfully contested. Send it along to AfD if you like, of course.

Best,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * my error, sorry. I do sort of remember now I had seen it before. I'll decide whether I want to use Afd, or let someone else do it if they choose. Thanks for letting me know.  DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No worries. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hhl editor
Thanks for your advice for my created page to "Andreas Pinkwart" and thanks for your help! Hopefully I understand. I already requested a username change. but didn't get an answer yet. Regarding the copyright permission: have I still to do something? I tried to add some categories, but it is really confusing to find the right ones.Hhl editor (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Skyfire merger
Can you please take a look at the Skyfire company talk page and review my comment about the merger? Please let me know if you can assist. Nguyen joe (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr.Zeynep Celik Butler
Hi DGG - another professor - no Google Scholar report that I can find. I added a few references. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I found, but the citations there are very low--there is probably another form of the name. (sometimes extremely important engineers in industry have low citations, but this is an academic, and I would expect something more. ) Anyway, it doesn't matter, because fellow of IEEE is notable as a major distinction. I accepted it. The simple way of working on these is to look for any one thing that clearly establishes notability. If it's there, improvements can come later.  DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought so. Here's another one labelled "professor"; I added some references, but htere are a lot of unsupported claims: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William (Bill) C. Bosher, Jr. - Bio &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, this one: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David P. Roberts doesn't seem very distinguished, but maybe I'm missing something. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * He is notable, but its a copyvio from Businessweek and his school bio. I listed it for G12. For every academic bio, I try to find the faculty members page at the university--if it isn;t listed in the refs or links (it was here), I try all the more to find it. (analogously for other people and organizations) About 1/2 the times there's considerable or total copyvio--in some cases I rewrite completely, or stubbify; I didn't think it worth the trouble here--because you are quite right--he is not all that distinguished.   DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am presuming that your comments above were about William Bosher, rather than David Roberts, whom I called not distinguished. The university bio must be in a database or something, because I couldn't get Google to find a match even when I knew it was there.  Interesting that the several phrases which were direct copies are ones that I would tend to delete anyway as too promotional.  I disagree about the Businessweek profile, though - the only text that matches is the names of positions and organizations, and those are pretty immutable.   Anyway, one more off my list; thanks. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My comments were about Bosher. Roberts I cannot judge, That his citations are low may not be relevant, they often are in mathematics. UMinn is a distinguished university, but this is only at a branch liberal arts campus,and looking at the dept page there, his is not a distinguished dept. in general--much too small. I'm going to do what I and others have been talking about, and ask for help at the math workgroup.  DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My approach to copyright is not to rely on google, but to check the person's web site, and any other posssible relevant external link or reference. In particular, many universities use noindex on the web sites, or on the portions of it which is a people directory.  DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft:David E. Sellers
There multiple ways to solve such a problem. Yours leaves the copyvio in the edit history. Since this is a draft article with a single author, there is no problem with deleting the draft, having the author get the text refunded via email, and then have them report it without the copyvio. There is also no problem (if the editor logs in before it is deleted) having them make an edit to restore a version before the decline was made, with the copyvio edited out, and then revdeling the in-between versions.

Either way both preserves attribution, and removes the copyvio from the edit history. You way leaves it in. I've been scanning large numbers of draft articles for copyvios, and G-12'd over 100 of them with various levels of problems. Out of the half-dozen or so admins who've taken action on them, you are the only one with this particular solution to the problem, and the only one who seems happy leaving the copyvio in the history. Revent talk 16:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The choice of which way to solve problems of copyvio is not purely a question of administrator idiosyncrasy, but involves many factors.


 * The general principles are found in both WP :COPYRIGHT and WP:Deletion Policy and its subpages. First, Deletion policy is that "Reasons for deletion  [are] subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page)" and "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" Section 3.1 for copyright violations says "remove the violation if possible, or edit the page to replace its entire content with  . For blatant, whole-page copyright violation, you can simply tag it for speedy deletion with  after checking that there are no non-copyvio versions in the page history." Second, with respect to copyvio, WP:CSD says it applies to  "Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with , and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. " Third, at WP:COPYVIO,  it says "Handling of suspected violations of copyright policy depends on the particulars of a given case"  It then says "If you have strong reason to suspect ... some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. "and "  If all of the content [is]... a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable,  if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch, but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted. "Fourth, looking at WPRevision Deletion, one of the permitted uses is  for "Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion."  The word "Blatent" is obviously open to interpretation, but  a small paragraph copied from the persons website is not "blatant".


 * I. removing a whole article because a nonessential part is copyright is not supported by policy. None the less, policies have some flexibility, and admins sometimes do that, and I have done something a little like it on occasion, based on the phrase in G12 "when there is no non-infringing content worth saving". If the articles is inherently promotional, I generally delete saying both G11 and G12, and I think of "entirely promotional" in a more more flexible way when there is significant copyvio. For articles, I'll sometimes do the same with A7/G12. For draft where A7 does not apply, and which the person has been repeatedly submitting without improvement, I'll try to find some reason. I will be more flexible in helping those. 
 * II. As a general rule there is no reason to revision-delete, as look as the copyvio text is removed from the current version. It is not even permitted unless the violation was "blatant".

I intend to pursue both of these issues elsewhere (with some of the admins, at WT:CSD, and, for any worth the trouble, deletion review); the primary fault is with deleting administrators who exceed policy. From a quick look, some of your deletion nominations seem reasonable, some less so. (It's fair to tell you I intend to look more carefully at all of them, past and future) I just deleted one where the essential material was in fact copyvio. I follow policy, and I try to use a middle-of-the-road interpretation.  DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll try to respond to this in bits, since you wrote a lot. First, you say that it's not a matter of administrator idiosyncracy... it shouldn't be, but unfortunately it is. I've talked with several administrators about going this, and gotten varying responses depending on who I was talking to. I'm just trying to help with the backlog by dealing with the huge number of copyright violations, and other easy speedy declines as I see them.... it's not my favorite thing to do, and honestly, I would rather be working on other things, but I'm trying to help, and I'm talking with other people as I do so, not just randomly deciding what I think is right.


 * To be honest, though, I think your interpretation of what is a 'blatant' copyright violation is, as you describe it, far too lenient, and based on your interpretation of Wikipedia policy rather than the legalities. Not that I am claiming to be a copyright lawyer, but yes, a single paragraph copied verbatim is blatant copyright infringement, and it's illegal. Even a single sentence can be a copyright violation, if it is verbatim, or if the rewording is minimal (like changing a pronoun to a last name) and preserves the structure of the original. "Blatant" in this context means, or at least should legally mean that the copyright violation is obvious, not that it is extensive. If a sentence is phrased in a way that is 'creative', as opposed to one that is the only obvious way to make the statement, then you can't simply copy it. It's wrong.


 * You need to read, very, very carefully, the last paragraph of WP:COMPLIC, and the Wikipedia article on Substantial similarity. To be specific, "Under the doctrine of substantial similarity, a work can be found to infringe copyright even if the wording of text has been changed or visual or audible elements are altered."


 * You are right, however, that I have probably G-12'd drafts that 'could' have had the material removed, and as it stands now, after more discussion with other admins, I'm actually being more lenient about doing so. This has nothing to do with your understanding of if it's 'blatant', though, it's merely that my previous 'suspicion' that an attribution stated by a hyperlink in the edit summary is sufficient to fulfill the CC-BY-SA licensing requirements is correct, and so the problem can be 'fixed' by an edit followed by revision deletion. Previously my understanding was that such a deletion would have to be done after the 'author' made an edit, so as to preserve attribution, but with links in the edit summaries that's unnecessary. I'm now only G-12ing things where there would basically be nothing left after removing the copyvio, or where the text would be useless, and instead getting them fixed by revision deletion.


 * Your idea that leaving the copyright violation in the edit history is ok is simply wrong, for a couple of reasons. One, the copyvio could be restored by a later edit, and second, the WMF distributes database dumps that include edit histories. Distributing them with included copyright violations is just as illegal as leaving them visible. I suggest that if you think I'm wrong here that you ask a WMF lawyer. I'm quite certain you'll find I'm not.


 * As far as you 'reviewing my CSDs more closely,' I have no problem with that, and have in fact said before that I hope that admins do look at them closely before actually deleting them. Not that I doubt my ability to tell what is a copyright violation, but everyone makes mistakes. If some admin is just approving G-12 CSDs without looking at them, they should be yelled at. Revent talk 17:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability requirements for Professors
According to Notability (academics) just being a full professor is not enough to meet notability requirements. Which is why I tagged the article. Eeekster (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A7 is for no indication of importance. A full professor may of may not be notable, but that someone is a full professor, or even an associate professor or assistant professor) at a recognized university is a good-faith indication of plausible importance, which is much less than the standard for passing afd.  See WP:AFD and extensive discussions on its talk page for the distinction. As for actual notability, I'n working on the article--I think he probably is, but I have to check further before I comment at the afd you started.   DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Carita Feliz
Hi, would welcome your views on this article, which was likely written by an undeclared paid or COI editor. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I listed in for G11. (G11is a little impressionistic, and I don't like to delete using it unless another admin agrees. FWIW, this seems characteristic of one particular paid editor I've noticed who cannot distinguish between its and it's.  DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, and what do you think about this promotional article Zealand pharma? There is a funny trio of "new" accounts editing these, as well as Lars Kolind: Isabellalo1904, Team sunshine, and Free4fear. Note that all three of these articles, Carita Fariz, Zealand pharma, and Lars Kolind, are about Danish people/organizations. I would bet you 5 p that the three accounts belong to the same person. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You have done an excellent job of removing the fluff from Kolid, who is clearly notable enough to be worth the work. (The enWP is an apparently close translation of the Danish WP, and  Isabellalo1904 just added an appropriate reference).   Zealand Pharma might be notable; Carita Feriz is  almost certainly  not.It's worth spi, but I don't have patience for their procedures.  The moral is that someone notable does themselves a disservice by using a paid editor. I may be coming   to agree with a position I previously did not like: paid editing should be prohibited outright, whether or not disclosed, and whether or not we can catch all the offenders. I also am starting to think   that our standards of notability should be raised in most fields, which will be best done by abandoning the GNG for objective criteria. And our standard of promotionalism should be stricter, by more exactly defining and limit what is appropriate content. But the first step in any case is to energetically remove what does not meet even our current standards.  DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Apocrypha
On Dec 12, 2012 you added a tag "out of date" to the above article. You did not, however, deliver any explanation or reason on the discussion page. It would be useful to know if you think this tag still applies or can be removed and if it still does WHAT you think is out of date. It's always useful when adding a maintenance tag to explain why you do. Things that may be obvious to you probably aren't to others. ;) --Maxl (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What was out of date was the use of only 19th  and early 20th century sources. They are reliable only in a historical sense, for there have been enormous changes in our knowledge of the period since then for the Christian and Jewish apocrypha. Speaking only of data then unknown, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have contents very relevant to both of these, had not even been discovered. The only use them, or of studies based on them, is in the article is as a see: reference.  And these are only the best known: there have been other major new discoveries of documents from the period.  Interpretations are not the same either. There has been over a  century of work by hundreds of scholars of various persuasions since those older encyclopedic sources were written--perhaps the best know are Frank Moore Cross and Cross andElaine Pagels. There haas also much many recent books of the formation of both the Christian and Jewish canons.  I assume there has been similar increases in knowledge of other religion's texts, though I have no knowledge about this. There was also a failure of attribution: it was not specified in the text what parts were copied from which particular of these older source-nor is it even clear from the edit history.
 * I see the current version is very little better including the lack of use of texts found in the 20th century (though two of them were at least mentioned, & one general book was added as a source in two small places)-- and the continuing failure of attribution.
 * I greatly regret not having had time to work on this. I will in the next few months either do the basics, at least for a bibliography, or finds omeone who can do this.
 * I am copying this to the article's talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Review of article
DGG, thanks for pointing out the weaknesses of this article. I have gone over it and modified it quite a bit to improve tone, remove the text which is to be found as a primary source elsewhere and have added references. Could you check it and let me know if it is good as is to remove the alert at the top of the page? Thanks, --Chberger (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , it's considerably better, though it could still use some further edits for conciseness; and the lists of countries should be formatting in two columns, see Help:Columns for the method. I removed the tags. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

DGG, I have implemented the columns - thanks for the tip. Will work further on improving style. Cheers, --Chberger (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC) == Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kent Ryden ==

Another professor, DGG, but this one may not be notable. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

...and this one Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judith M. Bennett is pretty skimpy, and there are so many Judith Bennetts that I can't reliably add to it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ryden is notable: look at Worldcat holdings for his books. Bennett even more so-- see her listing there, plus named chair at research university. When a name is too common, go for the book title--but it's fairly common also. Worldcat Identities is often the most useful approach in the humanities, at least if the name ends up at the top as it does for her.  Inadequate articles based on the usual incompetent university news releases are a problem; in my experience, most university pr people do not really know what makes for importance, and do not give specifics--presumably because they think an exact list is too technical.  DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lewis David Eigen
Dear DGG: This fellow must have taken some courses in hyperbole. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I listed it for G11,and it was deleted about 1 minute after that by another admin. (He is very probably notable if anyone wants to do it properly.) The present article was a quite remarkable combination of  an over-personal bio with an over-detailed CV. Both are very familiar here separately,  but the combination is unusual. Thanks for telling me about it; it's worth remembering.  DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Dünya Müzeleri Müzesi
I added some references from Turkish newspapers and other references and removed your speedy tag from Dünya Müzeleri Müzesi. I don't think the article is unduly promotional. I don't read Turkish and the Google translations of the source material are confusing, but I think that there has been enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Tomas O'grady article deletion
Hello DGG.

I am confused to as why the "Tomas O'Grady" was selected for speedy deletion. I see the reason was CSD A7, but there are numerous links on reputable websites to show credibility of all the information listed.

Lagreenspace (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , because he never has been elected to anything. That is not notability as a politician. I am assuming that you   mean to contest it; the way to do that is to place an explanation the article's talk page as indicated in the notice; as this may not have been clear to you,  to avoid having it deleted first, I have removed my speedy tag, and am sending it to AfD for a discussion.    DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I will go about placing an explanation on the articles talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagreenspace (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

SCHOOLOUTCOMES
Hallo David

Checking my watchlist and other stuff on my mobile earlier today (which cramps my editing style so I often leave things to come back to later) I thought I saw a change you'd made to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, changing an incomplete and inappropriate description of a school as "high street" which might have been intended as "a high street name" (only applicable to shops/banks etc which might have a presence on a main shopping street, not generally used as just "high street", not used of schools) into a different description of an article as "promotion only". I was going to come back to it to try to tidy it up, or flag it up with you or other editors involved ... but I now can't see any trace of it. Articles for deletion/Common outcomes has not been edited since 19 August, according to its edit history.

Either I imagined the whole thing, or an admin has "revdeled" the whole thing. Unless there was anything I didn't notice which was obscene/personal attack etc, I don't see why it was revdeled rather than just reverted or edited back to the current version. Can you shed any light? It's confusing for non-admins if things are made to disappear like this. But perhaps I'm just confused. Pam D  17:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I did indeed make a comment of that sort, but I'm not sure where. I think it was about a specific article, not a general discussion, but it could have been AfC/draft, or deprodding, or article talk, or an edit summary. I've started looking. I doubt it was on the policy page, but I wonder if it was on something that referred to the policy page.   I would see any revision deletions, and it is usually possible to detect oversight, tho not see what was oversighted.   DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Tajja Isen
Hey, Dave, I was wondering if you'd help me with an issue. Almost two years, I added and improved this article but within days, an IP (who I suspect is the subject or at least someone connected) removed a lot of the information. Now I understand removing it because you don't want the information to be seen but removing sensible stuff like the producers and replacing with "is still working on it" stands out to me. Some searches yielded nothing to suggest she has actually released it now. I hadn't actually noticed this until tonight as I haven't been as active as I used to be and I kind of forgot of this article. I added the information because it shows she comes from an educated family including musically. I also suspect it may be the subject because they removed a bit on a rejected audition. Care to weigh in? SwisterTwister  talk  04:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I simply want to remind you not to forget me and have this thread be pushed to the back. SwisterTwister   talk  03:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'lll get there.  DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI
Hi David, just a note to say that I mentioned you at Sockpuppet investigations/Lyndasim. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Jenny Lynn (photographer)
FYI: following a request at WP:REFUND I have restored this article which you PRODded in May. JohnCD (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

AfC vs NPP
I really liked your comment on the Signpost article. It made me see things from a perspective I had hitherto ignored. Perhaps if all Drafts were fed into the New Pages Feed, but unindexed as they are now, and clearly show up as 'Draft', the current AfC squad might migrate to the NPP feed. Of course, this would open up the drafts to also being reviewed by NPPers, but this might not necessarily be a bad thing. At least the AfC submissions that are clear cases of unmitigated nonsense could be swiftly dealt with by CSD or summarily nuked by admins on patrol. And the AfCers might get some new found joy by seeing what crap arrives live into mainspace and helping do something about it. --KudpungMobile (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The flipside is that NPP would have to be trained on which standard operating practices they have to supress and which ones they have to add to the pile for pages under the umbrella of AfC. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , I don't believe NPPers need to be trained in anything other than reading their own very complete modus operandi - something that AfC does not have and desperately needs. DGG puts forward some very valid arguments for such a merger, while I still believe that perhaps cloning and adapting the NPP software for the use of AfC is also a solution worth considering. At least both solutions would radically put an end to the constant talk about and development of palliative scripts which appear to be the major affliction at AfC - I sometimes wonder whether AfC is a playground for programmers or is simply heading towards a social networking venue such ss the WP:CVU/A became until we forced its closure and replaced it with a clone of an existing off-the-peg solution (naturally after also considering merging it with a sister project). KudpungMobile (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , we inevitably need accepted operating practices, and it will be better to have one set of them than two. There are several aspects: First, the standards. There is only one part of dealing with new articles where we have almost-universally accepted standards, Speedy, and it takes constant effort to keep admins and other editors following them; acceptances at both NPP and AFC are very idiosyncratic. (And of course any standard relying on group consensus in individual cases as with AfD will inherently have considerable randomness and inconsistency.) Second,  the procedures:  a problems of both NPP and AFC is that the existing reply patterns are too rigid, especially with the insanely ineffectual AfC templates. (And the key advantage of NPP is its reliance on Huggle, one of the few procedural things here that really work well)  On a purely technical basis, I find it usually better to go outside the system at NPP (the only thing I really need NPP for is the display of new articles to patrol), and sometimes at AfC. (in fact, the only reason I even use the AfC system instead of editing and moving draft pages directly is the need to keep the categories up to date to avoid confusing others). With respect to communicating, the use of fixed rather than personalized help will always prevent truly effective assistance -- but this has to be balanced against the difficulty of leaving the assistance totally freeform, especially to relative beginners. I do not want to discourage the social interaction element in keeping new users, provided it be social interaction about Wikipedia--the part of AfC when people come to ask questions is the most valuable part of it. It has the further benefit of making visible the answers people give, and see who among those answering is in need of instruction themselves. I personally do not like elaborate training schemes, but apparently some do--they are best run the way some people run the preparation for adminship, as an entirely separate process. Nor do I downrate the aid possible from clever programming--but this aid is best given within the context of WP in general, like Huggle, rather than scripts for elaborate procedures, like the incredibly kludgy new method of placing AfC responses on the submitter's page,  repeating every possible choice in the template, but displaying only one.
 * there is a place for forms: some situations are sufficiently straightforward; and even a need for them: most really impossible material can  be best dealt  with in a uniform way for enforcement purposes (I therefore  always use the standardized user warnings and block notices). And,, I think it extremely dangerous to leave removal of material to single admin discretion--the speedy deletion system should be used, because almost all deletions need review by a second person.  DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Help with an AfD
I have nominated an article on an assistant professor here WP:Articles for deletion/Harris Mylonas which I had hoped would be a no-brainer, but it seems that people less experienced than you are thinking he's a keeper. Please take a look and let us know what you think. Abductive (reasoning) 00:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Borderline. I wrote a full explanation. Basically, I agree with your reasoning, but wrote it all out anyway.  The moral is that the result at afd  is erratic, and an article can be found notable or not notable depending on how strongly it is defended.   DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Mohamad Adli Bin Dato' Mohd Tahiruddin
Just a note I declined your A7 CSD on this article. To me, "Since 2013, Adli has been the head of UMNO political party's youth Gopeng division, winning in 2013 party polls. He was appointed Perak States Umno Youth Secretary early 2014." is enough indication of significance that I'd be more comfortable with it going through PROD or AfD instead (which I suspect will easily result in deletion). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (at AfD)
 * I also declined NewMediaRockstars, since it has sources like Variety (magazine) and the Chicago Tribune. Again, try AfD. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 15:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (at AfD)

Request for Comment
Based on your comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Avoiding_harm, I am interested in having your feedback/criticism dialogue here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significanceMeropeRiddle (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Masters of the universecharacters
I think this maybe of interest to you I since you have participated in AFD's by myself. I believe the likes of Stinkor and Moss Man should be split if you disagree or agree I have started a discussion at Talk:List of Masters of the Universe characters. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * commented.  DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luis Herrera Cometta
Dear DGG: This one was declared notable at Wikiproject Physics, but no one was interested in working on it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ahron Daum
Dear DGG: You made some changes to the above draft in February, but another user had already copied the content and created a mainspace article at Ahron Daum. Would you consider reverting your edit so that I can history merge the two? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * the article that was created is so over-laudatory that the simplest thing to do will simply be to edit it. Please Leave it to me; Rabbis are a little tricky  for various reasons, and I will need to consult about the Yiddish version.  DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by tricky - the history merged edits just go in invisibly underneath the mainspace article edits to preserve the attribution. It's only a technical change.  I am happy to leave any editing of the mainspace article to you, since I had no intention of changing it.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * DGG: You've been continuing to edit this draft after I pointed out that the same text has been copied into mainspace. Am I missing something?  I'd like to history-merge the old edits to show who really created the text, but if you don't feel that's appropriate, it should at least be deleted. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catharine Savage Brosman
DGG, this one seems notable. I didn't find a University bio, although her papers are at Tulane University. I fixed up the list of publications, but the format seemed to include tabs, which may mean it was copied from somewhere. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The form it was submitted in certainly makes it seem like a copyvio--the thing to pick up is a structured format that is different from ours. But there is no copyright in a list of publications, though usually whatever is submitted here needs some improvement. The part that worries me is the Critical Reception paragraph. I think we need to check the actual bio in contemporary authors--it's accessible online fairly easily through many public libraries. Fairly complete rewriting may be needed, but the reception section is too extensive in any case. I have been using inclusion there as proof of notability, without any challenges. It would be a useful activity to go systematically thru the whole thing, adding a stub for everyone.   DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting to you, maybe! I like a little variety, myself... &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I said useful, not interesting. If it were interesting, I'd have done it long ago.  DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Stabler
Hey, sorry to be a pest, but here's another one.... &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * this one will need some work. No matter how many you send me, it is not being a pest; it is, rather, a helpful collaboration, because I can not possibly pick up all of these myself--and before you started, it sometimes felt like that.. What we need around AfC is a few more people who work as carefully and intelligently as you do.  DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I am trying to work through the G13's but there are too many if I also try to fix up the ones I find. Last month, by the time I went through and improved the ones I'd previously postponed, I only had time to check the new ones beginning with A, B, C and D!  Luckily,  was very busy checking the rest of the list, and several other editors were picking off a few here and there and nominating hopeless ones for deletion to save us time.  If you want to catch more of these professors, maybe Rankersbo would be willing to refer some to you. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ideally of course, I want to catch everything that has potential for an article. I find it ironic that I actually helped propose G13, but I never imagined it would be used indiscriminately. I concentrate a little on academic faculty because I am so familiar with the RW and WP situation that I both know what can be rescued and can easily do the rescue.  And because I want to help correct the imbalance in our coverage.  DGG ( talk ) 14:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, frustrating as it is to see so many drafts being deleted, the problems caused by what would by now be 100,000 or so badly written, copyvio, promotional, BLP violating, etc. pages being picked up by mirror sites and then by Google was a real problem for Wikipedia's credibility and still is to a lesser degree. Try typing the word "Professor" into THIS and you will get over 1000 hits, and this doesn't count the more recent ones in Draft space. It's hard to believe that there are still more than 3000 of these old drafts to check each month.  I thought that it would ease off when the backlog was gone. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * With each pass through the older drafts I remove the weakest, and promote the strongest; the ones that are left (sometimes I defer again, usually I just make a small edit, or a first pass at removing some inappropriate material, or removing the earlier of the multiple versions that new contributors keep adding instead of modifying the first one)  are the borderline ones that will be hardest to deal with.  The alternative, of making one pass and dealing definitively with everything, is impractical because of the time needed to fix an article. The practice of many other G13 reviewers, removing everything that cannot immediately be fixed, loses too much; the practice of some, removing everything regardless, is in my opinion wrong altogether, but I can not effectually combat it except by trying to get there first.
 * There are a few key changes in practice that would make dealing with AfCs much easier: First, decreasing the number of resubmissions by trying to make it unambiguously clear that a subject that fails notability will not be accepted. Second, detecting  and removing the ones that are already in mainspace (tho of course we often must then handle appropriately an unsatisfactory mainspace article) This could be automated--we already detect moves into mainspace that duplicate an article--this could be instead done at the first edit, or automatically by bot over the whole backlog.. Third, as as been asked for many times, detecting copyvios at the very beginning. This too can be partially automated, and should be, again possibly by bot over the submissions as they are entered, though manual checks will always be needed, and automatic removal is impossible because of reverse copyvio and partial copyvio.
 * Using a single stream of NPP instead of prior AfC, would permit using A7, would eliminate the duplications with mainspace, and an automated copyvio check on everything submitted at NPP would be a good idea. As discussed above, the problem with a single stream is that we will still need to deal with and review a draft workspace. 16:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 14 for a discussion of suggesting to those creating new pages in mainspace that they check for a draft in progress. Jaydiem's two suggestions, the second on easier to implement that the first, should cut down the number of duplicate articles; however, changing such an important function would need a proposal and strong consensus AND a techie to carry it out. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that particular problem differently. I think it is not common for  user A to make an article on the same topic as   user B's draft.  Rather what a time sequence like this usually represents is the user B copies the material into mainspace under the same or a different user name after the draft is declined, either because he tries to evade the decline of an unacceptable article or almost  as likely realizes that the decline was unintelligent. But the sequence I see most is that  user A makes a draft ignorant that an article on the subject already exists. We do of course need a simple way of directly searching drafts; we also need a check for near identical article topics, because a very common response to rejection of either a draft oran actual article is to make one under a variant title. Most of these that we pick up is by the chance of the same person seeing both of them and remembering.  DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's because I go through so many drafts, but I have come across many cases where I have had to throw a draft away because I took too long and someone started from scratch (not copied from the draft) and made a new article. Also, using the Wikipedia search engine will find variations in titles because it does a search of all text, whereas an algorithm that just compares titles from various namespaces will miss a lot, as you pointed out.


 * When someone types a title into the search box, there is no way to know if the person was planning to create an article or was just searching. If searching, we want the process to remain undisturbed.  If the user intends to make a page, however, we want some increased functionality.  A combination approach:
 * (1)Those making a draft should be warned about a mainspace article, and those making a mainspace article to be warned about a draft. An algorithm that checks and adds a line such as "There is already a mainspace article with that title" if it's a Draft, or "There is a draft under development about this topic at TITLE", if it's a mainspace title. This should be straightforward. Preventing the creation of one if the other existed would be quite controversial.
 * (2)Editors should be able to easily find a draft under development on their topic. A button beside the "Advanced" button that says "Check for a Draft in progress" and then searches only draft space for the exact phrase (but not just in the title) that is already in the search box should do it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for copy of deleted Geist (company)
Hello, DGG,

I'm a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, and have elected to work with WikiProject Companies. Would you be willing to send me a copy of the article on Geist (company)? Voceditenore recommended I contact you as the nominator of the article for speedy deletion. I am not the creating editor, but I had done some copyediting and bare html conversion before it completed the AfC process. I had a brief exchange with the AfC reviewer, here. The article was deleted soon after approval: 12:01, 27 July 2014 Randykitty deleted page Geist (company) (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I would just like to improve my abilities to revise promotional content/language and edit for NPOV. Thanks for considering this request.

Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * . Sent., but I don't really think there's potential for an article--my email will explain why. Ideally, the person you're officially supposed to ask is Randykitty--the deleting admin has the responsibility, not the editor who nominated it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. I agree there is too little to salvage the article, and upon re-reading it now with a few more months editing on Wikipedia I can see why it was deleted. Since the first AfC editor's comment had been the need for copyediting and attention to references, I worked on those tasks rather than NPOV, you know, the classic silk purse out of a sow's ear problem? I do appreciate your thorough notes, which I found very helpful.


 * There are too many requests on the WikiProject Companies site, and I am working on being more selective about which ones I support. Most are obviously wretched dross, and only a very few are reasonable prospects. I may need to find some other ways to contribute. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Felicia F. Campbell has taught for 50+ years at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Hello DGG, hope you are well. Draft:Felicia F. Campbell is another one that I cannot accept, but don't feel wholly comfortable declining either. Perhaps if you have a look, likely notability either will be apparent or not. Don't worry about the appalling formatting; my personal approach in such cases is, if I think notability is clear by one guideline or another, just accept it and put a copyedit template on it. The Guild of Copyeditors has not complained yet!

Thank you again for your help. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, she's notable, President of a national association. The article submission reads like a press release but there's no direct copyvio from the refs. This is the sort of article I consider so likely to be a copyvio from somewhere that I would rewrite it somewhat. And for this sort of article, I can rewrite so quickly that I will do so.  (And, like you, I generally do not think it necessary to fix bad formatting, but I personally fix the worst of it sometimes). I'll get to it tomorrow, either as draft or aticle.  DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)r
 * done, Dec 15.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alina Somova
DGG, I see that you were working on this; however, since then there is Alina Somova. (This is another example of the problem I mentioned in an earlier thread, with editors not realizing that a draft article exists.) &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In this particular  scenario, first   we unreasonably rejected   an article on someone unquestionably notable, an article translated directly from the frWP, complete with its adequate though inexact references. Someone else then wrote an article essentially from scratch, with a few acceptable references.  The question now is how to merge them, In this case it will be simpler to just retranslate from the frWP and also from an   independent version at the ruWP with a more detailed listing of roles.  DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, simpler for someone, maybe. My French isn't good enough for accurate translation, and I can't read one word of Russian.  I was just giving you a heads-up so that you wouldn't waste time editing the draft.  I bow out gracefully at this point....&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

AFCH script
2014-09-12T02:52:33 DGG (Talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lance Hosey to Lance Hosey (Created via Articles for creation (you can help!) (AFCH))

As you're using the old version of the AFCH script, please take a look at this discussion and the question (poll) raised below it. --Gryllida (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kari Korhonen - forest pathologist
Okay, DGG, I have rewritten this one in sentences as you asked. Over to you... &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * cleaned up, linked, and formatted the biological names. I have the impression this was written by someone who knows more Finnish than English, but it doesn't seem to be in the Finnish WP. Good enough for mainspace, though it needs to be worked on a little further.  DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussion
There is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265 that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Artist Notability re Draft:O. Gail Poole
Dear DGG: Thank you for your comments re Draft:O. Gail Poole; I have added as many references geared towards Dad's notability as I can for the time - his paintings are officially being acquired for permanent collection by two musuems: Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art and the Oklahoma State Art Collection in the Oklahoma State Capitol. His work may be in other museums, but the records he left behind were incomplete. (Brief backstory - Dad was a master painter with a solid pedigree and influential collectors; however, he eschewed marketing and flew under the radar in his later years.) I am in discussions with several museums interested in acquisitions of his work; however, the process is very slow. Are there other suggestions you can make that would help this article be accepted? Notability leads to notability and so on... Any thoughts would be deeply appreciated. Thanks much for the work you do. --NicolePoole (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC) , there are still problem see my comment on the draft. Frankly, it does not show disrespect for the subject that his work is probably not what will justify an encyclopedia article. Of course yu may ask anyone else to look also, but first please take account of my specific comments, and you might have a stronger case.  DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

 DGG ( talk ) Thank you for your comments; I understand your argument regarding regional notability. I have based my draft on that of Raymond P. Spillenger, who was also a relatively unknown, yet influential, regional painter. It is difficult for me to understand the distinction. Though the two museums Poole has work in are not "major national collections," they are nevertheless substantial within the state of Oklahoma. I am making edits based on your sound suggestions. Though I do understand and respect your opinions on the matter, I am determined to create a successful submission. How would you suggest I proceed?--NicolePoole (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)::Spillenger has works in the Walker Art Center (Minneapolis), and the Hirshhorn Museum (DC), two major museums with international reputations. That's the criterion. I am not expressing my opinion on the merits; I am merely telling you on the basis of my experience, that if this article were in mainspace, it would probably be deleted by a community decision.  DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 DGG ( talk ) I understand. Pardon the natural defenses. So, Ok. There's a lead. Is there an actual criteria for a museum to achieve international reputation, or is it subjective?--NicolePoole (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft:An Embarrassing Position
Dear DGG: I know that you suggested redirecting this to Dan Shore, but I felt that the original play and its author should get some ink (pixels?) as well, so I have taken this in another direction. I'd be interested in your opinion. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I accepted it; your judgment in these things is every bit as good as mine.  DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ali Chamseddine (2)
Hello again... There were two drafts about this person, but I chose this one as less promotional and easier to fix up. I hope the references I added are appropriate - one math/physics course 45 years ago doesn't qualify me to work on this. The other draft is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ali Chamseddine. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * your version is OK; I accepted it. just now DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

About Urban Institute of Paris and French Urbanism Institute
Hi DGG. I'm OK with the deletion of Urban Institute of Paris. fr:Institut d'urbanisme de Paris expresses the same doubts. But fr:Institut français d'urbanisme does seem to me to be a real, reputable institution. Your thoughts? Pierre en Australie aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I restored French Urbanism Institute--please add to it as appropriate. It was careless of me not to check the French article.  DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Jews in Carthage
Hi DGG as a professional librarian and serious researcher what do you make of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jews in Carthage? Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Expressive arts therapy
This certainly exists - New York department of corrections uses it as a learning model - but I'm not sure it's notable. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , if you're not sure, you probably should take it to AfD. Myself, I tend to be rather skeptical about the claims to separate notability for specific variants of general therapeutic methods. Sometimes AfD has supported my view, sometimes not.  DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Right now, I think it's such a mess that WP:TNT may apply.  I just userfied the content. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Benefit of doubt
thank you for your comment at ANI and deleting the mess I created sir. It was not intentional. However, I want you to give me a benefit of that as regard the saction you suggested at ANI. I reali have passions for this project. I don't want to lose my privilege to NPP (I should not be topic banned). That is the area where I had been very active sir, and am not doing bad in that area. At times when people tried to defend themselves out of fustrations they could say something very odd. That's responsible for such comment at the talk page. It was out of fustrations. Please do anything to help me. Give me a benefit of doubt sir, I promise to adhere strictly to all policies. Thanks. Wikicology (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you do improve, which is why iI did not suggest a block at this time. But until you do improve, you really should not be advising other editors, or approving their work.  DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Automatic Transactional Memory
Well, I can see that you have nothing to do.... so...

You commented that the above topic wasn't a neologism, but I noticed the editor who submitted it was using his own paper as a reference. I did a Google search excepting his name and his web site, and you can see the result here:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Automatic+Transactional+Memory%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=-l0WVI62EemM8Qez5IHYAQ#rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&q=%22Automatic+Transactional+Memory%22+-tentity+-stepanchuk+-wikipedia

It seems that some papers have been written which include this term; I'm not sure how notable this makes the topic, but at least he didn't invent the term himself. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If in Google you check the "cited by" link for the first paper listed, & look at the papers that refer to his work, it seems that others have referred to it as a potentially useful concept.I have no idea how we should handle material  of this sort, about which a proper article could be written but is not very likely to be, which I do not myself want to work on & is not of a   high priority.   I've just postponed it another 6 months, but G13 could have been an option & is what I am likely to do 6 months from now.  DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sydney Finkelstein
You recently accepted this AfC submission but it doesn't appear to have adequate reliable sources. Why is this person notable? ~KvnG 20:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF, holder of named chair.  DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I added a ref for that. ~KvnG 15:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sanjay Vadera
I have declined your G11 speedy on this. It does not seem to me unduly promotional and (rather to my surprise) it's not a hoax, the references stand up. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * you're right.  DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Rear-eject haul truck bodies
Considering your crusades against promotional articles, I'm surprised you released Rear-eject haul truck bodies into mainspace. It is written by someone called Philsystems and Philippi-Hagenbuch, Inc. have patented the Rear-eject method, this seems to be a promotion for their trucks. The article has no reliable secondary sources. Shouldn't it be moved back to AfC until it can be improved? Sionk (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS and ISIL redirects
Hello! Could you take a look at my comment to here? I'm concerned that Red Slash is offline now and I don't feel confident unravelling the moves and redirects involved. Thanks for taking a look - cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As the RfC is not concluded, and as it's a significant topic, perhaps it would be better to first straighten out what the consensus is, and only then make the necessary changes to accomodate the articles.  DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC).

Drowning in spam and other pre-cooked meat substances
Yay, you rock! FYI this is how I found this stuff. And much, much more. I really don't have the bandwidth to keep this up, even just the tagging, so I'll gladly take all the help I can get. (And before you accuse me of hounding, please read this.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I, like you, frequently follow a trail of bad edits,or bad article, using any means available. I've been aware for some time that most of our articles on US non profit organizations were copyvio, promotional, or both, except sometimes when they were the product of a good editor or group of them trying to exhaustively cover a particular geographic area. (And I say US, because the UK has a higher proportion of good editors doing just that, and elsewhere I can't as easily judge sources)  My personal impression is that most of them are not from an editing collective of some sort, but the spontaneous work of the individual organizational public relations people, all of whom work in a similarly bad pattern & imitate each other. The worst of them are at universities, who seem to selectively employ the PR incompetents, and that's where I've been concentrating.
 * If anything I'm doing is interfereing with attempts at detecting particular puppets, let me know, privately. If you want an opinion,ask as best suits the case. I don't check spi unless there's a special reason.
 * I'm not sure of the best strategy. I don't usually tag, just fix the worst of them as I encounter them, aiming at particular features: I usually remove anecdotal accounts of how they got established, officers other than the ceo, and lists of branches.   I will oftem nominate for deletion organizations limited to a small area or within a particular larger institution; there is rarely anything worth merging.  Another possible strategy I'm considering is a general stubbification, but that will end up looking like directory entries. (A rather radical possibility is to change policy and accept directory entries.)
 * Except for universities, I'm not going to concentrate on this--my general strategy here is to work on a particular track for a short period to try to make an impression and leave some examples, and then deliberately move on. It lessens the frustration at not being able to fix everything.  DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What concerns me most is this combination:
 * The overwhelming majority of these articles were created by SPAs.
 * Most of the article created by SPAs were introduced fully formed as the creator's very first edit (precocious to the extreme).
 * Some of these SPAs have eerily similar editing styles.
 * --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In my experience, most organization's PR agents put in a full article at first, because they write it off line. But yes, there is at least one very characteristic & inappropriate style element. question I wanted to ask you, should we remove things like that, or leave it there for the spi? To make sure we're talking about the same thing, I'd need to email you.  DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm mulling it over. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious?
I create the side-bar and don't work on the damn thing for 30 minutes when all of a sudden I'm marked for deletion for no reason other than the fact that I hadn't substantiated my content.

SO then just because I said I was doing this on behalf of a FRIEND that you delete my post. I have no clue how to write in code, or whatever it is that wikipedia uses so when I try to make a page it takes me a while. I take a break, eat some food, can't edit anymore. Some prick has marked me for deletion, as if he's doing God's work. I requested access to I could fulfill the content, and now I find that all my work has been deleted by the hands you of you.

I have administrative access to the site. I am running their content. I am in full disclosure knowledge of the activities of this company. And yet, because I only made the side bar and said I am making this for a friend that it deserves to get deleted.... I am confused, angry and irritated. I feel like someone just keyed my car while I've been shopping at the grocery store.

So what am I left with?

.

Nothing, but sand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holdawg (talk • contribs) 05:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I've restored it, and marked it as under construction. This will give you a day or two to finish--after that, you'll have to use AfC. Please make sure you have good sources for notability-- seeWP:CORP for the standards. Remember that what counts are documented accomplishments--noble intentions unfortunately don't count.  What is needed are  in-depth published independent  product review.  User reviews should not be included. the website lists "featured in" and give a number of media--these need to be true news stories, not advertisements or press releases or mentions. Good luck with it.   DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Public art
Back in March, 2013, you added an essay-like tag to the public art article, and it is still there today. I was going through the cleanup category and came across that article and tag and at a quick glance I don't see major essay-like issues with the article. The inline references tag still is an issue, but when you get some time, can you take another look and decide if your tag still applies to the current form of the article, and possibly comment on the talk page of the article about what you feel the article needs to improve? Thanks. Neil916 (Talk) 19:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Organization for Understanding Cluster Headaches
I declined your request to speedily delete Organization for Understanding Cluster Headaches because it previously survived a deletion discussion. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * my apologies for missing that. My fault for not checking. I'll probably take it back to afd.  DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinion required
I've replied on you user talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Giorgio Antonucci
Hello,

the article that I submitted to Afc has been accepted (in July) and classified as Start-Class. I basically translated the Italian page about Giorgio Antonucci (that is not considered a Start-Class article), then I continued to improve the page adding information and links. I see that the page is still considered a Start-Class article, despite the improvements.

Could you please revise the assessment?

Footprintsinthesand

GhostTunes
Hi there. You deleted a page for GhostTunes, which is like deleting the page for iTunes. It's an online music service. It's new, but it's legit, and I sourced articles from both LA Times and USA Today about the new service and its offerings. Tried to keep it factual and not press-releasy because that's not the intent. Just wanted a page up about it as a legit online music service company, in much the same way iTunes has a page. Please advise me on what we can do to restore the page and/or what I did in error. Thanks! FavreisGod (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * it may be legit, but it read a little as an advertisement for Gareth Brooks. I restored it, but it will need rewriting. I suggest it might be better not to have an album of his as the illustration. It would also be a very good idea not to give specific pricing information. I'd suggest you improve it quickly, because it is very likely to be challenged further. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Rakesh.de
The URL is one of a functioning website. We generally block those on username grounds as inherently promotional. Daniel Case (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You looked at the website to check it out, as did I. Therefore the name drove traffic to the website; therefore it was promoting the website even if it was purely a personal one. User:Rspeer, one of the strongest advocates of a lenient approach to the username policy, has in the past saidthese usernames should be blocked on sight purely for this reason (I would find the diff but it was a long time ago and I'm in a hurry to go out for most of the day). Daniel Case (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What? I never said that. I have said exactly the opposite. Using your website name as a pseudonym is perfectly acceptable behavior everywhere else on the Internet. This kind of crazy justification is exactly the kind of thing that shows how out of control enwp's UAA is. rspεεr (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * and why would anyone else go see it, as there's no substantial content? The number of people checking a user page here must be very small indeed. This would be a reason for never  including any website name anywhere in WP. And it is perfectly true I consider our username policy an absurdity--it creates a major barrier towards my explaining our policy towards new contributors--Ive learned to word it to make it  as sensible as I can, but I don't really believe what I'm saying make sense. I would quite simply permit corporate names on the same rules as the deWP.   DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Notable academic or not?
Can I have your opinion on this AfD if you don't mind? Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I need to consult on this one DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Postponing 13's
While I can understand and respect one postponement, I can hardly see justification in a second postponement when nothing happened with the first one. Both articles that you "postponed" for the second time have been inactive for nearly a year and a half. I see no reason to keep them unless you're actually going to edit them?  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 19:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason is that it takes time to expand articles. There are at this point only about 4 people doing this for apparently abandoned AfCs, and it is not all that easy for us to keep up. My current practice in dealing with A13 is that as I go through the list of vulnerable articles, I leave about 60% to be deleted, accept about 10% without the need for any but cosmetic changes because they already have a good chance of passing AfD, fix another 10% sometimes including total rewriting and then accept them, and defer the remaining 20%. When I encounter them a second time 6 months later, I do something similar, Thus the old ones to reconsider decreases 80% every 6 months, reducing the number to a very manageable amount. (BTW, do you have any particular G13 in mind?)
 * If more people worked on them, there would be no need to keep deferring. As it is, over the last year, it has gone from initially 2 of us substantially working on this to  about 4, so it is possible to make progress. If you cared to join, there would be 5, and you'd have helped solve the problem. The basic policy for deletion is that salvageable content should be salvaged, and deletion is the last resort.


 * I've been in this position before. Six years ago, I was the only person regularly checking PROD before the last minute trying to rescue articles--everyone else was, ignoring policy, just letting them be deleted.  That's no longer the case--a number of people work  with it and admins deleting at the end are quite careful.    When BLP Prod started, I was the only person trying to rescue them. That situation is better now also, though not as good as it should be (I had to give up working on sports and entertainment figures because of their number, although I found I could source most of the ones I tried) .  Progress can be made, though it is true that it can sometimes be discouraging .  What is most discouraging is people telling me to give up on it, that the problem is too big to be solved--no problem is too big to be solved by attrition, and the recruitment of others who see the signs of some progress being made.    DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see - and I now understand. What might be better is leaving a comment on the ones that you (or someone else) plans to actually work on. The notes I've seen are potentially notable, needs more work, etc. etc which seems like a reviewing comment. That, combined with the declines, gives the impression that they've been declined, no longer edited, etc. I'd be interested in potentially joining this cause. Seems a little more fun than NPP and AFD work ;)  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sylvie Collection
Hello. You recently deleted a page for Sylvie Collection, a known jewelry company, for G11 spam. I was hoping to get the content back so I can make the necessary edits. Do you have any suggestions? I would assume I shouldn't link to the Sylvie Collection website for the celebrities, but what else could be improved to avoid deletion? What specific areas sounded promotional? I made sure to link to known Jewelry industry sources as well as credible fashion sources like Women's Wear Daily. I tried to take inspiration from the format of Sylvie Collection's competitors here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacori and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritani

Thank you. Cody sharp (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , I think the 2 articles by other editors that you mention do verge on promotionalism, and also show dubious notability. Some aspects of yours show the promotionalism even more strongly, such as the list of celebrities who wear the jewelry. What I'm going to do is restore the article with that part omitted it, so you have a chance to improve it. I'll get to the other ones also.  DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Engineering College Of Information Technology, Bijnor
Hello again, DGG. You will likely agree with Sionk about this, but I am posting it here for completeness. I accepted David Baumgardt, although it needs more information. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * sure, about Baumgardt; as for the college I redirected it to  List of colleges affiliated to Mahamaya Technical University -- one look at that page will indicate the extent of the problem.  DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good heavens - how can the University keep track of all of those? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Nur Ali Mondal
This person is stated to be a member of a village council, which definitely does not make him notable. &mdash;innotata 01:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * After looking at WP:PROD, I've brought it to AfD. But please be more careful saying people are obviously notable. &mdash;innotata 03:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

""you may be right. I'll check.  DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Hyder Sindhi
Dear DGG: This one looks like a resumé to me, but here it is anyway. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * as usual, I agree with you--I'm letting this one get deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Levi Strauss
As you requested... I added some content and sources. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to distract  you  from  AfC for a moment:
FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We have needed to argue this every few months. Fortunately, we've always succeeded.  DGG ( talk ) 12:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014
Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014 by CFCF sign up for monthly delivery 

Feature – Ebola articles
During August we have translated Disease and it is now live in more than 60 different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric and Translators without Borders!
 * Just some of our over 60 translations:


 * Xhosa
 * Northern Sotho
 * Zulu
 * Tsonga
 * Venda
 * Hausa
 * Igbo
 * Yoruba
 * Kinyarwanda
 * Swahili
 * Tigrinya

At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page! We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed! Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * New roles and guides!
 * New sign up page!
 * Style guides for translations
 * Some more stats
 * In July, 18 full article translations went live ( WP:RTT ), and an additional 6 simplified versions went live ( WP:RTTS )!
 * We have a number of new lead integrators into Dutch, Polish, Arabic and Bulgarian, with more to come in smaller languages! ( Find them here old sign up page )
 * We were mentioned in a Global Voices Online report by Subhashish Panigrahi at Doctors and translators are working together to bridge Wikipedia's medical language gap
 * New medical professionals have started, dedicated to working in Odiya and Kinyarwanda!
 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Debre Berhan University
Not too much information available about this one since it's fairly new, but it appear to be a notable university. I rewrote the text and found three sources. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC) ""good enough DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

New York Public Library for the Performing Arts
Hi, are you still serving as WIR there? Was a project page ever set up? In any case, please update Wikipedian in Residence. I'm a WIR too now, so it's useful to know of past experience. :) Nemo aka Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Derk-Jan Dijk
Hi, me again - I have added a bunch of secondary sources to this one, but it still has some primary ones, although I removed some others if I found a secondary one that seemed to apply. Should these just be left out? The secondary sources I found aren't as specific. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did some additional editing, and more is needed. The book you used is more reliable than it appears--it's Yale Univ Press, & I changed it to indicate.  DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Stale AfC, recreated directly in article space
Hello, I am not sure what should be done with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Teodoras Daukantas. The user had gone ahead and created Teodoras Daukantas directly in article space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I see nothing wrong with the article. As a Minister of government, he's clearly notable, and the article has sufficient documentation, tho not expressed as formally as we would ideally like it. It's considerably better than the AfC submission, so the afc process was successful in getting a decent article, even if the procedure used was a shortcut. I've redirected the afc to the article. (It could equally well simply be deleted, since the new article is essentially independent--we don't really have an unambiguous procedure for this.) DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks, I was not sure if there was some standard merge / redirect / delete that was followed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is clear it's a precursor, we sometimes redirect to the article talk. If they're independent and the text can be used to fill in the article, we can merge in one of several ways. There's no standard.  DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Duke Clinical Research Institute
Hi, DGG. If this is really the biggest research institute in the world, is there a reason Wikipedia doesn't already have an article about it? Or does it have another name? There are certainly lots of book references to it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * easiest thing to do was to merge, keeping the links.  We normally do not make separate articles for research institutes within universities unless world famous; largest ≠ most important or famous, and a claim like that needs a source, especially as it can have multiple meanings, & the appropriate one  would need to be specified.   The failure to do this is indicative of iless-than-competent PR staff, as usual for universities. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Raj Mittra
Me again... this one has been heavily copyedited, and I found a couple of references and removed some others. It's still a bit of a mishmash. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for guidance on Malt Shop Memories Cruise article issues
I'd like to take a second stab at creating an article on the Malt Shop Memories Cruise, which you speedy-deleted under rules A7 and G11. It's one of seven interrelated articles that I've posted over the last few days, which together (IIRC) are my first attempts to create articles from scratch. Maybe that was ambitious, but the topic is a multi-faceted one. At any rate, I'd like to address the problems, and would appreciate some feedback on how to do it.

A7: No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)
I didn't realize that a statement of importance was necessary, and I've fixed this in the other articles. But, for the Malt Shop Cruise and the longer run viability of the other pieces, I want to be sure that I adequately state their importance.

Music cruises are music festivals in ships. These are huge, regular assemblies of talent. They got my own attention when family friends attended the Jazz Cruise; when I looked into that cruise, I found a whole field of performances that was under the radar (or, at least, mine).

As I understand it, the cruises should meet notability guidelines because (1) they are major assemblies of talent in their genres, and (2) draw large numbers of the public to be involved. If that doesn't meet notability guidelines, what distinguishes the cruises from the land-based concerts that are documented in their own Wikipedia articles?

G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion
Being familiar with Wikipedia spam, and understanding the limitations of my source material, I did make an effort to keep my tone neutral. Was this a matter of the substance, rather than the tone? I looked for models, and found long-running Wikipedia articles on music cruises: Shiprocked and Jam Cruise. How do these differ as to promotion?

Potential overall solution; pros and cons
I originally considered covering all these cruises in one large article. However, when I drafted it, the article was huge and therefore difficult to navigate. It seemed more sensible to break it out into hubs (Entertainment Cruise Productions and wikifying previous information in Time-Life) and spokes (the various cruises), thereby allowing users to get as much or as little depth as they wanted. What is your thinking on that?

Thank you for taking the time to advise on this. &mdash;Matt Stevens (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Shiprocked and Jam Cruise are hardly stellar examples of neutral articles; in fact, they stand a good chance of being speedily deleted themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've looked at it again--I think that you do indeed make an adequate demonstration of possible importance. My deletion under provision A7 was therefore mistaken. But notability is considerably more than just a show of importance. and  whether this will be considered actual notability will be up to the community, and decided in an AfD discussion--and it's hard to predict what would be decided.  Notability here is decided primarily on the basis of sources--reliable third party published sources that provide substantial coverage. They have to be more than routine notices, and not press releases or based on press releases. If you have such sources, you probably will  be able to write a satisfactory article that will pass AfD. Without then, it still may pass, but it's much more doubtful.
 * I think the key problem here, besides sourcing, is promotionalism. The usual way of thinking about it is that it needs to be addressed to the general reader, not to a potential client or customer. An article that is sourced only to the subject's own website, and that talks primarily about the performers who will be present on the next cruise, would generally be considered promotional--it's essentially indistinguishable from an advertisement.
 * Looking at the other articles,my opinion is that the other articles on the individual cruises are promotional in the same manner, and if my attention had been called to them, I would have deleted them. I could do this still, but I think it would be fairer to wait a few days; if they are not radically improved, I probably will list the entire group of individual articles for deletion as promotional to see what the community thinks. For consistency, I have restored the article I deleted also. so they can be considered all together.
 * The overall article on ECP is much stronger, primarily because it also talks a good deal about past seasons, which makes it more of an encyclopedia article and less of an advertisement. However, it too has only sources that are derived directly from the company. This needs to be corrected.
 * The problem about sourcing this entire set of articles is that most sources will basically be reprinted press releases. for example, the article on Soul Train Cruise in  USA  Today,   seems to be indistinguishable from a paid advertisement. It would help very much if you could find true after-the-fact review articles that do not primarily reprint what the company representative tells them.


 * In general, the usual advice is to first establish an article on the main subject before trying articles on the more specific ones. This is especially true when introducing articles at the same times on a large number of specific closely related subjects. such as this. The manner in which you did this would normally raise the question of whether you have a WP:Conflict of Interest. However, I see you have done some significant work of a number of unrelated topics spread out over many years, so you certainly have the benefit of an assumption of good faith.     DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, DDG--I appreciate your advice. I understand how third-party sources help to assure impartiality.  So, I'll look to find broader sourcing on these topics.  Offhand, I think there's likely to be a deeper pool for the longer-running cruises than there is for the more recent ones.  (Ironically, if they're well-run--that is, no shipwrecks or salmonella or anything else that stimulates independent news coverage--they could manage themselves right out of article eligibility.)  I have no idea what's available about the parent company, but it looks like they've carved out enough of a swath that there should be something. &mdash;Matt Stevens (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)'


 * Your comment about shipwrecks and salmonella is indeed true: sometimes subjects are more infamous than famous. Organizations seeking to promote themselves on Wikipedia should be wary: not only does it violate Wikipedia policy but it can also lead to some nasty unintended consequences. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, both Shiprocked and Jam Cruise were G11 speedily deleted (two different admins, neither one was DGG). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, my initial fix on what's viable, based on what existed when I started, is rapidly eroding! If it turns out that this idea isn't workable, then so be it.  But having done this much work, I'm going to try to straighten it out, based on the feedback I've gotten.  (And, damn, it's harder than I thought, although picking what turns out to be a marginal topic by WP standards has not made it easy on myself.)  I have to say that I'm really impressed with the support that's available.  I did not expect help on this scale when I took up the template's offer to seek it from the flagging editor.  Learning by doing doesn't provide the tidiest syllabus, but it's certainly a high-quality course.  Thank you, Dr. Fleischman and DDG. &mdash;Matt Stevens (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. It's a steep initial learning curve for everyone (myself included). You're a good writer, so with a little more familiarity of our neutrality and sourcing guidelines you could be an excellent contributor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward R. Culvert
Dear DGG: I tried looking on the university web site, but was not able to find a profile for this professor. The article would need a fair amount of trimming. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * CUNY has many divisions. He's with Lehman College, but unlike what the article says, his actual position is not Professor but Adjunct Lecturer. He  has held   similar positions at other divisions. He may be notable, but as a relatively minor political figure, not an academic: in NYC, even minor political figures associated with major power brokers like Rangel get lots of press.  Given the unreliable writing, it's not worth saving.  DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion
Thanks for deleting Converting scanned graphs to data; I'd rather say that both the article and are copyvios of the book, however. Nikola (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I should have sen that.  DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Request on 13:41:57, 29 September 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Lboniello
Hey, thanks for processing my request for the kioware page on Wiki. I completely respect that I need to add more resources in order to make it notable, but I was wondering what the threshold is? I've seen other articles in the same category with fewer (and less notable) resources, and I have submitted no fewer than 3 news sources (RFID Journal, American Library Association Magazine, and Kiosk Marketplace) discussing kioware kiosk software, as well as 2 research papers referencing the software as part of the study. Can you help me to determine what else would make the references meet the threshold you are looking for? Other software products with fewer references - and less notable references - have made the cut. Examples include: Webconverger and Netkey (notice most of the references are from Kioskmarketplace, which is one of the kioware references). Would adding notable clients be helpful (mirroring what Netkey has done)? I appreciate the response and just want confirmation so that I can be a better Wiki editor! Lboniello (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * response forthcoming tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric T. Hansen
Dear DGG: I notice that you have commented on this submission. I found that there's an article about him at the German Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem well sourced. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * that's the way the deWP sources things. Despite it, their standard of inclusion is at least as stringent as ours, and their level of accuracy is higher. They see to work on the principle that if enough is given for the intelligent reader to understand the importance, it's sufficient. In most cases, it's enough to go one. I accepted it, tho it needs some more  fixing.   DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to recreate article on Dr. Philip A. Flournoy
Dear DGG: I recently submitted an article on American Physicist Dr. Philip A. Flournoy, which was immediately deleted. I contested the deletion, and my reviewer suggested that I recreate the article, adding in more justification for the importance of the topic. But my reviewer (user St170e) also requested I get permission from you first before recreating the article. Our discussion thread on St170e's talk page is here.

So I'm contacting you to see if you're OK with me recreating an enhanced version of the article. Thank you for your consideration! --Rflourno (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Judging him as a scientist, he must meet either the WP:GNG general notability guideline, or the WP:PROF special guideline for researchers. The GNG requires substantial third party independent published sources about him that are not press releases or based on press releases,  to show that others have recognized his importance. WP:PROF requires evidence that he is considered an authority in his field--that page explains the various possible criteria. Citations to his work are an important factor.  I see several of his papers cited  in Google Scholar, with fairly substantial citations.  and I see a few citations to his patents  there also. It might be possible to use these as the basis for an article. Being awarded patents is not considered a sufficient indication in either standard, though patents that can be shown to be  substantially exploited can help.  It is relatively difficult to show notability for scientists in industry as compared with those in the academic world. To supplement the citations, it will help to be able to demonstrate membership in national organizations;;, but what would prove notability is prizes or distinctions at a national level, such as Fellowship (not mere membership) in the American Physical Society.  Otherwise, the material does not show indications of notability .   Directing a division of researchers at DuPont is not notability either. Opening one of the first Computerland franchises is not notability.  The only thing in the article that might come near is "Dr. Flournoy evolved and employed unique trading algorithms that generated consistently solid yearly returns for his clients regardless of overall market performance" But this has to be shown by third party published sources, not by mere assertion. Write the article as suggested. With the citations, it will not be speedy deleted, but the community will judge it at a discussion at WP:AFD--results there are unpredictable.    DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your guidance! I will drop back and see if I can gather more publicly-noted evidence of distinction for the physics work; if so, I'll rewrite and re-submit.  Thanks again!  --Rflourno (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User Vdhillon and copyvio
You reviewed some articles for speedy delete yesterday by. He has a very long history of copyright violations, both images and text. The latest I found was 2 days ago. I'm not convinced there is a lot of hope for this editor. The only edit to his/her talk page was to add this month. I see a lot of work however by this editor and it would be nice to be able to keep him. Any suggestions? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller,

I am happy to learn and continue to contribute. I do not mean any deliberate harm, if you see my track record over last few years, I have been contributing consistently and in fact sometimes I am frustrated that you guys delete hours of my hard work. Seems I still am on learning curve and there is a way to go before some of my edits and posts are good enough without being butchered. Please advise me, where can I look/read (quick read in a central place) to quickly come up to speed and comply.

Also, I do not understand the issue with me not having much entries on my talk page (where do I find it? is this edit/comment itself is my talk page? thanks) and whats the significance of writing talk page entries? I want to understand why is it needed, when all I want is enhance the wiki entries that I am reading (my way of repaying to others while I am learning from wiki on topics) or create new entries when there is a gap. Please help me come up to speed and make me understand significance of some of these things and how to avoid issues Thanks. Vdhillon (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * response forthcoming tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

OTRS at ANI
If you feel a dead horse is being beat feel free to leave me a note on my talk page. If you think my five point summary warrants address please post to ANI. I appreciate your input there and at FTNB. I also appreciate the work of OTRS agents. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The OTRS question is a very difficult one, involving the basic principles of WP editing, and I intend to pursue it. I've made a comment yesterday atWikipedia talk:Volunteer Response Team,, and  I will comment on the AN/I page.  I think a major strategic mistake was made in the discussion,   not distinguishing the actual edits made from the claim of privilege in making them.  DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I now consider this issue in the hands of those with more experience and knowledge and will now be mostly adding a "editor at large" perspective if I see fit/a need. I prefer to return to content development and research (while keeping an eye on EW and vandalism). On an unrelated note WP Library has given me access to Cochrane, BMJ, OUP and HighBeam if something would be helpful from one of these drop a note on my talk page. Thanks for your time and attention addressing the OTRS issue and for all your contributions to the project. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think a policy require COI disclosure is needed and have posted in a number of venues. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Conference on Visual Perception
Dear DGG: There are thousands of references to papers that have been presented at this series of conferences, but I can't seem to find anything independently written about the conferences themselves. Maybe you have a better idea where to look?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Conferences are a problem I've been meaning to work on. There are only a very few conference series in the world for which there are truly substantial third party references, but there are many of great importance: the situation is similar to journals. In practice, tho we don't word it that way, the effective criterion for journals is that papers there are highly cited (as measured by the impact factor from Journal Citation Reports). This can apply to conferences also. The difference is that for most conferences, the papers there are preliminary results and not rigorously peer reviewed & therefore  not highly cited as compared with journal papers by the same authors. There are two classes of exceptions: ones where the papers are major review articles in the field, and ones in engineering where they are the basic means of publication.  I'm not sure about this one. Ido not think it is  one of these exceptions, and I think the publications are mainly just abstracts, as is common with many conferences.  I would need to check, & I  cannot do it this week.
 * But personally, I would include in WP articles about all journals used as references here, and all major conference series, however, I doubt this would have consensus. The compromise solution is therefore to write the articles about the sponsoring society and have a section on the conference. That is probably the best thing to do here.
 * The main thing I think we want to avoid is writing articles on individual conferences in a series. This would amount to our being a nonselective index or bibliography.  DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Updating Genpact page on Wikipedia
Hi David,

I hope I'm writing to you in the correct manner. If not, please instruct me how to do so.

Thanks so much for your help on updating and protecting the Genpact page on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genpact.

We have more proposed edits to the page. A few are noted in the Genpact Talk Page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genpact including more references in the History section, and more countries with references in the Locations section.

We would also like to create a few more sections including many references. The new sections would be: 1) Company Timeline (Including Acquisitions) and 2) Services and Vertical Industries Served.

Our major competitors have very similar sections on their Wikipedia pages.

Thanks in advance for your help and guidance.

Sincerely, Christian Wzt5zb (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Many pages on business organizations at WP are excessively promotional, and have not yet been corrected or deleted. We do not want to add to their number. (You mention a comparative page; I've taken a look at it: my impression is that it needs substantial improvements.) Keeping that in mind, and referring to the list of proposed changes on the article talk page, (1, a list of acquisitions is appropriate content, but it would be better to write it as a paragraph than a timeline. Timelines are in general to be discouraged as non-encyclopedia style, better suited to corporate presentations. (2) "with the goal of enabling outstanding efficiencies." is meaningless jargon. All changes in corporate structure have that intent.  (3)For the sections on services and vertical industries, please propose a paragraph; it should not be overly specific or detailed.  (4) As you say,   " in BPO and IT outsourcing, stakeholders like to see countries of operation" That's exactly why they don't belong here. Encyclopedia articles are not written for stakeholders, but for the general public; content directed primarily to those who are current or prospective investors or clients belongs on your web site or other sponsored publications.
 * I'll make some of the changes.  DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks David. We appreciate you and will propose paragraphs soon.Wzt5zb (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi David, I have proposed more edits/paragraphs for the Wikipedia page on Genpact at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genpact. I tried to include several references but the Genpact/Wiki talk page wouldn't allow me to post them. How should I share them with you? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzt5zb (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Wzt5zb (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi David, I would like to request your assistance on a few things. 1) As per your direction, I proposed edits to the Genpact talk page for Recent Acquisitions, Partnerships and Joint Ventures written in paragraph and encyclopedic/factual fashion instead of bullet points, with many neutral references. The result was Wiki editors turned them all down. Please check it out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genpact. How do we get this right for you guys to publish more content on the page? It's becoming very time consuming and frustrating, writing, pulling references to no success. Genpact competitors have way more information than Wiki is allowing Genpact to post. I find this unfair. Check them out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Group. Can you please help? I'm willing to do whatever is needed to work with you/the Wiki process. I'm trying here. 2) You said for us to remove any timeline related text and provide a link to it on the company website with that content. I proposed this edit with the result of Wiki editors rejecting it as well. How can we get more information posted on the Genpact page? 3) The page also has a box on the top that says the article has major issues. I've tried to follow the process you/Wiki have described to update the Genpact page. How do we get the negative marks removed from the top of the page? Thanks for your assistance.Wzt5zb (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi David, Can you please help with the requests above?Wzt5zb (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you. I will try again to propose neutral content.Wzt5zb (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I did remove most of the box,as much of it has been dealt with in the current version. That one of the major contributors has COI is a statement of fact which will remain.
 * 2) if the request is to insert a list of locations, another editor agreed with me that it was unsuitable. I have no right to over-rule the consensus of other editors, even if I disagree with it. And in this case, I agree.
 * 3) As for your requested edit on acquisitions, are you seriously asking to include a section beginning "Genpact continues to enhance its capabilities and expand globally through acquisitions, partnerships and joint ventures." ? Try writing a version without advertising, and I'll consider it. So me useful steps to take in rewriting are:   avoid adjectives to the extent possible,  use the company name as little as possible, and eliminate business jargon like "onboarding."
 * 4) As for comparisons, Tata Group corresponds more to the original GE, of which Genpact is a split. The relative size and importance of the two is disproportionate by two orders of magnitude: Tata is 50 times the size. I think I've said this before. Making sure all competitors large or small have the same depth of coverage is not the policy of a NPOV encyclopedia.

Hi David, Can you please revert the Genpact page on Wikipedia to what we had previously – just a few days ago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genpact

Someone reverted the most currently made edits, that were implemented and approved by you. Someone added defamatory remarkings including (It treats its employees very badly and there is undue office politics leading to very high attrition rates.) Can you please remove? Also the top section only included: This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source.

And the citations have been messed-up to include broken links, that were previously working. Also, can you please add another layer of security? This is about the third time the site has been vandalized.

Thanks so much for your help. It's much appreciated.Wzt5zb (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks, wzt5zb Christian

Hi David,

It appears the Genpact Wikipedia page has been marked for speedy deletion. Can you please advise on how we can avoid this scenario?

Thanks for your help. 8.19.113.13 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Wzt5zb (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Belle Knox AFD #2
The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

Academic
Hello. Do you think Gu Su is notable? Got his books in the library? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * the books are in very few US libraries, but Worldcat isn't helpful for Chinese libraries, and even if I could find the necessary sources for that, I couldn't read them. He seems to be a full professor at one of the very best Chinese universities.  DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)