User talk:DGG/Archive 128 Sep. 2017

ARCHIVES

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

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

Please comment on immediate deletion

Hi DGG, you did a speedy deletion of the article Department of Environmental Health Sciences (Columbia University) when multiple other users said it was neutral and acceptable, not allowing any time to fix the issues. The set up was very similar to other pages: Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University, JHSPH_Department_of_Epidemiology, UCPH Department of Biology, UH Physics Department. Do you have specific suggestions for improvement you could share on my talk page? AW 14:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You need to read WP:COI and disclose User:EHS AW Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laytongku

This is not about the village. It's about its people. The main problem is that the content seems to be obviously copied from one or both of the source books. No Thai, not even a high ranking academic linguist can write English like this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essay on Userpage

I like your essay, but noticed one point about people not declining based on lack of inline citations. In the last 6 months there have been over 700 such AfC declines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_needing_footnotes Can we eliminate that as a reason to decline? I believe AfC is far too tough to pass, forcing the new editor with a notable topic to fully develop and format it, when they are a newbie without the skills and maybe not the interest. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

all or almost all of them are BLPs, which really do need them to survive. It is our policy that they must be supplied. I can understand using it as a reason for these, if the only source is a very general one, or if most of the article seems to be unsourced entirely. Many of the ones where it is used wrongly are older ones--the list includes those where it was ever used as a reason to decline, not just the ones where it is latest reason. , Checking a few, most of them should just be given another reason, some should be removed entirely, and a very few accepted to mainspace. or removed entirely. I don't think we should remove the reason, but we should modify the wording to specify it applies to biBLPs only. Has anyone figured out where the text for the template is stored? It used to be hard-coded. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I believe. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ishall be proposing an umber of changes, some to reduce hostile wording, a few to align with actual policy, and one additional category: nn-spam. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Quite a few pages come through as Blank. I consider them test edits and nominate them for deletion G2. The Blank and Test reasons should reflect the idea they are tests and will be deleted. Shorter and less redundant wording would be great too. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you mean removing redundant wording? Then we're talking about a complete rewrite almost from scratch. I can do that, but it might be better to fix a few obvious problems first. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least on the ones you are rewording. I'll look into these too. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haildhar Madrasah

You recently accepted Haildhar Madrasah as an article, and I, as its creator, received an automated notice on my talk page. But I didn't really create it, see the disclaimer I've put on its talk page. I doubt anything can be done about my mistake, so you should probably ignore this message. Maproom (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom, we can HISTMERGE the two pages, provided we know which page it was copied from. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

A merge would be good. The only clue I have to what I copied is my edit summary "Created draft, from article proposed for deletion". I think the ProDded article was indeed deleted, but I don't know how to check the deletion log or whatever it's called. I don't think I would have changed its name, so if the deletion log mentions "Haildhar Madrasah", soon after 2016-01-18, that'll be it. Maproom (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Laffer curve

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laffer curve. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Draft:Joseph Turrin

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hipguide

Hi DGG, been a while. I've been asked by [[1]] which I have a COI with to see if their business page could not be deleted. They have a number of syndication relationships (especially with the FT) that they syndicate articles and content. While they aren't mentioned in the press that often, the publicity of these business relationships is important. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrown762 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem is that the present article is devoted to showing how important they are, which is advertising, not NPOV encyclopedia writing. It might help to remove the material on the founder. I am aware she has a book coming out, and I presume that this has accentuated the need for publicity. It will also help to remove the useless refs, like nbc, which mentions her in one sentence of a long article. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ATMIA

Dear @DGG: Could you please have a look at the ATMIA page and remove the "maintenance template". This has been addressed since back in the summer.

Thanks CIM2014 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification Liza Koshy (actress)

This article was recently re-created and has been again nominated for deletion. If you wish you may comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza Koshy (actress). Thank you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, DGG, I hope all is well. I was the editor responsible for moving the article into article space after revision, and did so only after careful review. Of course your input is always welcome anywhere I tread!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i've decided not to comment this time around. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can't blame you for your decision. When one of the editors canvasses to a group of editors and even talk pages of articles, I surely did expect to see the early pile-on at the AFD. But I did not expect to be threatened, bullied, and talked down to as if I were a small child. I do not understand what the hurry is, unless certain parties want the article to be out of AFD before this new MTV show premieres that this lady is supposed to be a joint host on starts. Something smells a bit off on the situation promo-wise. I have tried to remove some of the promo tone in the article. I really have had it with the bad faith by some editors. I ask them to show good faith, and let us work in collaboration to attempt to improve the article. There is no deadline in wikipedia. Or so I thought. Apparently there is. I can start to understand why new editors leave wikipedia now. Bullying, threats, and poor behavior by arrogant editors, along with bad faith attached, make wikipedia a not too easy place to volunteer my time at. Thank you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As experienced editors, we know enough to avoid or ignore bullying and similar behavior, but the problem is that it chases away newcomers. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Ok, so in an effort to help me understand at what point an AfD is clearly noncompliant with policy what about this one? Notice the listing and relist dates. Also, the unbridled criticism I read in a recent RfA over speedy deletes gave me pause which may have added to my confusion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Chasse John Doe

My page entitled "Belle Chasse John Doe" actually has a following in the true crime community. There are reddit posts and a websleuthes thread dedicated to the individual. He is notable and does not deserve deletion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is to inform and give information to readers which is why I created the article. Please reconsider the speedy deletion request. Mallious (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick google search and could not find anything useful besides some unauthoritative web sites. You need articles for newspapers, magazines, or books that show continuing interest in it. If you have these try again in draft space. DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Ashland Greene

Dear Wiki admin,

I received a notification stating that Harry's page had been rejected. However, given that I know very little about how Wikipedia works, I do not understand the reasoning behind the rejection.

We had initially hired someone to write the Wiki page for us. The page was deleted after sometime. I contacted Katie about this and she was very kind. She helped restore the deleted page in draft form and helped me resubmit it.

Please could you help me understand what needs to be done to get the page back up?

The page means a lot to the family.

Have a blessed day.

Forharry (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have great respect for KrakatoaKatie's judgment, especially in matters like this, and i've seen her comment. I've edited it a little and moved it to main space as an article. As she mentioned, there is no real way of knowing if the article will pass a deletion discussion should it be nominated--the decision for this is made by the community. What you really need to do is to try to find some more substantial discussion from a book about the area besides the mention in ref. 1. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. Having looked at the draft, I was also going to suggest moving it to main space. However, it needs some work. There's too much trivia and reliance on dubious amateur genealogy "research" and sources like Find-a-grave etc. Also some of the citations do not support the assertions. As per usual with paid articles, instead of just concentrating on two or three high-quality sources, the writers festoon the article with many trivial sources to make the subject appear "notable". This is unnecessary as there are lengthy articles about Greene in two history books, History of the State of California and biographical record of Coast Counties, California and A memorial and biographical history of the coast counties of Central California, plus a lengthy article on Greene here and his obituary in the journal of the Native Sons of the Golden West. Forharry, I'm going to do further work on the article today to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's guidelines on content and sourcing. Voceditenore (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Didn't realize you were still around good to see a username I recognize still after my self imposed wiki break.

Whispe ring 22:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Lidz

Hi. An IP editor who says he or she is a journalism professor has questioned the removal of the "career highlights" paragraph from this article, an edit which I believe you made here. I'm letting you know in case you're interested in engaging them on the talk page. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

he has been replied to sufficiently. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for the Mind

This Wikipedia article, Centre for the Mind does not qualify for notability based on news sources - see Google News. Then I noticed on its web page it claims scientific accomplishments and works published in academic journals [2]. There are a number of hits on Google Scholar, but only one with the exact nomenclature [3].

There are some works authored by the center's founder, Professor Allan Snyder. I don't know whether to credit these toward "Centre for the Mind". Then there are these specific journal articles, [4], [5], [6] and [7]. Then there is this page on their website which lists a bunch of journal articles [8].

I have no idea how to gauge this for the notability of this topic. Maybe you and some others who visit this talk page can take a look at this and tell me what you think. It looks they have been publishing since 1997 [9]. Any thoughts would be appreciated. I will leave a similar post over at Academic Journals project. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the obvious solution is to merge to the article on Snyder. The tone of their web page is such that I do not consider it a reliable source about itself or anything else, even for basic facts, but the publications referred to are ones that he has written or edited. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @DGG: ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Harvey Peters

Many thanks for your help in creating this article. I shall pay attention to the points you make about link-rot. If some of them have DOIs I shall use those. Can I ask how we can make a disambiguation page (as there is another Paul Peters)? Thanks! PointOfPresence (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @PointOfPresence: ... well, one way is to ask on a talk page where some disambiguation page geeks hang around! Have a look at Paul Peters and you can see a simple dab page for 3 persons of that name which I've just created. It's not difficult, just search for all the articles of that name, choose a logical sequence in which to list them (usually A-Z but sometimes historical period makes sense, or geographical ordering for place names, etc), and copy the style of a similar page you can find. Or see WP:MOSDAB for far too much information! In some cases, where there are only two or three people(/places/things) sharing a name and one is much more prominent, a "Hatnote" on the page for the "Primary Topic" is the answer instead of creating a disambiguation ("dab") page.

But please tidy up the date formats in the article - we don't use "24th September 1982" but "24 September 1982" or, as this is a US-based article (and already has some dates in US format), "September 24, 1982" for consistency. Thanks. PamD 08:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where I run into trouble getting my sea legs

Ernst-Georg Drünkler - clearly controversial but I would think encyclopedic because we do have List of German World War II night fighter aces. Who on earth would want to memorialize this person considering the cause? At the same time, when I login, my biases are left behind, and my thought process is focused on NPOV as an editor of an encyclopedia. Were it not for 30 years experience honing a NPOV, I probably would have moved on and left this bio in the NPP queue (where it's been since 2011) for someone else to deal with, but that's not me so here I am, again looking to you for guidance. A GF editor redirected the article but the redirect was reverted. On the TP, there is a response to the redirect. My question is, as a NPR do I mark it as reviewed? It appears to me that it may have escalated beyond NPP, and now requires admin attention. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some long discussions about articles like these, and the article talk page reflects it. The article may have remained in the NP queue, but it has been worked on; various people have tried to deal with it before you, and are trying now. There is no reason not to mark it as reviewed--we mark as reviewed wen we have tried to deal with the problems, not waiting until we have been successful.

The general way to look at this is promotionalism. The problem is that we have no enforceable standards for article content; all our processes can enforce is whether or not there will be an article. Thus we have been successful only in removing the fluff and promotionalism in those fields that few here care about--while leaving it in for popular celebrities. We are also susceptible to pressure groups--even one or two really determined people can get their way until the clash head-on with other equally determined opposition. In this case, there is effective opposition, from most of the members of the MILHIS Wikiproject, who are very effective in enforcing their standards.

After trying to cut excessive articles in various fields if I keep getting reverted, I have sometimes taken them to AfD, saying : promotional, and cannot be fixed by normal editing because efforts to remove the promotionalism have consistently been reverted. This argument has sometimes worked. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, DGG - very helpful. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Draft Page deleted

Dear DGG,

I posted the article and it was declined yesterday. This is my first time to post something on wikipedia so I'm trying to understand how I can improve the draft. I'm waiting for a reply from the reviewer, and also asked for help on the help desk. This morning I found that the draft was deleted. Would it be possible to restore the deleted draft? I'd like to further discuss it with the reviewer and improve it by following wikipedia's policy.

Also, it would be very appreciated if you can guide me and point out which sources are considered as unreliable, and what parts look promotional in the draft. Thanks! Cozy1626 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken another look, and undeleted your draft. It's quite possible that they are notable, and the article was in fact hopelessly promotional. The most problematic element was the use on unreliable sources--listings of the app in articles reviiwing briefly a number of products do not really meet the requirements. But there do see to be at least two good reviews: #2 and #10, and possibly #1. (and check the format for them--you need to show in the reference exactly where they were published.). DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

Dear DGG

You have proposed deleting a title which I created....Could you please specify the reason of the 14 mentioned in the help page, to enable me to rectify.....Thanks --Haywi (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Dr.Muneer Al-Ali. To meet our notability requirements, it must meet WP:PROF. This basically requires being shown to be an authority in his field. If it is based on his publication record, none of this publication are widely cited; if it is based on his inventions, the only evidence that he is actually the inventor of them is his own publications. If you like, you or anyone may remove the Proposed deletion tag, but if you do, I shall send it for a community discussion at WP:AFD, which will make the decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an attribution problem here? Isn't this the same content in anoher place on Arabic Wikipedia, namely userspace copies [10][11] and [12]? Perhaps it is related to the fact the same subject has been repeatedly recreated ar:منير عبد المنعم العلي ☆ Bri (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same...Do editors of a particular language WP have jurisdiction on other languages pages?--Haywi (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)...Sorry for forgetting to say that it is a modified version of the Arabic one..--Haywi (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quite understand your response re "jurisdiction"? But what I'm talking about is Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Copying is allowed, but you must attribute the source of text on Wikipedia for Creative Commons license compliance. This can be done with standard templates like {{translated page}}, especially if you have recorded a (deleted) article revision. Nonetheless, one also wonders about the motivation to continue reposting on en.wiki when the same material has been rejected at ar.wiki. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a translated version of the Arabic one and modified ...Without motivation I wouldn't have created the page in the first place,a natural human instinct...I am confused as to whether I am talking to the same person with different aliases DGG and Bri --Haywi (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG and Bri are different people,and , while we both follow the same policy, can be expected to express it a little differently. To clarify: if you translate or translate with modification a article from one WP to another, you must indicate this. The simplest way is to say so in the edit summary, but a note on the article's talk page is equally satisfactory . You also need to indicate the translation in the sidebar. I shall do both of these things for you.

Since you object to the deletion of the article, I shall remove the Prod tag . But I shall alsos send it for a discussion at [[WP:AFD], where you or anyone can comment for 7 days, after which a different administrator will decide. When you comment, please bear in mind the comments I made initially about why the individual may not be "notable" according to out guidelines. Iapologize for the confusion. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...I understand. You might perhaps need to know you and Bri, that the Arabic page does not exist anymore, it has been deleted before publishing this English page , which is a modification and not word- to- word translation ...--Haywi (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability review

Hi, DGG,

Since you seem to be a freq. participant in academic-rel. AfDs et al, any idea about whether Vivek Sawant makes the cut for a stand-alone article?Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

more of a businessman than a scientist. I redirected to the company, Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation, in order to avoid deletion. Please let me know if this gets reverted, and I will take it to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! I too redirected the article to your afore-mentioned target aprior to arriving here but was reverted by the author.Let's see if this stays! Winged Blades^Godric 02:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sally Hansen

I've rewritten this draft. I think there's the kernel of an article there. Give it another look if you care to. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a kernel, but at present it's what it started as, an advertisement for the company. There are two ways to proceed: either delete it as such, or remove all the inappropriate material: I consider the quotations from her columns inappropriate, as there is no evidence that anyone regarded the columns or quotes as significant; we cannot imply the events of her married life from her own divorce filings--they're just her assertions--that's why we do not usually use primary sources. There is no evidence for the basic assertion of no. 1 brand. There is in fact no RS at all for her personal life. Unless we know who Bennett, Fred L.W is, there is no reason to think the article in a trade journal reliable, leaving us no RS for anything.

On balance, I'd list it for deletion. But you know all this, at least as well as I do. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiosis articles and Abhijit....

Probably your eyes have already met this.But, still......I am smelling some strong COI.See this and this.(This does not violate outing and is provided on the user page).Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godric on Leave Sorry to butt in but I did notice that and was going to bring this up. I agree with you on this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not at all surprising. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When does "affiliated" morph into "paid"?

Hi DGG. I've received no answer to my query to this user about potential paid editing on behalf of BrandTotal. However, she later stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark marketing, that she is "affiliated" with the company in question. My strong impression from the nature of the edits and her previous usernames is that she is not simply "affiliated" but an employee of the company and may well work in the marketing department. The slick jargon in the article in its original form (especially the "Origins" section) is pure PR-speak. Before I pursue this with her, and as a question in general, if she were indeed an employee holding that position, does it count as "paid editing"? Judging from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure, it seems a bit of a grey area. The article may well be deleted in which case I won't bother pursuing it, but it would be useful to know for the future. Paging also Doc James. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Voceditenore If one's job at a company is marketing than ones work on WP with respect to that company is paid editing. I will block those in the marketing departments of companies who do not disclose based on the TOU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's fast service, Doc. Thanks. I'll keep that in mind for future encounters and for this case if the article is kept (unlikely) or moved back into draft space (possible). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that it is also paid editing if it is part of a person's job, or assigned to a person as part of their employment, regardless of what the position is called; but with someone in the marketing dept it will always be assumed to be that person's job. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]