User talk:DGG/Archive 103 Aug. 2015

                                       ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,        NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                               In Popular Culture      Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D 
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

 

            DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Pharmatek

Can you so kindly explain why the page "Pharmatek" has been deleted? I cited the significance of the company and did not include any promotional language. I gutted it down to the least but it still seemed to get deleted. Do you have any suggestions or advice for creating the website for the company???? (EunChae0928 (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC))

The primary reason I deleted it was no indication of significance. There are dozens of CMO awards each year., and there's nothing else relevant. Furthermore, to make an article, you will first need to find references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The item in http://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com is essentially a press release--there's not even a author specified.

We need outside references to show your importance.Your earlier version gives a reference to this article,which at least has an author & is therefore attributable. And this is also a usable reference.

Furthermore , some very basic information is missing: I only learn from the Bloomberg profile [1] that you are in fact a private company, tho it seemed likely from the article. There is no information provided about the size of the firm or market share. I recognize most privately owned companies do not release public financials, but they normally indicate at least the number of staff.

The most important factor which makes a pharmaceutical company notable is not mentioned: have there been any notable products for which the firm was responsible, if only for the early development? From the absence of the information on the site, I gather this is considered confidential. If you cannot release the information that would show notability, how can there be an article? If you can add some information, then try again, using the WP:Article Wizard and declaring any financial conflict of interest according to out <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use> (and <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure>) . DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind response. The other users that deleted my page only linked certain guideline pages without giving me any explanation so I highly appreciate your kind advice. Just to clarify, the sources I cited are Pharmaceutical magazines that are published but are simply in webpage form. In the previously deleted article, I mentioned and explained our product but got deleted upon promotional language and advertising when it is a notable product in the Pharmaceutical industry. The guidelines and volunteers who edit and review the articles all seem to have different points of views so I am not sure who is credible or not...but I will try editing it upon review again and try submitting it again. Thank you for your kind help, DGG! (EunChae0928 (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC))

Reference errors on 31 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Paul R. Sanberg page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion: Saad Rasool

Dear DGG you are requested to look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saad_Rasool. It is a marketing pitch. The subject non-notable. Egopearl (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Texas Commission on the Arts

Write an article for Texas Commission on the Arts [2], and write it in a way so that people will be impressed and be willing to donate huge sums of money to us. Also write articles about all our employees, improve articles of our employees such as Polly Sowell, and make it a stand out agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texas Commission on the Arts (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The only acceptable way to get an article about your organization written is to make a new account under some name, but not the name of your organization, declare on the user page that you have a conflict of interest with the organization, and then use the WP:Article Wizard, where you can request someone write an article. If anyone cares to, they will. We do not make articles just because someone tells us to, but your Commission might be a suitable topic.

However, we are an encycopedia, not a publisher of press releases. No experienced editor here would " write it in a way so that people will be impressed and be willing to donate huge sums of money to us"--any article written that way is very quickly deleted. . Nor will anyone "also write articles about all our employees, improve articles of our employees". Articles written that way are deleted almost as rapidly.

The individual you mention might be notable, not by serving on the commission, but head of a Texas state department. The chairman would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? Delete article? Are you here to build Wikipedia or destroy it? I found you from Categories: Wikipedia administrators, meaning you are getting paid by Wikipedia to build it, while you are sitting on you ass and doing nothing. And yes serving on the commission makes someone notable, a lot more notable than you. As for Polly Sowell, she was Vice Chairman of the Texas Republican Party in 1972! Tell someone else to do the job if you are too old and lazy for it. I don't want to have to report you. But if you attempt to vandalize any of our employees's article including Polly Sowell, or related articles I will report you and delete all your edits. I'll be keeping an eye on you, so be careful!--Texas Commission on the Arts (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

one quick point before my full answer: Chairmen of US State political parties are notable, not vice chairman. FWIW, anyone who has ever served in a state or national legislature is considered notable. Presidents of major organizations are often but not always notable; officers below that level only rarely.

I recommend that you start out by reading our article on Wikipedia, as you seem to be totally confused about the purpose and structure of the encycopedia. I am a volunteer, like essentially everyone here , whether or not an administrator. As an administrator, and I have been one for many years, I have power to delete articles after a consensus at a community discussion, or delete them immediately if it is obvious they will never meet the standards. I delete advertising and promotionalism, and so do all administrators who encounter it. I delete articles about people with no claim to importance, as do all administrators. In all, I've deleted about thirty thousand. I can block people from contributing, as one of my colleagues has just blocked you, because only individuals may edit and you may not have a corporate user name. When I give you advice about what will or will not get deleted, I tell you what is usually done here in similar cases; I'm not perfect, but the results show that I'm about 95% accurate. I am indeed trying to help you, to help you to use your efforts appropriately. There is no point trying to write an article that will not be accepted.

Let me make it perfectly plain--

1. You have no right to tell anyone to make an article, though you may ask.
2. You have no right to have an article about your organization, or any of its members, though it is not impossible that there can be one if it meets our rules
3. You have no right to insist that an article on your organization have the content you desire, especially if it the promotional content you unwisely asked for
4. You have no right to insist we consider notable those whom you consider notable.
5. You have no right to threaten anyone. People who do this are generally banned; I'm not going to do it myself, but some other administrator probably will.
6. If you are banned for violating any of this, all future articles you may make under any name will be removed as soon as identified.
7. If you hire someone to write the article for you, and they do not declare the fact of their financial conflict of interest according to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to the paid contributions without disclosure it is very likely that the article and any other article they write will be deleted when it is recognized. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission

Hi David, thanks for taking an interest in my work on WP, providing constructive feedback to me on BLP's, and for giving considerable thought to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission article.

I want to share with you my latest observations with respect to Raidelaide and the high probability of this being a case of WP:SPA. User:Raidelaide and I have discussed at length ways to improve the article, and I am in agreement with many of the points he/she has made. It was suggested that 'forking out' of article content should occur, and I responded in agreement, but warned that I would not be able to commence such work until September, given the need to appropriately integrate the 'forked out' content into respective pages.

I was not, as Raidelaide has inferred here, attempting to dominate or control the article, merely expressing caution with respect to a new editor which had previously made a destructive edit which ignored WP:Preserve.

Today I visited the article, ready to roll up my sleeves and commence the heady work of forking out content from a long (agreed, much too long) article- and I found that all the content Raidelaide had expressed an interest in had already been deleted, not forked out at all.

My discussions with Raidelaide can be read in full on the article's respective Talk page. The number of references in the article plummeted from around 230 to around 60. While Raidelaide has clearly studied many WP policies in detail (in many cases, in greater length than I am yet to) this apparent indifference towards WP:Preserve is a major inconsistency.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this, and will attempt some forking out using History pages in the mean time.

Best,

--Danimations (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Almost everything he removed is what I suggested be removed. Yes he should have merged some of that, but this is of course much more difficult, and perhaps he trusts that you will add it where appropriate from earlier versions in the article history. Just say "material added from versionid of ..." There's some more I want to remove also: the list of future visits. In a case where there is ground for potential interpersonal conflict, and the conflict can be evaded by adjust the articles, it's usually best to evade, thus focussing on content instead of personalities. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks David, all sound advice. Much obliged. I'll proceed with the forking out, using the History log... though as a Visual Editor user, it means I'll have to reenter the ref's again manually. This is quite an impost as over 100 ref'd items are gone from the current version. I was affronted by this new editor's eagerness to delete and reluctance to move anything him/herself. Seems at odds with WP:HERE. --Danimations (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if you ordinarily use VE,why not switch to the rgular one to move the refs? DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good idea, I'll have to play with it. I use wiki markup exceedingly rarely, and only really started contributing to WP thanks to VE. --Danimations (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Hey Dave, I noticed you suggested merging at Nash Engineering Company, is this what you think is best? I'm not sure if you've also noticed Perion Network has been noticeably improved since you nominated it so I'm neutral but may change to keep although the article could've been better. Also, would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Baldwin (writer)? Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ping, hopefully you haven't forgotten about this section. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I meant what I said. I wa suggesting a merge at Nash. Perion was closed as keep,and that's ok with me. I don't think Baldwin notable, but not worth an AfD2. When you notify me, it would help if you did it a little earlier in the AfD case than these last two. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I know and I was going to but I wasn't expecting it to be closed as soon as that. Simply out of curiosity, do you think a consensus/discussion will be needed for that merge? (to quote Dr. Seuss "I meant what I said and I said what I meant, an elephant is reliable 100%!") Also, in that case, these AfDs here may interest you. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft Device Emulator

Dear colleague! I have in Wikipedia in Russian a status, which permits me to make decisions to delete or keep an article or some other page. Today, someone created a Russian translation of this "article". Another user candidated it for speedy deletion (empty or very short article without encyclopedic content), and I deleted it. Possibly, it is here not A1 but A3 (I am not a professor about the rules of Wikipedia in English); it is also A7: the "article" contains three links, two of which point directly to microsoft.com, and one to a site of a person working at Microsoft — so, independent authoritative sources are not presented. Why do not you want to delete that page? Gamliel Fishkin 11:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Gamaliel Fishkin, I did not speedy delete because the reason given was wrong. At the enWP "No context" mean only that it is impossible to tell what the article is about, which is different from the ruWP criterion of a very short article providing insufficient content--it's much narrower. Our criterion no content, is also applied very narrowly. This just escapes it,and , if the subject is notable, permits expansion. The question of whether stubs are deletable, either at Speedy or AfD, just for being very short stubs has been raised several times, and the consensus is that they are not. The other possibility would be A7, no indication of importance. At the enWP, that cannot be used for products, only people, groups and companies. See WP:CSD for the justification of these limitations, and the voluminous archives of WT:CSD for very extensive discussion, particularly for why we do not use A7 on products. If it were a company article as scanty as this, I would have used it.

Whether the article will hold up here I do not know, but AfD is the way to find out. If people can find references showing it's importance it will; otherwise , I doubt it. But I don't know the role of admins at the ruWP--we do not at the enWP have discretion to use our own interpretations of speedy deletion, or regard it as a loose set of principles; we're expected to interpret it narrowly, and refer it to the community when in any doubt. Part of the reason for that here is that if we permitted admins discretion in such matters, there is so little agreement among admins about what should be in the encycopedia that there would be a vey wide range of interpretation and new contributors would have no way of knowing what to expect. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Lia Chang

This is a BLP article that apparently has been the subject of COI editing. It reads like a laundry list/CV to me and not an encyclopedia article, and I am very uncertain how to make this an encyclopedia article. If you are interested, I would like your opinion on the first, and if you have the time and agree it is not encyclopedic, I would love to see how you would edit it, to make it right. Issue is a bit loaded as we have had an editor protesting at COIN that the COI concerns are cloaking anti-asian bias. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

At least, she's clearly notable, and the AfD is absurd (works in permanent collections of museums). The article should focus upon that. (btw, I would not have said " relationship," but "connection". If you don't see why, ask me. I would also have said not "Lia Chang" but "Lia Chang and other artists whose bios you have been working on here" )

As for fixing it, cutting out about half would do it. Straightforward PR, as are many of our bios for contemporary artists. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

yes I agree the subject is NOTABLE; I've been debating over whether TNT is a better answer than "keep". Thanks for making some passes over the article but in my view is still a lot like a CV (bullet points formatted into prose, essentially). That is what I am really struggling with how to fix, to make a reasonable WP article out of the essentially promotional piece of hackwork that it is now (in my view) (ack) The question is, in an article that is all details/bullet points, which do you get rid of? Getting rid of all of them, leaves nothing or a severe stub. (hence my deliberating TNT)

bullet points are easily coverted to prose ; it's a matter or style , not content. The decision to use TNT is up to the community--my nominations on that basis are not always supported, and ditto for those by anyone else. The results may be pretty much random, but results at a borderline always will be. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the tip on replacing "relationship" with "connection" - I do think that is more apt (less likely to lead people to think I am asking about personal relationship) and will use that going forward. Am interested to hear exactly why you think it is better though. Thanks. Thanks too on the "other artists" thing - I implemented both. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

yes, that was exactly the reason. I use "relationship" with articles on companies. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Bridgenex

Hi DGG. I recently wrote an article about Bridgenex and received a notice that it was deleted due to A7, an eligible subject with an article that doesn't explain it's importance. I'm wondering if you have any tips on how I can change that. I tried to remain impartial and neutral. However, Bridgenex is very notable and I don't know how I can edit the article differently. I'd appreciate any feedback. Thank you! schiappetta (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

to produce an acceptable article, you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Your principal reference is a press release published in a community newspaper, and the court case is trivial. I see no reason why this small business service company should have such references. If it should ever become significant enough to have them, then try, using the WP:Article Wizard

Considering that you have come here to try to write only 2 articles, one on this company and another on its president, it is possible you have some association with the company, in which case I remind you of our rule on WP:Conflict of Interest, especially our our Terms of Use, and, if it should apply,particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure . DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission

Hi David, thanks for taking an interest in my work on WP, providing constructive feedback to me on BLP's, and for giving considerable thought to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission article.

I want to share with you my latest observations with respect to Raidelaide and the high probability of this being a case of WP:SPA. User:Raidelaide and I have discussed at length ways to improve the article, and I am in agreement with many of the points he/she has made. It was suggested that 'forking out' of article content should occur, and I responded in agreement, but warned that I would not be able to commence such work until September, given the need to appropriately integrate the 'forked out' content into respective pages.

I was not, as Raidelaide has inferred here, attempting to dominate or control the article, merely expressing caution with respect to a new editor which had previously made a destructive edit which ignored WP:Preserve.

Today I visited the article, ready to roll up my sleeves and commence the heady work of forking out content from a long (agreed, much too long) article- and I found that all the content Raidelaide had expressed an interest in had already been deleted, not forked out at all.

My discussions with Raidelaide can be read in full on the article's respective Talk page. The number of references in the article plummeted from around 230 to around 60. While Raidelaide has clearly studied many WP policies in detail (in many cases, in greater length than I am yet to) this apparent indifference towards WP:Preserve is a major inconsistency.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this, and will attempt some forking out using History pages in the mean time.

Best,

--Danimations (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Almost everything he removed is what I suggested be removed. Yes he should have merged some of that, but this is of course much more difficult, and perhaps he trusts that you will add it where appropriate from earlier versions in the article history. Just say "material added from versionid of ..." There's some more I want to remove also: the list of future visits. In a case where there is ground for potential interpersonal conflict, and the conflict can be evaded by adjust the articles, it's usually best to evade, thus focussing on content instead of personalities. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks David, all sound advice. Much obliged. I'll proceed with the forking out, using the History log... though as a Visual Editor user, it means I'll have to reenter the ref's again manually. This is quite an impost as over 100 ref'd items are gone from the current version. I was affronted by this new editor's eagerness to delete and reluctance to move anything him/herself. Seems at odds with WP:HERE. --Danimations (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if you ordinarily use VE,why not switch to the rgular one to move the refs? DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good idea, I'll have to play with it. I use wiki markup exceedingly rarely, and only really started contributing to WP thanks to VE. --Danimations (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP at talk page question.

I have recently run across this at a talk page of a BLP. (Redacted). I think this is a BLP violation and should be removed from the talk page however I am leary of removing others' talk page remarks. Your advice would be appreciated, if you have a moment. Thanks. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Which talk page?(or specify the diff or the edit id) DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Here it is. [3] Capitalismojo (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I have my answer as you (or another admin) have permanently removed the BLP violation, however as a note the editor who posted that has doubled down on the BLP violation. [4] using the edit summary "fuck you wikipedia, please block me." And seems to think this is a conspiracy. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I and another admin. I noticed the 2nd one myself and have given a short block, in order not to make too much of it at a controversial article. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok then. Wow that was fast. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Hey Dave, I noticed you suggested merging at Nash Engineering Company, is this what you think is best? I'm not sure if you've also noticed Perion Network has been noticeably improved since you nominated it so I'm neutral but may change to keep although the article could've been better. Also, would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Baldwin (writer)? Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ping, hopefully you haven't forgotten about this section. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I meant what I said. I wa suggesting a merge at Nash. Perion was closed as keep,and that's ok with me. I don't think Baldwin notable, but not worth an AfD2. When you notify me, it would help if you did it a little earlier in the AfD case than these last two. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I know and I was going to but I wasn't expecting it to be closed as soon as that. Simply out of curiosity, do you think a consensus/discussion will be needed for that merge? (to quote Dr. Seuss "I meant what I said and I said what I meant, an elephant is reliable 100%!") Also, in that case, these AfDs here may interest you. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft Device Emulator

Dear colleague! I have in Wikipedia in Russian a status, which permits me to make decisions to delete or keep an article or some other page. Today, someone created a Russian translation of this "article". Another user candidated it for speedy deletion (empty or very short article without encyclopedic content), and I deleted it. Possibly, it is here not A1 but A3 (I am not a professor about the rules of Wikipedia in English); it is also A7: the "article" contains three links, two of which point directly to microsoft.com, and one to a site of a person working at Microsoft — so, independent authoritative sources are not presented. Why do not you want to delete that page? Gamliel Fishkin 11:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Gamaliel Fishkin, I did not speedy delete because the reason given was wrong. At the enWP "No context" mean only that it is impossible to tell what the article is about, which is different from the ruWP criterion of a very short article providing insufficient content--it's much narrower. Our criterion no content, is also applied very narrowly. This just escapes it,and , if the subject is notable, permits expansion. The question of whether stubs are deletable, either at Speedy or AfD, just for being very short stubs has been raised several times, and the consensus is that they are not. The other possibility would be A7, no indication of importance. At the enWP, that cannot be used for products, only people, groups and companies. See WP:CSD for the justification of these limitations, and the voluminous archives of WT:CSD for very extensive discussion, particularly for why we do not use A7 on products. If it were a company article as scanty as this, I would have used it.

Whether the article will hold up here I do not know, but AfD is the way to find out. If people can find references showing it's importance it will; otherwise , I doubt it. But I don't know the role of admins at the ruWP--we do not at the enWP have discretion to use our own interpretations of speedy deletion, or regard it as a loose set of principles; we're expected to interpret it narrowly, and refer it to the community when in any doubt. Part of the reason for that here is that if we permitted admins discretion in such matters, there is so little agreement among admins about what should be in the encycopedia that there would be a vey wide range of interpretation and new contributors would have no way of knowing what to expect. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Lia Chang

This is a BLP article that apparently has been the subject of COI editing. It reads like a laundry list/CV to me and not an encyclopedia article, and I am very uncertain how to make this an encyclopedia article. If you are interested, I would like your opinion on the first, and if you have the time and agree it is not encyclopedic, I would love to see how you would edit it, to make it right. Issue is a bit loaded as we have had an editor protesting at COIN that the COI concerns are cloaking anti-asian bias. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

At least, she's clearly notable, and the AfD is absurd (works in permanent collections of museums). The article should focus upon that. (btw, I would not have said " relationship," but "connection". If you don't see why, ask me. I would also have said not "Lia Chang" but "Lia Chang and other artists whose bios you have been working on here" )

As for fixing it, cutting out about half would do it. Straightforward PR, as are many of our bios for contemporary artists. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

yes I agree the subject is NOTABLE; I've been debating over whether TNT is a better answer than "keep". Thanks for making some passes over the article but in my view is still a lot like a CV (bullet points formatted into prose, essentially). That is what I am really struggling with how to fix, to make a reasonable WP article out of the essentially promotional piece of hackwork that it is now (in my view) (ack) The question is, in an article that is all details/bullet points, which do you get rid of? Getting rid of all of them, leaves nothing or a severe stub. (hence my deliberating TNT)

bullet points are easily coverted to prose ; it's a matter or style , not content. The decision to use TNT is up to the community--my nominations on that basis are not always supported, and ditto for those by anyone else. The results may be pretty much random, but results at a borderline always will be. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the tip on replacing "relationship" with "connection" - I do think that is more apt (less likely to lead people to think I am asking about personal relationship) and will use that going forward. Am interested to hear exactly why you think it is better though. Thanks. Thanks too on the "other artists" thing - I implemented both. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

yes, that was exactly the reason. I use "relationship" with articles on companies. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation

I think we could perhaps revert Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation back to before the SPAs Kianpark and Kdic1130 added loads of stuff to it. Note that "Kianpark" = KDIC International Affairs Team, as they have said, and "Kdic" is the acronym of the company. Since you're the last established contributor to it, what do you think? —George8211 / T 09:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I will get there today or tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A blanket revert is not practical, as there have been appropriat edits since then. Instead, I have begun removing the eworst of the material. I will consolidate the history section in a few days. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft created by undisclosed press relations person

Noticed on Draft:Braam Malherbe that the page creator was named PRBraamMalherbe, obviously suggesting it is being created by a public relations person, but this wasn't disclosed. I wasn't sure what to do in this situation? Please advise if you get a chance. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

we have no detailed rules for what counts as disclosure. I usually go by the intent of the rules, and in my opinion, this is close enough. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Interlude (interactive video)

Hello, DGG: This is a learning opportunity, precautionary, procedural transparency note and a self-audit request for your opinion. I don't think this is a particular issue really, and nothing is specifically needed unless you deem appropriate. From our previous interactions (thank you) as well as your input in various discussions on the corpus I have identified you as being a good source for me to pose a self-audit opinion question, please. The background is Interlude (interactive video), which has had a very long history on the AfC pathway but which had not advanced from draft to mainspace. I had edited the article a while ago and then left it be for a long time. It showed up on my Draft article list as the article with my most edits that had not been advanced. I then saw it had just been resubmitted and rejected again. I then went back to it and implemented the various AfC recommendations, step by step. I trimmed from 16683 bytes to 12760 bytes, a good proportion of which is hidden text, that I propose to soon remove. I also rearranged and reorganized the text elements. Having extensively followed all of the AfC suggestions, rather than submitting through another AfC review, which I thought might not be useful, I advanced the article to mainspace as, although imperfect, it now seems to me to be reasonable for dissemination. This will also avail it of a greater use pool for any upgrading needed. Because I sidestepped further AfC input, I hatted the text as a new article, for procedural transparency and also to trigger a NPP review. I propose to remove the hidden text once there has been an opportunity for mainspace comments. This note is not about any proposed changes to the article itself so much as a placeholder for auditing any input regarding the procedures I followed. I do not see people doing this much, but my searching didn't find a prohibition on stepping off the AfC path and tagging it as a new article either. No reply is needed unless you deem appropriate, but please let me know if I was way off on this individualized process. (I am not proposing to make this a routine thing.) FeatherPluma (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What you did is perfectly legitimate--if the article is in the end acceptable. I've done it sometimes--the only real reason I go thru the RfC acceptance process is to get the articles in the right category & added to the statistics. The real problem is that PR people do this rather frequently, without improving the article. I have learned for some types of articles before deleting a G13, to see if by any chance the article is in mainspace, and if so, whether it's acceptable. Sometimes it is, and it is the reviewer who was in error, and rather than argue it, the person just bypassed them. Considering the quality of some reviews, I can well understand them.

The fundamental principle to understanding WP procedures is that there is no underlying principle or system. There are multiple ways to do anything, some of them devised by programmers wanting to display their cleverness or take care of every unlikely contingency they could think of. Not all of them had actual editing experience.

As for the article, it's not my field, but it looks fine to me. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

DGG: Thank you. Very clear and helpful. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For all the abuse you are getting at AfD.

Bearian (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

For the last year or two I have been deliberately trying to stretch deletion process a little in both directions, to see if consensus is changing. To keep things responsive, somebody's got to, and better me than someone with a coi. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Romano

Hi, you seem to be quite experienced with these kinds of issues, could you please commen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Romano. Thanks--Dolly Cao (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 04

17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Gordon Manche NPOV

Is Gordon Manche neutral enough now? 12.180.133.18 (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

commented at the AfD DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

E.P.G.Wills Ltd

I noticed you added a "construction" tag for this but all my searches found no good sources and the company was only founded within the past year so I'm not seeing this as fully notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they are likely to be notable either, but I wanted to give it a chance for a day or two, because the history was confusing. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Einstein

See WP:EINSTEIN. Expand, mock or delete as you see fit... Guy (Help!) 14:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 20:59:01, 6 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Eloisekirn

• Eloisekirn (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:David V. Schaffer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. Thank you for your feedback on my pages. I have updated my username to reflect my conflict of interest and follow the COI compliance guidelines. I'm not sure if this is how the process works (I'm completely new to Wiki), but do I send you edited versions of my pages? I don't want to keep resubmitting until I am banned or something...! Below is my revised page for David V. Schaffer. Please let me know if it is in accordance with Wiki protocol. Thank you again!

David V. Schaffer, PhD new article content ...

David Schaffer is the Co-Founder, Acting CSO and Co-Chairman of 4D Molecular Therapeutics and a Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Bioengineering, and Neuroscience at University of California, Berkeley. At UC Berkeley, Dr. Schaffer serves as the Director of the Berkeley Stem Cell Center. He leads the Schaffer Research Group, which "applies molecular and cellular engineering approaches to investigate biomedical problems focused on engineering of stem cell and gene therapeutics." The Schaffer Lab's research on stem cell bioengineering, gene delivery systems, and molecular virology has applications in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering.

Education

Dr. Schaffer earned his B.S. in Chemical Engineering at Stanford University in 1993 and graduated from Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering in 1998. He then conducted a postdoctoral fellowship in the Fred Gage laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies before moving to UC Berkeley in 1999.

Awards

Dr. Schaffer has received an National Science Foundation CAREER Award, Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award, Biomedical Engineering Society Rita Shaffer Young Investigator Award, and Whitaker Foundation Young Investigator Award. In 2002 he was named a Technology Review Top 100 Innovator and was inducted into the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering in 2010.

Publications, Editorial & Scientific Advisory Boards

Dr. Schaffer has over 150 scientific publications, including articles in Development, Molecular Systems Biology, Nature Communications, and Gene Therapy. He serves on 5 journal editorial boards and 5 industrial scientific advisory boards. He is currently the Treasurer and a Board of Directors member of the American Society for Gene and Cell Therapy and serves on the Board of Directors for UniQure (QURE, NASDAQ).

External links

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=DetailsSearch&term=schaffer+dv&log$=activity

Eloisekirn (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

−

the basic rule is very simple--it is very highly preferred that you not write about your relative's company at all. If you wish to do it nonetheless, you are not actually prohibited, but our experience is that people closely related to the subject will find it very difficult to judge the importance and the appropriate material to include. It will put the burden on the relatively small number of experienced editors interested in such companies and people to either guide you step by step or --what is often faster-- to rewrite it for you.

−

The way of working on the articles is by resubmittedthe AfC--not every time you make a change, but when you think you have gotten it right. Don't paste it here--it's just confusing.

I gave you advice already on your user talk page: " Reduce the awards to the most important ones--and removing grants, which we do not include, say what are his most cited paper sand give the statistics from Google Scholar or elsewhere, link the article properly to the articles for the schools, and remove the links within the article to things for which we do not have articles.And find some external references to his work. Then resubmit."

You have not indicated which of the papers are important, or given ay citation statistics. You have not specified which particular substances he has actually worked or been primarily responsible for--tho that can be shown indirectly by specifying the key papers). You have not added material or references from outside his own web site. You did trim down the awards (I note that the original included fellowship offers he declined,as well as those he accepted. I've never seen anyone include these on a CV or article before!).

When ready, resubmit at afc. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Noel Whittaker

You think this should be nominated for AfD to see if it's fully notable? Achieving all that would suggest at least some notability but my searches found nothing good specifically about him (here, here and here and there's probably more at local news sources) and I simply think the article could a little better. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've several time tried to delete article on members of the Order of Australia, and never succeeded. And see WorldCat [5] for his books, many of which are from a major publisher. Relatively low holdings, but I would not expect to find many outside Australia, since they seem mostly specific to the Australian tax and financial environment. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the swift comment! I'll go with my instincts and leave it be for now then While you're here, I encountered Sean Fletcher and Isabel Reichert and if you look at the history, you'll see content was once added but removed by the subject (which the article has been heavily edited by them, BTW) and the current version is almost basically nothing. The best my searches found was a passing mention at News for a family obituary, this (being the best results, a few news from 2006/7 but nothing significant) and more passing here. My instincts say speedying this is better and quicker (which I have tagged as such) and I don't know if the subjects wanted the current version like that or because they didn't want the original content. Definitely not notable at Wiki standards though. Comments? SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that one basically amounts to their withdrawing the article--assuming it was they who created it, which is not clear. Otherwise, it's asking for their article to be taken down, altho they had previous accepted it by participating in the editing, and that is another matter. I see significant reviews of their work in the earlier history. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for me!

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Manche--I clearly need a hug, or a vacation.

Drmies (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Ruse (book)

Can you take a look at this situation? Ultimately what we have here is a case where I think that someone's conflict of interest is too strong.

User:009o9 wrote an article at the request of Robert Eringer, who has paid him for the article. That I do not have a problem with since he disclosed this and ran it through AfC. However I think that his COI is causing him to see more notability than there is. Here's my issue:

1. The article used random user reviews from Amazon and Goodreads in the reception section. I have never seen these used as a source for notability and given that anyone can write a review on either of these sites, they undergo absolutely zero editorial oversight and as such, should not be on Wikipedia in any context. The only time material from these sites can be added is if a secondary, reliable source comments on the average reader ratings on these sites. There is one review from a reliable source, but that's it for reviews.

The Amazon and Goodreads reviews do not go toward Notability, nor were they intended to, they were provided for completeness. The article passes Notability on WP:BKCRIT 1. Two reputable articles about the book 2. Has been written about in connection with a notable event and likely 5. because the author Robert Eringeris quite notorious and Notable. 009o9 (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

1. The article also relies quite heavily on inherited notability from the author and the topics that it discusses. The book is very briefly mentioned in some news outlets, but it's always in passing in relation to something else. By large these topics are already on the author's page (it's talking about his career as a whole) and since the only in-depth source that is in the article is the news review, I don't entirely see where this would warrant its own article. While he writes about his career in the book, the notability of his career doesn't automatically mean that it warrants a page and I'd like to see more coverage that specifically goes into depth about the book.

This is opinion, I'm following policies and guidelines, of course a memoir about 10 years of a person's life is likely to also be mentioned in that author's biography. Information like that is repeated liberally in the Wikipedia for completeness. 009o9 (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

1. 009o9 also argues that since the book is by a notable author and in the Library of Congress, that it would pass on that criteria alone. However neither of these things guarantees notability, just makes it more likely.

No, the Library of Congress is an additions caveat in NBKCRIT as shown here, WP:BKTS I was merely pointing out that the book also passes this criterion. 009o9 (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I voiced these concerns quite clearly on the article and 009o9's response was to tell me that I was wrong and to resubmit it without any attempt to find further sources. I absolutely hate to say this, but I do think that his conflict of interest is posing too strong of an issue here. If he'd tried to find other sources I wouldn't have had an issue, but for him to just say "no, you're wrong" and to resubmit it is very, very troubling. If you believe that this passes NBOOK in its current state I'll accept that - my only requirement is that the self-published Amazon and Goodreads reviews have to go. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I added page numbers per your request and edited my Statement to reviewer to make it easier to locate the references that prove notability. Again, only one of the five criteria in NBOOK need be met, you misread a reference on a quick review and I pointed it out to you, what's the big deal? Again, the reviews are only for completeness, my client would probably rather have them out of the article, I included them for WP:BALANCE.

I can only go by the policies and guidelines and there is another title that was proposed and turned down because it did meet Notability. You presented me with a vague statement about an Amazon and Goodreads discussion, so in addition to not providing a link to the policy or guideline, you did not provide a link to the discussion. There are thousands of instances of Amazon.com and Goodreads on Wikipedia, somebody is referencing them and there generally are exceptions for informational pages -- I'd simply like to see your source.

The Amazon reference that you are against is an informational page, NOT the sales page. I could really care less about the Amazon or Goodreads reviews, I just don't appreciate section blanking and then leaving it up to another editor (reviewer) to review a portion of the work. --Cheers -_009o9 (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

-- Reply

1. there are more extensive problems than just with this article. The article on the author Robert Eringer written by the same editor, also has major coi and WP:BLP problems, and is in large part devoted to some relatively minor legal matters. The article on his novel Lo Mein (book) is both over-detailed, and on a non-notable subject, (the reviews are local only, and the book itself is in a total of only 11 libraries according to WorldCat [6]. I have accordingly listed it for a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo Mein (book), where it is apparently being defending on the basis that two college newspapers reviewed it.
2. An autobiography or biography normally does recount the life of the subject. But the article about the book itself doesn't need to if the subject is notable--all that is needed is a simple link. The technique of trying to get 2 weak articles when one would do is a reasonably sure sign of promotional intent. Gruing to also write an article on the most minor of the subject's works is an even clearer sign.
3. the written guideline at wikipedia are summaries, interpreted by consensus.The notability guideline is actually quite clear on that. There are two good faith alternatives with material such as this: either write an appropriately brief and nonpromotional article, or mention the book in the article on the author. What will not do is writing an over-expansive article on the book as well as one on the author. No non-promotional editor would do that.
4. Declaring a conflict of interest, though necessary, does not give a license to write whatever one pleases. In particular, it does not give a license to write advertising for a book, or an author. Nobody may do that, coi or not, but a coi editor is obviously much more likely to, especially a paid coi editor. This group of three articles is indicative of the reason why many of us think that paid coi editing should be bannned entirely from Wikipedia. That is not current policy, but the only good reason is that it would drive the people to not declare, which wouldn't improve the situation; another way or wording it, is that we simply cannot stop it. If this sort of editing continues, it may drive us to adopt such a rule nevertheless, to give an more effective weapon against this sort of editing. It won't cure the situation--we will obviously be in an never-ending battle against promotionalism.
5. There's another factor. A wise coi editor will make a reasonable case for his edit, but not argue for his work too intensively. The reason coi is a problem is that it prevents one from judging objectively. Having accepted a paid job, (or writing for self-promotion) on has no way of making a sound judgement about whether the article is suitable. The only proper attitude is to write the best you can, and then leave the judgment to the community. Trying to defend the indefensible is proof that one's judgement has been corrupted. What the editor is doing is against the interests of the person who paid him. It's the most effective way I can think of to get the material deleted.
6. If one is to accept money for writing for any platform (and I have done so myself, though not here), the first thing to do is to learn what the platform wants, and then to write accordingly , and on a topic they will accept. And if one finds out one is wrong , the most foolish thing to do is to argue with the editor or reader who has told you. I have long known Tokyogirl79 to be among the very best editors for articles about books and authors that we have, and her advice here further confirms it.
7. The appropriate response if this continues is MfD for the draft article, and considering an afd for the biography, as so promotional that it needs to be started over by a unbiased editor. (sometimes known as WP:TNT). This won't be settled on my talk page, and discussion should now move to the articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

AfDs

I sent you a message about two AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultratech, Inc. and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skypatrol LLC) a few threads ago but I guess you missed them. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Independent South Asian Cine Fest was also relisted in case you want to comment. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"First the MfD must close"

About your edit summary here: are you sure this is a thing? I've csd tagged quite a few articles at MfD before, and nobody seemed to be particularly bothered. Also in this particular case it was the guy who created the MfD speedy tagging. If he had taken one extra step and withdrawn the MfD before tagging, would you have deleted the page?Brustopher (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher, depends on the circumstances; in the present one, you're certainly right, and I deleted it. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

I recently asked User:Daniel Case to review some DYK noms I planned (see User talk:Daniel Case#DYK which includes broadnose sevengill shark), I think this could easily be a GA or FA and I noticed today's FA is Entoloma sinuatum (which looks close to my article's detail and sourcing). You'll notice the broadnose sevengill shark was significantly improved (and is by far notable) and has quite a bit of info for a "Data Deficient" species. Thoughts? SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I stay away from GA and FA discussions, unless I come across an article with manifestly absurd FA or GA tagging. The article seems fine to me, though I wish we had a more spectacular photo, but whether it meets the standards of the reviewers I cannot tell. There are all sorts of places at WP where people go about their own thing in their own way, and the only practical way to work here is to let them, and not try to have a presence everywhere. DGG ( talk ) 12:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Page Question

Hi, I was wondering why you felt the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_It_Cheaper needed deleting? When writing the page I provided all notable references as asked to by the moderators and the business type and page is very similar to sites such as Moneysupermarket.com and Gocompare.com. I made a comment in the talk section to see if changing the title to Makeitcheaper.com would help? Also I cannot see any promotional tone in the article.

If you could provide any feedback I would be most grateful.

Thanks,

Smustieles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smustieles (talk • contribs) 09:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Smustieles, see WP:Articles for deletion/Make It Cheaper for a full explanation. I will take a look a the other articles you mention--at least half our articles on small and new businesses are based only on their press agentry. In earlier years WP accepted many such promotional articles, but as we have become a more attractive place for attempted advertising, our standards have risen. It will be many years until we remove the 50,000 or so articles we need to get rid of, but the least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 12:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

DGG Thank you for getting back to me on this and for the full explanation. When submitting the article I changed the references numerous times as per the advice of the moderators who were evaluating its inclusion. I also took out any text that could be deemed promotional as this is in no way an advertisement for the company. I tried to model the page based on Simply Business as this is a similar type of business to Make It Cheaper. If it is the references that are an issue I can try to find more suitable ones that adhere to the notability guidelines.

Hello Smustieles, just a note that Signing your posts on talk pages (normally using four tildes (~~~~)) is good practice, and facilitates discussion by helping identify the author of a particular comment.

Your comment has also triggered my boilerplate generator, so I hope David won't mind if I mention that, when using an existing article as a comparison or an example to work from, it would be better to use a recognized Wikipedia Good Article. You can find lists of recognized Good Articles about companies at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesses & organizations. A Draft need not be quite so comprehensive or comprehensively referenced as these to be accepted, but they can help to give an idea of the sort of sources, sourcing, and tone that is required.

Sadly it is the case that Moneysupermarket.com and GoCompare.com have invested huge sums in vast, endless, and profoundly irritating promotional advertising campaigns, in the United Kingdom at least, and the resulting widespread awareness of their brands is likely to have generated significant coverage in independent sources that may simply not exist for their smaller competitors. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

MaxxCAT Search Appliance

DGG, You have recently tagged an article that I contributed to citing G11, and it was subsequently deleted. This article is written in a neutral viewpoint, it is not spam and it is non promotional. I followed the Wikipedia guidelines and worked through Article for Submission with other editors. The MaxxCAT Search Appliance is notable in the Search Appliance segment. It is notable for it speed and was instrumental in helping to push the search appliance into popularity along with Google GSA, Thunderstone and others. Proper channels were followed to ensure proper referencing and attribution to notable sources. MaxxCAT is notable globally among IT professionals in Enterprise Level Corporations. Please help me get the page reinstated, or if you could make the content userfied I've asked TokyoGirl as well, I'm not sure who has the ability to do so) so we can discuss what qualified it as G11, I can make the proper edits. This was a very fast deletion and I didn't have the opportunity to discuss it with you. GForsytheMC (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)GForsytheMC

GForsytheMC, either of us could restore it. I don't intend to, but if by any chance Tokyogirl79 does, I will give you a short chance to rewrite it before I nominate it for a deletion discussion. without it being vey much changed. The article is an advertisement for the following reasons:

1. It is addressed in the second person, "You". Advertisements do that, not encycopedia articles. Advertisements and promotion tell the reader what the company would like them to know; encycopedia articles tell concisely what an ordinary reader having come across the subject might want to know.
2. It contains an extensive list of features, mostly routine
3. It contains detailed information of available versions and pricing
4. It contains promotional jargon about the company "to develop a new enterprise search technology which focused on high performance and scalability", fpr example# Most of the references are to the company website.
5. Your arguments that it should have an article because of its high quality is irrelevant. Wp does not make such judgments.

In addition it is not clear that it meets the notability standard--the references outside the company site are mostly press releases and articles merely mentioning it among other products. Even what might look like a review (in TMC) is just a reprint of a company press release "MaxxCat says...." You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements or based on press releases. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

DGG Thank you for the response all of your points are well received. I will change it extensively to remove all that concerns you. All I ask, is that you keep an open mind to restoration of the page. I have read your bio and I know you desire good content on wikipedia, so I am asking again to please restore it so I have an opportunity to make it right. A little knowledge and advice goes a long way toward creating a better wiki. I desire this article to be professionally written, to be encyclopedic, and to address all of your concerns at the same time. It was never my intent for it to be an advertisement, but rather an important reference to a product that is very notable and influential in the Search Appliance space. That's why I didn't create the article directly and submitted it through AfC so others like yourself could work with me on creating a good article. Obviously this left some things that needed corrected. I was shocked to get such a rapid G11, but with your explanation, I can see what lead to the G11 and where it could have been improved.

1. Addressing the references first, There are other reference sources from traditionally published materials by O'Reilly, and the European Union that I found, but was unsure of listing since they may be hard to reference being physical copies and not online. Someone with your level of access would find them very easy to validate though so I will include them while I continue to search for online versions.
2. I'll remove anything that sounds promotional
3. Agreed, the second person context has to go, thank you for bringing that to my attention.
4. My argument for inclusion is that it is a notable industry leader in the Search Appliance Market with a global install base. Before MaxxCAT, there were few commercially viable options for enterprise and small business outside of Google GSA. If you would please work with me to make a better article it would be greatly appreciated.
5. If you or Tokyogirl79 decide not to restore it, what are my options to get the page republished? Can I rewrite it significantly and resubmit through the AfC ? Are there other resource or admins who help people just starting out on wiki? GForsytheMC (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)GForsytheMC

• First of all, I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you have a financial conflict of interest, either directly or as a paid editor, you must declare it on your user page or user talk page or when making the edits, according to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. If by any chance you are writing with the intention of being a legitimate paid editor, I must inform you in a neutral way that very few people have done this successfully, and those evading our rules are banned as soon as detected and all their articles deleted. If you're just involved with this company, that won't apply, but it remains very difficult for someone with a COI to write an acceptable article.
• Printed references are acceptable. Before you go further, please read WP:Reliable sources for an explanation. When you use them, provide an exact page number for the reference and a short quote of at least a few key words, so it can be determined if it is more than a mere mention.
• I remind you again that the intrinsic merit of the product are irrelevant to WP. We depends on what reliable sources say.
• To continue, submit an improved article that clearly shows notability with reliable sources and is free from promotion. I can not tell from the information provided whether this is possible, but it might be. If it is good enough, it will be accepted. If borderline, it will be sent for a community discussion. The community decides, not any one individual. It is possible to appeal individual decisions to the community, but I would not advise doing so with the present article, because in my experience you will not succeed, and it will prejudice future attempts. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• I won't restore it, but I will e-mail you a copy of the article for you to fix. My requirement (other than the ones that DGG stated above) is that you run this through AfC again. This should not have been accepted via AfC, as it was pretty unambiguously promotional. This may have been something that you did not detect because you have a conflict of interest, as this is a common issue with paid editors. Odds are in most cases that you have a marketing background and are so used to promotional language that you just can't see why something sounds promotional. However it was something that the accepting user (PotatoNinja, who I'm pinging in this discussion) should have detected and in this case the onus was on them to not only detect this promotional language but to decline it and ask you to fix things. There's a bad habit with AfC for people to accept articles that aren't ready and I've had one editor say that they'll accept problematic articles in the hopes that someone else will fix them once they go live. None of this is your fault and I'm mostly saying this in the hopes of giving you an explanation as to why it was accepted via AfC, only to get deleted in the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, DGG Thank You, you have been very helpful, I certainly want to avoid this in the future. I don't hope to be a paid editor, I just want to contribute in this space where I am knowledgable and help to keep other articles updated with accurate content. Are either of you willing to take a look at my draft or can either of you recommend someone who is good at AfC reviews. GForsytheMC (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)GForsytheMC

AfD for you

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anavex Life Sciences. thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

commented. This has implications for many existing articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Trade2tradewell deletion(s)

I was considering starting a COI action vis-a-vis Nadine Burke Harris and noticed that you'd been the last one on the talkpage of the article creator, Trade2tradewell, concerning the deletion of what looks like another bio. Is there anything I should know before I proceed? — Brianhe (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated Harris for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadine Burke Harris Promotional bio, tho probably meets the GNG, unless one considers the NYorker article as the fruit of PR. The first article by Trade2tradewell that I noticed was GAMCO Investors, which was nowhere near as promotional when he wrote it back in 2006 as it subsequently became. I spotted that one because I was doing a check on investment firm articles in general for promotionalism and non=notability--I do such subject-oriented scans from time to time in various susceptible fields. There is an obvious concentration upon a specific field, but I rather doubt in amounts to COI--there is no reason to suspect paid editing that I can see. (I thought it fair to ping him here if we're going to talk about him) DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Lots of IPs, rotating IPv6 addresses and probably two named accounts; opened SPI here. I suspect involvement of a family member based on one of the usernames & IP geolocation. - Brianhe (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

=Millard H. Alexander Resubmission

I am resubmitting the article on Millard H. Alexander for review. I have tried to make the page sound less like a press release and more like an encyclopedia entry, namely

a. I have shortened the article considerably b. Dates of degrees, and the dates of previous positions are now given in the sidebar c. References 5 and 6 have been added to provide the desired reference to" independent, reliable, published sources" for the importance of Alexander’s work. d. I have removed the list of Alexander's notable publications as this seemed more like a CV heading

Mickwarehime (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

yes, Mickwarehime, you improved it & another ed. properly accepted it; but why did you add the list of pubs back again after it was accepted? DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

An AfD for your consideration

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phytoserm Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

commented there. I like you're keeping track of these. Pls continue to let me know, preferably before the last minute, because I no longer see every AfD routinely. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs

Hi DGG, If I'm reading the Berkley Center's edits correctly, I believe you were the person who posted the two warnings that currently appear on the page. What do we need to do to remove those? I have gone in an added additional non-BC sources to diversify the references but I don't want to do too much more to the page given the other warning. For a time, I believe there were Berkley Center students who may have been adding to the page, which might have caused some of these issues. Thanks for any help you can provide. The page is quite innocuous, we mainly just want to get the warnings removed. I am getting weekly calls from my boss about this. Thanks a million in advance, Erin --Leland524 (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you are an employee of the center, and if so, you have a WP:Conflict of Interest. As our guideline there says, Wikipedia discourage writing about topics where you have a close conflict of interest, because in practice however well-intentioned it is difficult to have the same objective judgment as an uninvolved editor. The principle of WP:Neutral point ofview is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia, and we would not be an encycopedia if we compromised this. Certainly, those connected with an organization may have relevant information that should be added, so the recommended way of adding material when one has a conflict of interest is as follows:

Add the material to the article's talk page, not the article page itself, and place a {{request edit}} tag on the talk page, after your suggestion. (include the double curly braces on each side)

In addition, if you are associated with the organization as a paid employee, you must explicitly declare this, preferably on the article talk page. See our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure This is not optional.

Please call this to the attention of your boss. The subject of an article has no control over an article.

As for the warnings, since it was edited substantially by a coi editor, we will continue to say so. As for self published sources, almost everything remains a self published source. You need additional references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Additionally, I've added a tag saying it reads like a press release, because it does. the programs section needs condensation: much of this, including the faculty belongs on your web p., not an encycopedia. The activities section has too many subheadings. Find one or two logical groupings. Remove PR jargon like "designed to promote tolerance and intellectual engagement with diversity in the curriculum and in co-curricular activities" or "develop student experiences surrounding the connections between the global challenges of poverty and education. ". Avoid adjective , e.g. "key" Avoid trite phrases like "around the world" . Try for compactness. The basic rule is that if it reads like it would do for a web page, it won;t do for an encycopedia. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Alignment Artist Capital

Dear DGG: I write seeking specific feedback on why you deleted a page for Alignment Artist Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_Artist_Capital. You deemed unambiguous advertising/promotion as the reason; however, to suggest that is to suggest that anyone creating a wikipedia page for any commercial venture, enterprise, social cause or individual is, by default, engaging in some form of advertising or promotion. In this particular instance, the entity is new, concerns public figures from the music industry as well as an established financial institution and has been subject to a range of news articles and discussions from reputable publications.

The music industry, the preservation of intellectual property by creators, the means by which artists who create and perform music can secure resources to continue to create and more related topics are of interest to the public, are dynamic and controversial. Alignment Artist Capital is an entity at the intersection of these aforemention subjects.

I would greatly appreciate specific feedback on what can be done to reinstate this entry. Thank you.

Regards, Jeanne P. Meyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.195.50 (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to already have gone ahead and done so. And you seem to have figured out many of the problems yourself, because it's a better version, much more concise and less spammy. You really should have used WP:AFC because of the conflict of interest, but its OK--please remember to explicitly declare the COI on the article talk p and your user page.

As for improving it: The organization is notable. The long article in Billboard goes a long way to showing that, though most of it is a long quote from the organization itself. The same is true for the Forbes article. You could use one or two other 3rd party articles also, preferably without that problem. In the entertainment field, the LA Times is usually considered a good source. There are some wording problems. You cannot say unique unless you have a direct third party source that says so. You need to reference the HBR study--I'm surprised there is one so early. Saying " with a four to five year horizon into the business entity of established recording artists, songwriters or producers." is a little too much jargon, especially since the articles say they're looking for relatively new artists. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

www.northerntransmissions.com in spam

Helllo DGG! I would like to know is it possible to take out my page "www.northerntransmissions.com" from spam list? i was not trying to promote my page, i just wanted to put some information about this music magazine, and because i am new here, i didn't expect that this can happen, I think, that the page is very important for wikipedia for several reasons: 1) Because this is old Canadian music magazine, and my friend spent 20 years of his life for developing it, and i think people has to know it. 2) It's very informative source about music as in Canada as worldwide 3) Because it helps artist and people to communicate with each other.

Page was deleted at 00:16, 26 July 2015 I look forward to hearing from you, thanks a lot!

Cheers, Yuri

I denied the request. We do not provide shopping links. If you want to write an article about the music magazine, not the web site, that may be possible possible. Use WP:AFC. and do not include the full link anywhere in the article or the title. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete request re Valsoia

Thanks for letting me know. Could you do an undelete of this so I can retrieve the text and totally rewrite it to guidelines?

MTIZ

Michael Michaelbenis (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Michaelbenis, it isn;t yet deleted, so if you move fast you can copy it right now. If you do not get there in time, let me know and I will email it. But please be aware of the discussion at WP:COI -- you will need to submit it through WP:Article Wizard. The best rule in rewriting is to avoid adjectives. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

DGG, thanks. Have copied and will follow your advice with extensive rewrite/cleanup.

Michaelbenis (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Malformed template at Olfa_Youssef

DGG! Thanks for putting effort in at Olfa_Youssef. However, one of your edits left a malformed template, and perhaps it's because I'm not used to using the improve template, but I'm not even quite sure what it's trying to say. So you may want to take a look and fix it for what you intended. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks; fixed. Thereare additional refs in the frWP; I only added one of them. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding Material to articles only serves to draw the attention of editors who nominate articles for deletion

Hi DGG,

(This is a continuation of similar threads on your talk page in 2012 and 2014). I have been away for a few months, and when I started editing again, I was hoping to be left alone to help build areas that, in my opinion, are sorely lacking.

On 8 August 2015 5 I found a little visited article about a very important organization: Condo Owners Association (Ontario) (which has an article here under the incorrect name) and at 17:10 I started renovating the whole area surrounding Category:Condominium on Wikipedia. According to recent news reports 50% of new home buyers in Toronto are now purchasing condos, and the number of condo owners is staggering, considering how little information exists on Wikipedia on this topic.

As usual, however, it appears that my efforts to build up have attracted the attention of the deletionist faction. By August 9 the article that was getting no attention at all for months, was up for wp:AfD, and instead of continuing my efforts to built this neglected Codominium area, I find myself spending more and more time getting into conflicts with other editors intent on deleting whatever else is associated with this article. I seem to have been unsuccessful in trying to convince another admin that the article that is now getting very little attention at AfD should be moved to its correct official name.

This is very discouraging, and I know that posting this on your talk page will undoubtably bring out more of the same, sigh… Ottawahitech (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It might help me if you could specify the articles involved. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying.; response forthcoming. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I consider it a little too much like a press release, and this will inevitably affect people's attitude towards it. Possibly there might be a little advocacy in some of the other articles also. The last thread is now at [7] DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I belong to a (dying?) minority of editors who like to work on articles that are not yet developed. Unfortunately it appears that my edits only serve to bring those articles to the attention of editors whose mission is to nominate articles for deletion. I have been asked before to provide examples of this phenomenon and thought : Condo Owners Association (Ontario) can be mentioned as one because no one paid attention to it until I started to work on it.

I am worried that my sad conclusion is also shared by others, which means few editors will be working on improving wp:stubs around here. Thanks btw for finding the 2014 thread - I am unable to locate the 2012 one tiles Useless stubs because the Edits by user tool is broken (another sigh...) Ottawahitech (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It also looks like posting a link to an article at Helpdesk is a good way to send existing long-time articles to wp:AfD. See for example Wikipedia:Help_desk#Lynn_Walsh, I think. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

For those interested, I moved the discussion of this particular point to Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk#Deletion_of_articles_referred_to_in_questions_here. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a dual mission here: One is to try to keep everything suitable for an encycopedia. The other to to remove promotionalism. Lately, due to the flood of promotional articles, the second has become more important--even critical. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia.

There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. It will take years, but work on them as I see them.

Normally I send a long standing article to AfD rather than to speedy unless it's utterly outrageous--t will not be deleted unless the consensus agrees with me. I accept the consensus there as the guide in establishing standards. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Kent Lai

This article was recently created. Do you think Lai is notable? I doubt it, given the sparse coverage of him in reliable sources and his low h-index according to Google Scholar. Everymorning (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

in any event, it wasn't a valid speedy. Asserting that someone is a full professor at a major university is an indication of plausible importance. I think it's possiblethat he may be the leading contributor in his niche. h index is not necessarily a good standard. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hope I haven't misapprehended a typo in your expansion of the article, as I went ahead and put in a '>' to close the ref just before the Research section to make it show. — Neonorange (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

you did it right. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

AFD with local/regional focus

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Rivers Multimedia Film Festival Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

AfDs

You're welcome to comment at the recently relisted AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Association of Pennsylvania Municipal Management, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Gifts Catalogue, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Patterson (this one is quite obviously non-notable), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Vincent Family Centers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Literacy Project, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everyday Explorers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FSH Communications, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duff's Brooklyn and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecosystem Corporation. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I rely on intuition about the likelihood of finding sources, and in two areas I don't possess any: sports, and popular music. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

I wanted to gain your opinion on this article. I started it and it's been expanded by User:LovinTheSunshine. This is either a very very good expansion or a somewhat WP:UNDUE situation. None of their edits have been problematic but this is also the only article they've edited since joining. I've asked on their page to gauge if there is a COI but the first question is the WP:UNDUE aspect regarding the court martial and it is well presented so I don't want to mangle it either. Would appreciate a look see when you have a moment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it as an attack page. Clear BLP violation. Despite graver accusations, the actual conviction was over rather minor crimes, with the verdict being only a fine and a reprimand. Nothing else about him is potentially notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please at least restore it to my last version. Mine was not and the subject is notable. He was a flag offier and I had considerably less details about the court martial to avoid that sort of thing. It was the later additions that I wanted to check on. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me think. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the most I had [[8]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I undeleted everything and left it as you have it. I am going to take it to BLPPN and ask if there should be revision deletion. or deletion of the entire article. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok I think it will pass the deletion but maybe recreation with only the material it has now would be the better option. He defintely passes the notability factors as a Flag Officer. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

see BLPN here I'm not going to involve myself further. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

though I did comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Allen Sinclair DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems its bad luck asking for Ur help on articles I write lol ;), no worries it will all work itself out in the end. I believe it will be kept but if not consensus rules for good and bad. Thanks again DGG, your opinion is appreciated. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnn y Terris

Why are you trying to delete Johnny Terris again? It's been approved and sources have been in place. This page has been in a constant fight for it to be back on since it was deleted via vandalism and lying attacks from people off tumblr. Leave the damn page alone. What is the problem here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.238.169.74 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Terris (2nd nomination), not here. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to work wikipedia that well. It's over there now. Can you explain there please.

Lisa Schultz

Hi DGG, I had recently created a page entitled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Schultz and when I hit save it was posted. You have recently deleted it. Is it possible to move it back into draft status so that we may may make edits so that it is compliant? Most of the information was lifted directly from a recently approved Wiki article, but it had not been edited before it was posted.

Thank you.

Awaken2sun (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If the information is already in another WP article, it's still there--at least until we can decide whether it might be better removed or even the article deleted . This is promotional editing, as agreed by me and another administrator, and I will not assist it. Just in case it should apply, I remind you of our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hi, I noticed your proposed deletion of Western acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment -- are you saying this is an unjustifiable split from Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Nuclear Program of Iran, Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or some combination? I think it is justifiable because the acceptance article can look at a much narrower topic (simply uranium enrichment), while staying away from other issues such as sanctions, ballistic missiles, committee hearings, Arak, Parchin, reprocessing, Iran-IAEA agreements, and so forth. This will make it possible to go into more depth on the narrower topic -- there is a lot to say about it -- though the article does not do so, yet.

Two more pieces of information which are two-edged swords (on the deletion question), but certainly relevant in any case -- the authors of the other article believe it would be "duplicative" to explicitly say that the Obama policy has reversed the Bush policy. The reader can tease that out, of course, but the article does not say it explicitly. I think this can be looked at two ways -- on the one hand, it makes this article look like a POV fork; on the other hand, the statement is clearly both true and encyclopedeic, which suggests that Wikipedia should have an article where it fits in.

Additionally, I earlier started an article on Nuclear concessions to Iran, which did pass initial review. This article passed initial curation but currently does not exist, mainly because User:Neutrality insisted that it was a POV fork and a coatrack, and furthermore that the information in that article could go into the JCPOA article -- though subsequent events are causing me to doubt the accuracy of this last assertion -- and frankly, appears to be more willing to keep reverting than I am. I don't know what the process is for such situations, but I want to keep on the "good side" of Wikipedia policy and therefore have lately not pressed the issue. I don't know if "concessions" is a coatrack or not -- certainly plenty of speeches have been given about it. But by keeping the focus narrower, as I am doing here, I was hoping to avoid that issue. The overall picture is a bit disconcerting -- the article which arguably has second issue (coatrack) did pass initial review, while this one, which pretty clearly does not have the second issue, did not pass initial review. I realize that no one person intended that upside-down state of affairs, but there it is.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. Sorry to invade your talk page, DGG.

Iran nuclear weapons 2: the "doubt the sincerity" remark above is completely uncalled for. I and other editors have worked extensively with you on the JCPOA. Many of your edits have stuck; others have not; and there's been back-and-forth on some items. That's in the nature of wiki. To imply that we have reverted wholesale your contributions is just wrong.

As to the earlier "Nuclear concessions to Iran" - we had an extensive conversation on the talk page, and as I wrote there, there were serious POV fork and coat-rack concerns there. And it wasn't just me; there was another editor (e.g., Jo-Jo) who raised the same concerns.

This new article (Western acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment) raises many of the same POV fork concerns - and I agree with DGG that it's an unjustifiable split. Moreover, it's based on the premise that there was some sharp shift in "Western" policy (itself a weird concept, since the U.S., Britain, France, etc. had varied policies) from pre-JCPOA to post-JCPOA. In fact, this is false, or at the very least lacks nuance: see here (noting that "the potential to discuss with Iran the conditions under which it could continue enrichment is not new. In fact, it is built into the proposals that the P5+1 have offered Iran since 2006, spanning the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.").

To the extent that some historical discussion is helpful—and I agree some is!—I just a few seconds ago added context to the JCPOA article (footnote F) addressing it. Neutrality^talk 00:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, edits on subsidiary issues have stuck. Yet the fundamental, central concession, the reason so many people are frightened, is not mentioned; the JCPOA article goes on and on about this restriction and that, without mentioning that the Western powers have abandoned their attempts to stop enrichment. Still, I'll change "sincerity" to "accuracy" above. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Our usual practice is to keep entries on political topics comprehensive,with the exception of clearly distinct concepts such as a particular agreement or document. Whether this is the ideal course or not, I do not know, but it's the usual approach here about NPOV. But think of my prod just as a alert; ultimately, AfD will decide, in its usual inconsistent way. I do not intend to get involved in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Google

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Google. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Peace Project page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

11:10:12, 16 August 2015 review of submission by Laoswikiedit

• Laoswikiedit (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wolfram Wöß (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi DDG,

could you please give me more pratical hints on what the article misses for acceptance? According to previous reviewers, I changed the writing style, I shortened the whole article, I added independend and reliable sources (Austrian television broadcasting service, newspaper articles, radio reports etc.) as well as references to done research work, but apparently this is not enough.

In addition, I don’t understand the claim that the page reads more like an advertisement, as the content is based on the information of a public University and not a private company website trying to attract possible customers.

Laoswikiedit (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"As author and lecturer, Wolfram Wöß has already been able to attract attention to the JKU at many international conferences, especially as he continually works as a reviewer for international journals and conferences" for bios of academics, we don't even mention conference talks and reviewing, let alone use them for explicit praise of the subject. Other promotional terms: "focal", "not only the" Other inappropriate writing: use of his full name, we just use Woß, or "he" after the first time; not including dates for degrees, and positions. We only link each other WP article once, not every time it is mentioned. We don't use capitals for fields of study--the links work fine without it. Vague terms:'several" "topics in" "numerous" There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP with similar problems accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower It will take us years to remove them all, but the least we can do is not add to them.

Worse, I mentioned some of this specifically in the comment. Did you read it? If you don't read advice, why ask for it?

And as I mentioned, notability is borderline. Borderline notability+promotionalism will probably lead to deletion if the article is submitted. We don't accept articles at AfC unless they are likely to pass AfD. My suggestion is to wait until he receives a major award at a national level. Compare his notability with other people at the institute with articles here, and you'll see the difference. They all have significant honors, such as Fellows of AMS.

And worst of all: you presumably have a conflict of interest; if so, you must declare it, especially if it is a financial conflict of interest, such as being an employee or press agent at the institute or BMW. See our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. This is not optional. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Anuradha Bhattacharyya

To meet notability standards, many more publications, links and references as well as redirects to Wiki articles have been added. See edits to the page Anuradha BhattacharyyaShe is a versatile writer of worldwide repute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Bhattacharyya (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

From your user name , it is possible that you are a relative of the subject. But I will recheck DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting a Speedy at Make It Cheaper, which obviously deserved to be fully considered. I wish more Administrators were as rational. Yours sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert Deletion of Disaster Recovery Institute International

Can you please help me understand why you deleted this? I checked the page when it was posted and it seems solid to me. There is a legitimate claim that this org is long time educational institutes. There was no discussion either. It was not an ad, and is no different than other certification agencies that are granted Wikipedia status. I'd appreciate a conversation and community debate here as well. Thank you Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I am the creator of this piece. I would ask for its restoration, as there was nothing wrong with it. It was valid, referenced, and represents a genuine facility that provides education and certification. This group certifies just like a associate school, DeVry for example, TCI, and its certifications are as valid as EMTs. Veggies 2 (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. More socks than in my sockdraw! SmartSE (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you are so adamant here. One of your focuses are on academics and this institute is heavily into academics, and not merely an organization looking for notoriety. Looking at SmartSE's edits, I would think an educational facility would be something you would enhance for these pages instead of quickly eliminating it. Veggies 2 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the article gives no third party evidence that obtaining its credentials are officially recognized as required necessary for any recognized profession--unlike such credentials as EMT. essentially every reference which is not pure puffery about such trivial things as $3,000 donations to charity is from the organization's own PR. If the organization is notable, someone without a conflict of interest will write about it.

The article on TCI is in need of great improvements, but at least they are a famous organization. when you compare your organization with the two best-known organizations in the general area--organizations furthermore that actually do award degrees, and have many programs required for major professions, it indicates your conflict of interest is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear DGG:

That was a very helpful, albeit contemptuous reply. Now I understand how to make this piece better and I appreciate the help. I will continue to work on this and improve on the piece to make it worthy of this venue. Thank you Veggies 2 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If you can do that, fine. Remember to use only one account, and declare any conflict of interest according to our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Kumar Atul

Hallo David

Could you check whether the new article Kumar Atul is any improvement on the one which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Kumar (2nd nomination)? (Assuming it's the same person). The names have been reversed because the correct title is salted. Thanks. PamD 19:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I aso notice that the editor who has created this article (in their first edit) has username "Cdricsir", and Kumar works at "CSIR-Central Drug Research Institute". PamD 19:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The was deleted despite probable notability because on the unencyclopedic manner in which it was written--and the way the afd was argued. The current one was not much better, but it was easy to rewrite as a stub, & I moved it to the correct title. . If anyone doesn't like it, there can be another AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

AFD filed. Sock/COI-fest is standard for this person. DMacks (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Odd deletion reason

Hi DGG. I got caught up in a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music community, which was getting a lot of "delete" votes. The subject seemed notable, although the article was a mess, so I rewrote the article completely, blanked the page and replaced it with my version. I think the result is o.k. as a start. The same "delete" votes started popping up. It turns out the underlying cause is this blog site article. Several of the delete voters have basically said they do not mind having an article on the subject, but want to get rid of all history of the former article. I was wondering if you care to comment on the AfD discussion, not on the merits of the article, but on getting rid of a past version because it is being ridiculed by a blog site? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

{{[User|Aymatth2}}, We often do this , for instance where the original material is copyvio or hopeless advertising, written by a banned editor, &we could do it here also. (we could in principle equally use revision delete, but it's much less usual to do so unless there is some isolated portion to be deleted). However, my opinion is that this is wholly unnecessary and the article should be kept, and I've given my opinion why at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. I feel stupid for not spotting that the problem was not the article but the blog site comments. Wikipedia gets a lot of valid criticism. When people mention Wikipedia to me I say "there is a lot of rubbish on it, anyone can edit it, don't trust anything you read on Wikipedia", and they say "I know that, my teacher says that, but most of it is accurate enough, and anyway it gives a good start. The links are useful." They are right. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

it was a very well done blog post, and convinced me too at first, at least until I saw who it was that wrote most of the WP article DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Phoenix Project: Shifting from Oil to Hydrogen

Do you think this book is notable? The page about its author (Harry Braun) is up for AFD currently. The book is held in 62 libraries, according to Worldcat. [9] Is that enough? There is not much reliable source coverage except for a mention here. Everymorning (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

62 libraries is not enough for this sort of popular science/advocacy, & publisher I do not recognize. I am not in favor of redirecting non notable books to their authors unless there's a real possibility of an article, because anyone can find the author easily enough on the web. There is no need for WP to duplicate google etc.even for redirects. Too many redirect have been turned improperly into articles -- and they do not show up on NPP. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. As an example, see the history of the article mentioned below. I tend to think that redirects resulting from AfDs should be protected. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it should more frequently be considered as an option-- often the close explicitly leaves it open to recreate an article from a redirect when there is sufficient material. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National Society of Leadership and Success (3rd nomination)

Interested in your thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

commented thee. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The donation of poop, and AfDs

I belatedly draw your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination). (As this has finished, I hope that my message will not be decried as "canvassing".)

There's a curious leitmotif of poop. Here, in more or less chronological ordure:

1. "Who gives a shit?" (What the shit might be about is not totally clear. The biographee? "Gerontology Research Group" "fancruft"?)
2. "Just because you 'don't give a shit' doesn't mean no one else does."
3. "Last of all, it is disappointing to read that members of the [world's oldest person] group in this encyclopedia are stereotyped as 'fancruft' or pinned in a corner with remarks as 'who gives a shit?'" (They are?)
4. "The fact that one other user in this discussion 'doesn't give a shit' about anything else is irrelevant."

My tentative inference: If you want to persuade in an AfD, better to avoid the first mention of "shit". (Though I wonder what Tyler Vigen would say.)

Actually my favorite argument in this AfD for the biographee's notability is that she was "one of the very few women to have held the title of 'oldest woman' in the world and not also 'oldest person'". Uhh.... -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have so far avoided this area. I may change my mind if I reach 120. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hello: I notice that the AfD has been reopened (or its premature close was reverted). This has nothing to do with me. As far as I can remember, I'd previously avoided this area myself. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Everymorning's talk page.
Message added 02:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Everymorning (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

AfDs again

These are probably going to be relisted soon so if you want to comment, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almathera Systems, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Mohsin Nawab Rizvi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engin Limited, Association of American Baseball Research (I know it's sport but it's also an organization, so I'm not sure how comfortable this one's for you), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jondab-e-asadi, Association of Friends of India and South Asia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVC Communications, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compton and Woodhouse, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter C. Brinckerhoff, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Simrock, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Law. These are not going to be immediately relisted but they may also interest you, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Harlan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlackMotor Corporation. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

see my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Mohsin Nawab Rizvi for my current thinking about this problem--I am not actually satisfied with any of the possible solutions. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A belated note...

It was superb finally getting to meet you! I only got to hear the last bit of your talk but was quite intrigued. I look forward to seeing you and the rest of the NYC crew next time around. All the best — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

deletion of Anuradha Bhattacharyya

Dear DGG, it seems that you have deleted the page I created Anuradha Bhattacharyya, because there is no mention of a newspaper article. Maybe, being too eager, I created her page too early. Maybe, i can create some other pages of many poets in India.

For the time being, I will be on the lookout for newspaper articles on Anuradha Bhattacharyya. Or there are other poets like Gopichand or Lopa Banerjee who are quite well known to me. Thank you for the discussion. AtulAtul Bhattacharyya (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Atul

Atul Bhattacharyya You are welcome to try using WP:AFC. The comment you made at the AfD discussion "Writers Workshop books sell worldwide. Fifty Five Poems was mentioned by the Journal of Commonwealth Literature among its 'books received'. Knots was being sold by flipcart until stock lasted. Knots and The Road Taken have been reviewed by notable authors (what if the authors themselves are not listed in Wiki; I think they are also worth listing!). Her other publications have been cited by many scholars. Her PhD thesis is also listed in the Villanova list of publications." does not indicate notability. That her books and thesis exist is not sufficient. There need to be more than mentions, there need to be substantial published reviews in reliable sources. In looking for newspaper articles, try to find some that are not essentially Press releases. I am very much aware of the difficulty for sourcing for authors in this region, but there needs to be something substantial. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear DGG ( talk ), thank you for your reply. I will keep these things in mind. When I get some links, I will copy-paste them over here. Then you can decide finally. AtulAtul Bhattacharyya (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of pending article for creation

Hi David. I received an email at 17:46 yesterday (about 15 hours prior to this note) informing me that the page I have been working on Draft:All Power Lab had been tagged for speedy deletion under G11.

1. My reading of G11 suggest it applies to articles, not Draft AfC, which are under G13.
2. I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind applying this speedy deletion process to such a draft. The quality of the WP resource is unaffected by Afc drafts, and so if an editor or admin feels that a submitted article represents "unambiguous promotion" of a notable subject, a deletion discussion might be a more productive process. Is it bandwidth issue? Perhaps you could elaborate.
3. I am surprised by the rapidity of the process, which began at 5 pm on a Saturday night and ended at midnight of the same day. You have written on your user page: "When I know or strongly believe something is notable (more exactly, encyclopedia worthy in general) then I don't put on a deletion tag, or if some one else has, I remove the tag altogether. If anyone really disagrees, they go to AfD." Yet despite my contestation, you deleted the draft about 7 hours after it was tagged. FWIW I am certain the article meets WP notability standards (if not yours). One editor commented as such, and there were numerous independent secondary sources cited. I had even removed some in response to an editor who commented a few good citations were preferred to a more comprehensive list of minor ones.
4. I'm not sure how G11 intends to interpret "unambiguous" but given my comments in my contestation and my ongoing effort at revision and transparency in response to the comments of other editors, I believe there is unquestionable ambiguity in the article's promotional quality.
5. G13 suggests it is for articles under protest or which have been fallow for more than 6 months, neither applies to this article.

I would appreciate, at the minimum, being given access to the text of the draft so that I can continue the editing process as I requested in my contestation, in hopes of resubmitting the article after an uninvolved editor helps me to further remove the offending, but unfortunately unspecified, violations of WP policy. Nesdon (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

G11 Applies to any page in all of Wikipedia. Even drafts may not be used for the purposes of promotion G13 is indented for use for any apparently abandoned article of any sort which has not been improved in 6 months.Some articles meet both criteria, and both will be given--I've deleted 100s of drafts using G11, with or without G13 as well. G13s are restored on request if there's a good faith desire to work on them. G11s are not: if the subject is notable, it is possible that a totally rewritten article (or , in this case, draft) might be acceptable.

Your draft has been turned down by 4 other editors before I saw it. Further, I merely nominated it for deletion. The actual deletion was by another administrator,FreeRangeFrog who obviously agreed with me. That makes 6 experienced editors here.

A detailed description of the variations available in a product which has not yet been widely adopted is promotion. The draft says what the company would like to say for itself ,but an encycopedia article tells concisely what a general reader might want to know. Sentences like " APL hosts a monthly open house at their facility to share the technology with the public through presentations on the science and technology of biomass gasification and Q and A's with the engineers and staff, during which they demonstrate a Power Pallet in operation whose power is used to charge attendee's electric vehicles, and cook free refreshments." have no place in an encycopedia. Nor does "Open-source plans, CAD files and assembly instructions were distributed for free to encourage researchers and enthusiasts to duplicate APL gasifiers and expand experimentation in gasification and the uses of Producer gas." The details about the early company history is of local interest only.

There still is only one possibly acceptable 3rd party source for notability, the Fast Company article. The rather similar article in gigacom is a site by a market research firm, and not reliable.Thec/net item is from a usually reliable source, but in practice it seems to be based on the company's PR. Most of the other references are apparently either written by the company, or are about the general subject.

My suggestion is that when the company becomes more notable there will be good sources to write a brief non-ptomotional article. If you think you can actually do this already, do so. If you can show me one additional unimpeachably good source, I'll restore it as a draft. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have emailed you a copy. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Checkmarx

Thanks for your comments. I thought I read the guidelines in reliable sources carefully, but I guess I do not fully understand. I am going to look again and hopefully provide more. Can you give me some examples for Checkmarx that would be considered for notability? Thanks for the help.--Weirdedsultry (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Weirdedsultry, some of the rules are best understood by the way they are interpreted. There are hundreds of pages of interpretation discussions at the talk page for WP:RS, and the significance & interpretation of the various provisions of RS are considered in thousands of AfD discussions each year. Furthermore , the consensus about many WP rule can change, and often does. One of the ways it has changed over the last few years is that we much more strongly discount sources that are based on press releases, even if published in a seemingly reliable publication. Checking Google News, there are some possible articles, including this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD for you....

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cornerstone_(Austrian_band) Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Schools

I may be wrong in what I suggested here so your input would be appreciated. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This is just about as borderline as they come. But I'd still like to maintain the compromise, as I commented there. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

As always, feel free to comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramtron International, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spondylitis Association of America, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SurveyShare, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canarc Resource Corp., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDV Solutions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Asael, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCPHOBBIES.com, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbe & Sohn,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SchoolTipline, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMN Healthcare, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aukfa Industrial Co., LTD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automated Systems Holdings Limited, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph F. Cada, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Al-Bazi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armstrong Audio, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Payal Chawla and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Philippine Orthodontists. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you can also take a look at Bonnie Bracey which could use better improvement and I added the best I found from my searches here, here, here, here, here and here but the article needs better. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Restaurant & Bar Design Awards

Hi, thank you very much for explaining what I need to do to make my article look more like an encyclopedia. Sorry that my article came across as a press release, as a new user to Wikipedia I was encouraged to cite as much vital information as possible to make the article look credible, all the judges which were listed I would of presumed were very important factors of the Restaurant & Bar Design Awards being that they are some of the most influential persons within Architecture and Design throughout the world and they are an integral part of the history of the awards. I have looked at other awards articles and there are similar lists of actors names and such, could you outline for me what the difference was with the information I submitted? Also looking at the article now, could you also help with any other ways I could clean things up? Kind regards,

MarcoRBDA (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)MarcoRBDA

Balancing this can be a little trick. Perhaps the best course is to list the ones who are notable in the sense of having articles in wikipedia in a single list. As for other articles, 1) some of them are much better known and more important awards than these 2) there are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your note on Cantonal Banks

Dear DGG,

I haven't found a way to send a normal message, but I do appreciate your note about my Cantonal Banks changes. I will add references to German articles the way you suggested, while expanding the articles will take me a while. If you are watching the articles, you will see the results, If you are not, I would like to notify you about updated versions for your review.

Kind regards, Anna

Amileiko (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the note, Amileiko; this is a perfectly good way to reply, as I've replied on your talk page. Please do notify me when you've dealt with these--I have too many pages to watch for that to be practical. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

About Speedy deletion tag on Michael Tischler

Dear DGG, Thanks for the reasons you spotted out. I have removed the seemingly promotional lines. The information contained is factual. Please re-check the article for consideration. If there's any more promotional stuff, I'll be glad to clear them as well. ThanksNtiele (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

the entire article is promotional in intent, and would be in my opinion impossible to write as a npovarticle that shows notability. "Tischler incorporates cutting-edge treatment procedures into his dental practice." "He brings dental implant, bone grafting, and gum surgery experience to his dental practice in addition to prosthetic and cosmetic makeover dental procedures." DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

???

Just turned down a speedy and noticed it was you that placed it.

Really surprised - I'm guessing there's more to it than meets the eye. --Dweller (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

if you mean Alan Purwin, I should have used just G11, which I still consider valid. If you mean Keifer Phill, I agree U17 as notability is an issue that needs discussion, as does whether U17 is a credible assertion of significance. I am as susceptible as anyone to the tendency to over-delete after lookign at too many NPs in a row, which is why I never do it single handed. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, did I turn down two of yours in a row? Erk. I did mean Purwin. I'll take another look when I'm feeling better - not doing anything serious with a headache. I may have been mistaken. --Dweller (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed Purwin. I'm not sure an AfD would go 'delete' on him, though it might. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

4 minor charges comment

cruelty to children, intimidation of a court official,jumping bail and fleeing the country and assault of a police officer, "relatively minor charges" to you, just wanted to point that out :) take care I/O (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Alpha Hospital Group

What makes you doubt the neutrality of the article?Rathfelder (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

the extent of negative material, in particular the extremely minor deficiency in the last paragraph. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Julian Robertson

You made an edit that messed up a wikilink. I'm not sure if you meant to remove it or what, can you take a look at it? Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks, Jerodlycett (talk · contribs), another editor already fixed it. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy's, King's & St Thomas's Dental Institute

Just questioning your rejection of a duplicate-speedy. So far as I can see Guy's, King's & St Thomas's Dental Institute is the same thing as King's College London School of Medicine: the latter article opens by calling itself "Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medical Education" and it mentions how the United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals was merged into it in 1998.

List of dental schools in the United Kingdom describes the Guy's, King's & St Thomas's Dental Institute as the "Result of a merger with King's College London and United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals in 1998. Known as GKT School of Medicine until 2005." - GKT School of Medicine redirects to King's College London School of Medicine.

So far as I can tell, "Guy's, King's & St Thomas's Dental Institute" was just the first redlink at List of dental schools in the United Kingdom, and User:AndreeaMi appears to have clicked the first two redlinks and written articles there, with a spam ref to DentalSchoolRequirements.org at the bottom of each. They contested the speedy with an argument of "but Wikipedia said it didn't have an article" rather than explaining how the subject was distinct. --McGeddon (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

not quite: the dental Institute is a split from the former United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Question that is quick

I have a question: are admins allowed to view deleted pages,if so I want to see what the text of "Voluntary Houston" page was,the log is here: [10] (I really just want to see it for laughs). Minedigger (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh and by the way I would like to ask you,have you deleted articles that you thought had funny titles,if you can put them here Minedigger (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

1)Yes, we can see them. 2)it was a promotional page about a perfectly real organization in Houston that supports education and social service volunteer activity in that community. An proper article on them would be appropriate here. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Geobrugg - Translated from de.Wki without attribution

First off, this looks like artspam. Secondly its been translated from Geobrugg without attribution. Can you remind me what we are supposed to do in such cases Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

add the attribution--I made the link, but its necessary to find the version. Otherwise, consider as for anything else. I listed it for Speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Tony Robbins?

Is there more context for the speedy deletion tag at Tony Robbins? I'm sure the article needs work, but it could at least be stubbed, and Robbins must meet the general notability criteria a thousand times over. Zagalejo^^^ 15:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree he's notable. I used a tag not for that, but for promotional: consider sections 4 & 8.1 , the see-also section, and considerable parts of 2, 5, the lead paragraph, and the infobox. The sources in the book section are unreliable or deceptively listed: he was no.1 on the NYT self-help list, which is much less prestigious than the main list. The list in that section of notable people he wrote about is name dropping. And look at the edit history, where almost all the material added ( as distinct from technical edits and attempts to remove the promotionalism) is by obvious spas. When there is this much promotionalism it is better to delete and start over. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. Someone else has removed the tag. I actually wouldn't mind stubbing the article, leaving a brief description of what Robbins does and maybe a list of books. Zagalejo^^^ 16:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Professor Emeritus?

Hello again. Is the notability criteria the same for a professor and a professor emeritus? (Question inspired by my attempt to review Draft:George C. Christie.) Thanks! Julie JSFarman (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A profesor emeritus is someone who has been a professor. The title is changed when they retire. Notability, once acquired, is permanent. Christie is therefore unquestionably notable by WP:PROF, as having held a named professorship in a major research university, and I accepted the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. Of course. Thank you!JSFarman (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

== Please comment on [[Talk:Conduit (company)#rfc_2FF28E9|Talk:Conduit (comp