User talk:Jpbowen/Archive 11

Proposed deletion of The Rutherford Journal


The article The Rutherford Journal has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Ephemeral journal, no independent references, no indication this meets WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Oxford University Press journals


A tag has been placed on List of Oxford University Press journals requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.oxfordjournals.org/en/our-journals/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Um. This is accurate: it is a G12 copyvio. That said, even if it wasn't, as a bare list I think it might well be considered duplicative of a category. I checked Category:University of Oxford and there currently does not seem to be one, have you considered creating it? That's definitely not a problem for notable publishers. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This was created to match List of Cambridge University Press journals. How can a list of journal names be said in your own words [quote from above!]. Do you expect the journal names to be paraphrased from the actual names?! This page was deleted very quickly before I could contest it (I work too!); please send me the source for the page since I spent considerable effort adding the correct Wikipedia links for the journals, thank you. In any case, I believe Oxford University Press would be only too glad to have this public information on Wikipedia. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, I have no idea how you could make it not a like copy of the publisher's own page. That's a bit of a problem. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of The Rutherford Journal for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Rutherford Journal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Rutherford Journal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree – but that is Wikipedia life. For information, I have found some related comments WP:RUDE, but that is also Wikipedia life. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Mkdw talk 03:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have replied on the relevant page. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of The Arcadian Singers for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Arcadian Singers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Arcadian Singers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have made some improvements and I believe this notable due to independent reviews. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vernon Systems


The article Vernon Systems has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:NCORP. Promotional article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have made some improvements and I believe this notable – see the article's talk page. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Oxford University Jazz Society


The article Oxford University Jazz Society has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have made some improvements and I believe this notable – see the article's talk page. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Galerie Karsten Greve
Hi, I'm DrStrauss. Jpbowen, thanks for creating Galerie Karsten Greve!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hi, I've reviewed your article! There are some substantial issues in the article which need rectifying, please can you rectify these ASAP. Thank you.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Dr Strauss  talk  12:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have done some improvements, more references still needed. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed "cafe" merge
You may be interested in Talk:Knowledge café. Yaris678 (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

re Creative computing
Which you wrote, but to be honest after reading the article I can't figure out what it means. And I think this is not because it's a hard subject with lots of technical terms, but rather that it's a buzzword and vague marketing-type blather. Since to my mind it doesn't actually say anything useful, I was going to nominate it for deletion (and still might). Here's my take on the matter:

What even is this? I don't see any real evidence here that "creative computing" isn't just a meaningless marketing-type buzzword of limited notability.

As far as I can figure -- and TBH this article not only explains nothing but is actually the rare article where I knew less after reading it than before -- "Creative computing" is just an amalgam of "creative" and "computing", that is, using computers in some creative way ("Creativity, phenomenon whereby something new and valuable is created").

It's just a literal term -- as far as I can figure from the article. We don't have articles on literal terms where there's no new meaning or idiom created by combining the constituent terms, such as "Silver car" and so forth ("A silver car is an automobile in which the metal outer surface is primarily colored silver...").

OK so let's see what the article says.

The lede says "Creative computing covers the area of creativity and computing, addressing the issue of knowledge discovery". Knowledge discovery in turn says it "describes the process of automatically searching large volumes of data for patterns that can be considered knowledge about the data". (Which I guess these patterns would be considered metadata.) It's an offshoot of data mining.

OK. There's a ref for this, which I can't access but the abstract says "creativity has become one of the core competitive advantages in recent years. There is no doubt that knowledge is the strongest backup for it. Therefore, to discover appropriate knowledge for creative tasks is critical. While the seeking of knowledge by other professionals is still within the computing field, Creative Computing starts to think about exploring useful knowledge outside the traditional area" and so forth. Whatever this person is trying to say (who knows?) does not support anything about metadata etc.

OK moving on. Body of the article begins

Da hell. Please do not let me get stuck in an elevator with this guy. This looks like rank blather to me. I recognize it as English, and it's not like there are a lot of hard technical terms, but... I'm not learning anything here. It doesn't really get any better. This article contains words but does not seem to be contributing anything to the sum of human knowledge.

OK, then "A number of university degree programmes in Creative Computing exist" and it lists three. Bath Spa university has one. Let's see... website has "Learn by making. Build imaginative games, web apps, digital interfaces and interactive artworks.... Ever wondered how to code beautiful web apps, bring stories to life through animation, or build those intuitive little smartphone games that you just can’t seem to put down? Our Creative Computing course could be for you."

Fine, but there's nothing there to indicate that they're not just using the words "creative" and "computing" together in their literal sense -- you create code! You create apps! They could have called it "Runcible Computing" and probably would have if they thought it would sell better.

Goldsmith University has "This degree will prepare you to take an active role in the creation of computational systems in arts, music, film, digital media, and other areas of the software industry that require creative individuals... You'll explore how computing interacts with a wide range of other subject areas, including applications in the arts and creative industries".

OK! There's a little more here about being involved, as a computer person, in the creative arts. If "creative computing" meant "the intersection of computing with the creative arts" such as CGI or digital music or whatever, that'd be different. We'd have a different article. But this current article says literally nothing about that and says other things instead. If "creative computing" really is used idiomatically in this way to a notable degree (I dunno -- doubt it) and we want an article about that, then we need to erase this article and start all over.

Wrexham Glyndŵr University, similar: "You will develop industry-relevant vocational skills and gain experience required for employment in the digital media industries". Again, nothing to do with "meta-technology to coalesce knowledge in computing and other discipline" which is how the term is defined earlier.

And none of these are MIT. Goldsmith is part of the University of London, but the other two look kind of small. If MIT and Cambridge etc. were using the term "creative computing" in this manner it might make a difference.

Finally, there's a blurb for the International Journal of Creative Computing which, fine, I suppose. Doesn't seem to be a very notable entity. If its notable enough for a stand-alone article (doubtful) let's have that; if not, it's maybe not a big loss.

But since you're a long-term editor, rather than sending it to WP:AFD I'll give you an chance to maybe address these concerns and knock the article into some kind of shape, if you care to. If you're like me you hate to see your articles AFD'd. Or explain to me here what the article is supposed to be about and maybe together we can figure out a better way to communicate this, if you wish. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The article was created in the context of the journal in this area (in the article) and the multiple university degree programmes with this name (at least six different programmes, referenced in this article, including Queen Mary, University of London, for example). The term is used in the United States as well as the United Kingdom (e.g., at Harvard and MIT – I have added references). With these multiple reputable references, I believe the topic deserves a Wikipedia entry, even if a bit nebulous. It should cover the content of the degree programs and the journal in overall at least. Of course, I am open to improvements but IMHO, I think it passes WP:GNG with the multiple sources. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Herostratus (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Lang Freer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whistler. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mathai Joseph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kindle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conor Harrington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork, Ireland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Wandle Park, Merton
 * added a link pointing to Croydon Park


 * Worshipful Company of Glaziers and Painters of Glass
 * added a link pointing to Ely

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Album article formatting
Hi. I noticed some incorrect formatting on the article you created, Half Brother (album).


 * Song titles do not get italicized. Please put them in quotations.
 * Songwriters do not need to be put in 'small' tags.
 * A "studio" parameter for the infobox exists. "Recorded" is for the recording date.
 * Per the album style guide, do not group Personnel together. For example, 2 names - guitar. It should be individually listed.
 * The correct header is "Track listing", not "Track list".

This is all per the album style guide: WP:MOSALBUM. Thanks! --Jennica ✿ / talk 07:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the corrections! —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Historical society museums has been nominated for discussion
Category:Historical society museums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a difference – see discussion. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Lighthouse in Oxford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Lighthouse_in_Oxford check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Lighthouse_in_Oxford?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Updated, thank you. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rodwell Trail, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bluebell and Blackbird ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rodwell_Trail check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rodwell_Trail?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nelson Balaban


The article Nelson Balaban has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This article is for a Non notable designer. The article was created by a SPA, and written in a promotional tone. Of the four citations, none meet WP:RS and most of them are broken links at present."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Theredproject (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Updated, thank you. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nelson Balaban


The article Nelson Balaban has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This article is for a Non notable designer. The article was created by a SPA, and written in a promotional tone. Of the four citations, none meet WP:RS and most of them are broken links at present."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Theredproject (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Member of technical staff for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Member of technical staff is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Member of technical staff until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America1000 13:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Oxonian for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oxonian is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Oxonian until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shrike (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mike Lesk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ACM ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mike_Lesk check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mike_Lesk?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)


 * Corrected, thank you. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

 * Thank you for this, but you do not say how to join! —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Details can be found near the top of the tutorial page. (Apply Via WP:PERM/NPR). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  01:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

ANO
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Please note also that per WP:COI, repeatedly re-creating an article on your publisher is not cool. Not even slightly. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note this is not "my publisher" in the way you seem to be implying. I was a second co-author of a foreword largely written by the first author in a 2011 book. The new page was not just a "re-creation" but included a criticism section with six additional references, one of which was a peer-reviewed article and the rest largely by academics, including the University of Cambridge. Hardly an advert for this company! I will gain no benefit from this apart from the belief that this company is now "notable" enough compared to a year ago in Wikipedia terms under WP:CORPDEPTH. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)