User talk:DGG/Archive 151 Aug. 2019

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

Request on 15:28:35, 30 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Pangurban22

Pangurban22 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Demco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read the draft Demco article and commenting on it. I respectfully disagree with you regarding sources since the draft did include materials from library databases, including NexisUni, and at least one book from the law collection. I can certainly change some of the other citations in the article (for example, mergers with other companies) so that they come from library databases, but the information would be the same and the only difference would be the fact that other users won't have the free access to the sources as they do with my use of open websites. I did spend quite a bit of time researching this topic, but I'm impartial as far as the decision whether or not to publish it. However, I don't see any compelling reason that I need to spend more time on it. My preference would be to publish it and allow others to contribute and make it a better article.

I'm not sure if I get notified when you answer this post, but if you think I don't receive a notification, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to post it on my talk page or somewhere so I see your response.

Warm regards, Pangurban22 (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pangurban22 (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The job of an AfC a reviewer is to help the contributors make articles that will pass AfD. It is not the judgment on the merits of the article, nor is it on whether the article ought to be accdpted, but on whether it likely will be. We base this on our experience at AfD , and our knowledge of the guidelines used there in practice. We need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements This normally includes important and reliable newspapers and magazines. The financial data is a pure matter of fact, and any good source is fine, including Lexis ( and I think that is also what the book is used to show) The book is used just to show the valuation of the company. But financial data does not show notability-the rule at WP:CORP is that the references have to be more than about acquisitions and executive changes and finances. What you need is a fee more references like American Libraries; I know of references to Demco as a supplier in various textbooks, but I'm not sure that will be considered substantial coverage. There should be some also in the publications on library conservation, and that might do very well. .

Whether the readers have free access to the sources is indeed a problem. Our working rule is to usethe best sources, and if posisble to also include some that are in fact easily and freely accessible. Did you check Library Literature? Did you consult the relevant specialist at U Wisconsin libraries?

In any event, you need to rewrite the infromation at the bottom into an infobox--the easiest way is to use othe infoboxes from other bsiness articles as an example.

I wish you luck with this, because the goal of what I do here is to help articleslike this get into WP. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoxton Ventures

Could you take a look at this. Previously deleted as spam, this new reincarnation is also full of promo-speak and the sources are obviously Internet barrel scraping. However, I'm worried that it still might pass GNG at an AfD. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

checking. its going to be a problem, as you recognize. Possibly notable, and not overtly advertising in the G11 sense. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Deletion: Lightricks

DGG Thanks so much for reviewing the draft. You wrote: remains an advertisement - is it possible to provide examples where so I can improve accordingly - otherwise if you want to make changes yourself feel free. Coincidentally, the company made news today for its billion dollar valuation so there's no issue vis a vis notability. Just means the language has to be improved so it's not promotional in any way, shape or form. Also just wanted to say it's a pleasure to meet you! You're a true Wikipedia legend. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the list of noteworthy people who "have admitted " to be using it, remove adjectives. Remove the overdetailed description of its HQ. Look at the references and remove those that are press releases or interviews where the founders just say whatever they care for. Then see what you have left. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great. Thank you so much! MaskedSinger (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done this but it won't allow me to resubmit the draft. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kind sir MaskedSinger (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG any update about this? Apologies if I am being a nudnik. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have managed to elimminate the key information about what the products are--one sentence only for each. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Possibly. Given the recent news, the notability is a clear non-factor, so the only issue is the language which to the best of my knowledge, I completely stripped down. Issue I'm facing is that this has transformed into a more mechanical, inorganic process of trying to get it approved, of following the advice of 3 different reviewing editors to gain their approval as opposed to making choices based on my instincts that I think are correct. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Not sure if you saw this. What's the best way to move forward with this? MaskedSinger (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG See the tag you added to the page. What's next? What would you like me to do? MaskedSinger (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DearDGG Thank you so much for preparing a new draft!! And thankyou for being so generous of your time with a new editor like myself. You are an inspiration and I will promise to be as patient with new editors as you have been with me. 2 more things 1) I created an infobox in the original draft but for some reason it didn't translate to the finished product. Would you be able to look into this? 2) I haven't mastered logos. Would you be able to add the logo to the said infobox. Thankyou so much! MaskedSinger (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG In my excitement missed the infobox! Ignore that. My apologies. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Signature Bank

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Signature Bank. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting again re Elizabeth L. Cless article you tagged on June 20, 2019

Hi DGG. A quick note--I've completed a major edit on my article. I hope you'll be able to remove the tags on it. The edit summary: 15 changes/rewrites. Removed absolute "first" claim, lessened personal style and rhetoric, tightened, added/improved references, made minor fixes. Please take a look! Thanks.LM6407 (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the article is neutral (NPOV) and is encyclopedic in style; thank you again for your useful advice. It is also no longer an orphan (another tag) as it has one link to it; it will soon have more. Please take a look and remove tags or advise further. Thanks.LM6407 (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xellia Article Denial

  I really made an effort to look at the notability guidelines, and made sure to use reliable sources with significant mention of Xellia in the articles. Sources included Wall Street Journal, NPR, and several established local newspapers.

The reason for the denial said that it did not meet notability requirements, but in your comment you said that it used sources that were not reliable. Please can you advise which sources are not reliable? All of the information included in the article is publicly available from multiple independent sources as far as I know. If there is one that isn't, perhaps it could simply be deleted?

I am having trouble understanding on what precise criteria the denial is based, so I feel I am at as a dead end as far how to further edit. Please advise as to which specific sources are problematic, because I am 100% certain that at least a dozen of the sources meet the notability requirements.

I understand that you may have denied this submission because you think this is promotional. Well, it is. I was out of work, and I got on a freelancing site and started looking for writing jobs. I'm an avid Wikipedia reader, so when I saw an ad for writing an article for Wikipedia, I thought I'd give it a try. Although I had no experience, I got the job- perhaps because everyone else already knew the problems involved.

I've been working on this article for months, and it's been helpful in learning about Wikipedia policies. I hope to contribute in other ways in the future. But I have sincerely made an effort to meet all of the criteria, and at this point I feel I am being treated unfairly. After the round of revisions preceding the last rejection, I had included the Norwegian wikipedia article on the same company, thinking that if the company met the notability criteria in Norway, that surely this would be the case in the Anglophone world as well, especially since half of the company's revenue comes from the US. I have the feeling that editors just want me to leave, rather than offering actionable commentary on how to improve the submission.

I understand the importance of preventing Wikipedia from being used as a marketing platform, but I do sincerely believe that this article meets all the criteria, and that it has value and utility. I frequently look up pharmaceutical drug ingredients and manufacturers when researching ingredients, and I've read dozens of articles on similar or less notable companies.

The reason this is affecting me personally is because I still work on the freelancing site where I got the job. I understand I should've been better acquainted with Wikipedia policies before taking the job. But the fact that it is incomplete is adversely affecting my rating and making it more difficult for me to find work. If there is a moral issue with me profiting from a non-profit venture like Wikipedia, and this is the real issue, I will happily donate the $30 dollars to Wikipedia just to fulfil the obligation that I imprudently took upon myself.

Thank you

P.S.: I went and reread your comment and I am fairly sure you did not check the sources. If you read the articles you will see that major publishers discussed Xellia in depth, with direct references in multiple paragraphs.

I'll take a look in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(from an AfC comment)

...The standard for acceptance is not that it unquestionably pass afd, but that it probably will pass AfD. Interpretations of "probably" in this context vary--no reviewer uses just 51%, most use between 70% and 90%. These are obviously not exact numbers, because AfD is unpredictable--nobody is capable of selecting articles that will always pass, because even if the reviewer knows the standards perfectly, the AfD consensus does not always follow it. (my own estimate is that about 5%-10% of AfD decisions are wrong, in the sense of being against what would be the more usual consensus) And, very few of my acceptances have ever been deleted, because if there is a problem, I try to improve the draft myself before accepting it. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(academics & public affairs)

from recent afds

with respect to AP:AUTHOR, A co-edited volume counts much less than an authored book, and so there is only one substantial publication. This isn't enough for either WP:AUTHOR (I point out that every academic book has at lest one and usually 2 reviews, regardless of significance--the point of academic reviews of academicbooks is to tell scholars what other people are publishing--its the humanities equivalent of being listed in an abstracting service) , and her work is not cited sufficiently for WP:PROF as an influential academic./
With respect to the public influence portion of WP:PROF as a (which, as pointed out, is essentially thesame as WP:GNG, though generally interpreted fairly narrowly), there is not substantial coverage. If references 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were substantially about her, or her work, they would be, but they are not. It is necessary to read the references, not just look at thetitles: in each of them, she is just one of several people quoted, to add material or perspective to the reporter's or commentator's content. None ofthe 5 give her special attention. Nor should we give any credance to the reporter describing someone they quote as an authority--that's the routine description, in order to justify using them in the first place: everyone whose opinion an essayist or reporter uses automatically is called by them an "authority". There is possibly some place to build an index of everyone ever mentioned in a magazine or newspaper, but it isn't Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Yvonne Boag

Thank you for reviewing the draft on artist Yvonne Boag. I have studied your comments and reviewed them in light of the article content.

1. I am concerned about the statement of 'reading more like an advertisement'. When I look at any of the articles of individuals, that claim can be made about any of them. Can you provide objective pointers not just a subjective opinion?

2. I assume your actual comment are focussed on the Work section. I will redraft this over the next few days and resubmit for review. Is one of notions that there are not enough references, even though the bibliography is quite substantial, even if most of the biblio items are not accessible online?

Thank you for your time though, it is appreciated.

bobj

bobjtis I note that I am not the only editor here who has expressed concerns about promotionalism .

the promotionalism concern is over the wording. Press releases and autobiographic notices contain adjectives of praise , name-dropping, very minor material such as " During this time she worked part time to finance her artistic career, working in coffee shops, as an office cleaner and an event photographer.", See WP:EINSTEIN. The other aspect of this is what we sometimes call WP:OR, original research. You can not claim she influenced somebody unless there's a reliable third-party independent source, not press releases or mere announcements.You cannot say what of her work is important without such a source. Our rule is that every statement in a biography of a living person must have a specific source (though for routine facts it does not have to be independent, it does for judgments.)

Possibly you can use McGillick as such a source. but I notice that however eminent he may be, his web page says he is currently working as a PR agent.

The more important concern is copyvio -- you cannot closely paraphrase McGillck or anyone else. You must write in your own words, and then reference it to specific sources, not copy it from a source. The part about promotionalism above is to some degree a matter of interpretation; the rule to avoid copying or WP:Paraphrase is a strict rule.

Additionally, as this is the only article you have written, it is reasonable that I remind you about WP:COI -- see that page for the appropriate declarations DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thank you for your additional explanation. I will review and think about what you have said before continuing.

Bobjtls (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Version

DGG, could you comment on this new text for the entry. I don't want to do too much if it still does not meet Wikipedia's standards. If you believe the text is OK then I would add the references, biblio, etc.

I have moved this new draft to a more appropriate place, User:Bobjtls/draft -- DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bobjtls (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Katz

Did you remove the MFD tag from the second Katz draft? If so, were you trying to withdraw the MFD? It is still in the list, although it isn't tagged now. In view of the fact that there are two versions of the draft, Draft:Marcel Katz and Draft:Marcel Katz (2), and that the originator tried to sneak it into article space, I was planning to add the second draft to the bundle, but then saw that it wasn't tagged. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I saw the second. I think I had decided to speedy instead, but MfD will do just fine. Could you please just add the tags back, etc. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both drafts bundled into MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Abortion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music By Women Festival

It's back. :-) Deb (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for help: Goop (company) Rfc short description

I'm reaching out for help, if it's appropriate in your opinion. I started the Rfc discussion with the argument that the current short description for Goop (company) does not fit within the Wiki guidelines created for short descriptions. It looks to me like consensus has been reached on the issue and that the short description should read "Lifestyle Brand" but since I started the conversation and have a bias, I understand that I'm not supposed to close the conversation or change the description. I feel like closure is in order at this point and wanted to get your assessment as someone who was part of the conversation and has a great deal of experience. Do you feel that it's time to close the conversation and change the short description? Are you comfortable doing so or can you advise me of what should happen next? Thanks!Beachlifedreamin (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a comment there . DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I hope it can get wrapped up soon!Beachlifedreamin (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

Dear DGG. I am new the Wikipedia thing (I have tried a few times before, but have never been successful in getting going). Upon some exploration today into my grandfathers page, it appears you were the one who saved it from speedy deletion and made sure his legacy was remembered after he died. I don't know how to get in touch with you but, I have some great information I would like to add to his page, but don't really know how to go about it. Maybe you would be able to coach me. He has a boat load of awesome awards that aren't listed here (i.e. Rocha Lima Medal [1967] and Hermine Aye (his mother) was the niece of the Vice Chancellor of Germany in the early 1900s. His lab still lives on beyond his own life and is still doing great things.

Anyways. Thanks for saving his page and being dedicated to preserving the legacies of academics. I can't thank you enough. Banach13 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vino Veritas

We meet again, DGG...

I just want to let you know I recreated the article you deleted on August 24, 2011. Thank you. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A list of article you Presume Notable.

Hello DGG,

I happened to have G13'ed a few articles which you commented as being possibly notable. I will go over them today and see the ones that are notable and can be created, if possibly start it as a stub. Hope that will be fine? Best regards, Lapablo (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lapablo, a few I said were notable, a few only that they might possibly be, so I have a different degree of confidence in them. At least one I've said needs merging. Some are academics, and it will be easy for me to do those myself you do not get to them. There may be more--I did not check those that were apparently sportspeople or performers, because I know too little in those fields to judge.

You happen to have nominated them at a time when they happened to be "reviewed" by an admin who apparently simply confirms they are G13 without looking to see what are salvageable. But opinions vary--some people honestly think that rescuing apparently abandoned articles is a much lower priority than removing them. DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Sometimes i do get to check if they're salvageable, sometimes i just G13 them. I will do the ones i can and leave the academics to you. Lapablo (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP probelms

Hi DGG, I happen to have tagged Joy Silverman's page with a speedy A7 that you removed. While I see the subject not significant on its own to deem a page, the page clearly is negatively written beyond the point it can be edited. It probably also falls under G10. Dievans (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

given the NYT article, and the other sources, I think that she is sufficiently a public figure to justify the article. The way to find out is at afd. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G10 will do I guess?

Not if I remove it, as I probably will--I think it needs discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting Apereo Foundation to Sakai (software)

Hi, I've just noticed that you redirected Apereo Foundation to Sakai (software) which I find a bit weird and somewhat offensive towards all other Apereo projects. Sakai is an Apereo project, it is certainly an important one considering Apereo's history, but it is still only one among many others. Setting Apereo equal to the software Sakai is also calling projects like CAS or Opencast just sub-projects of Sakai which is just wrong. My suggestion would be to remove the redirect and–if you are interested in Apereo–improve the Apereo article so that it is accepted instead. Any thoughts on this? Lkiesow (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply trying to keep it from being deleted, which would have otherwise occcured in a month or so. . There are probably thousands of deleted drafts that ought to be rewritten and that might possibly make articles. I can't do that by myself, so my goal is to work on the few hundred of them of particular interest to me (usually academics in the humanities), or, sometimes, that seem immediately obvious how to very quickly fix or that clearly should have been accepted as is. Even that is proving impossible to keep up with, --I have quite a long backlist, but I try to do a few each week. This is not of sufficient interest for me. In the hope that it is for you, I've restored it to draft. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fukui Fumimasa

@DGG: Thanks for reviewing my article. :-) Hanbud (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question concerning advert tag regarding Organise Aotearoa

Hi, just wondering what aspect(s) of the content of the OA page you consider to be advertisement, and what could be done to remedy this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wharera (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Advertisement" is used here in a general sense to include advocacy . The article is has the impression of being oriented towards urging people to become involved with the pgroup's POV, rather than being a WP:NPOV report about the organization. It's sometimes difficult to write about political movements without doingthat to some extent. Everything is reported in a positive sense, with no hint of criticism. The article can probably be fixed, whichis why I did not nominate it for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission of an academic biography

Hi DGG. I am finally getting around to editing a submission that was rejected; you took a look during the process, made several helpful comments, and kindly offered to take another look to "make sure the essentials are right".

The article is on John McCaskill I have rewritten the article completely, with a broader audience in mind. It is much shorter and intellectually more succinct. I have reduced the laundry list of publications to just the essentials, and added a few references from news and popular press sources. I write to you in advance of hitting the "Resubmit" button, in case you might suggest any obvious fixes to implement first. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Nhpackard (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFC drafts

Please note that "accepting" an AFC draft is not simply a matter of moving the page, as you did yesterday with Draft:Poitiers Campus, Sciences Po — there's a specific process that has to be followed.

Firstly, the {{AFC submission}} template must be removed from the article, and is not allowed to be left sitting on the mainspace page anymore. Secondly, the article's talk page must have the {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} template on it. And thirdly, the "approved" article must have at least one category declaration on it once it's actually in mainspace, and is not allowed to be left uncategorized. And it's not your prerogative to simply ignore those steps and leave them for other people to clean up later on, either: if you want to approve AFC drafts, then it is your responsibility to make sure that all of the required steps have been properly performed by you right off the bat — removing the template that no longer belongs on the mainspace page, adding the template that belongs on the talk page, and ensuring that the article has at least one category declaration on it right away and is not left uncategorized at all, are all your immediate responsibility as part of the approval process.

The thing is, your edit summary suggests that you used WP:AFCH — but AFCH automatically does all three of those things for you, and it is flatly impossible for a page that was properly handled in AFCH to still have the submission template on it after the page move. For example, I moved the page back to draftspace and then reapproved it myself, and all three of the things I pointed out were automatically done without a problem. I also ran a bug test by creating and then self-approving a separate temporary test draft just to see if I could replicate your results, and found that while I was able to create an uncategorized page if I didn't list any categories in the category box, there was literally no way at all for me to promote the page from draftspace to mainspace while still leaving the submission template on it. So I'm not clear on what happened — did you use AFCH and it messed up because of a system bug, or did you just move the page with the regular move function and then use an edit summary which implied that you'd used AFCH when you really hadn't? Even if it was a technical error on AFCH's part, it's still your responsibility to fix all three of those issues right away — and if you didn't really use AFCH at all, then please either start using AFCH or at least don't pretend you are if you're not. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher). Bearcat, you have only used the script about 20 times and, sadly, the script sometimes fails. When it succeeds it adds the new article to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent. Looking at DGG's acceptances there you can see that he has successfully run the script 3884 times, and produced 6% of the acceptances. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've used it far, far more than 20 times. And while I have seen the script "fail" in the sense of complete failure to do anything at all, I have never once seen it fail in the sense of successfully moving the article while simultaneously failing to actually complete and remove the submission template after the fact — and even if that is what happened in this case, it's still the approver's responsibility to notice and resolve that themselves rather than leaving the article to be discovered and cleaned up hours or days later by somebody else. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The partial failures have been coming up in discussions recently. Sorry about underestimating your AfC work. I guess accepted articles don't always get added to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has to just guess if someone used AfCH in any particular case--it's in the contribution history and the move log.The AFCH tag is not from the article summary--it's a system tag. ( I suppose it could be faked, tho I never thought of that) . I always use the macro except for exceptional cases where pages have been moved back and forth and the manual process is necessary because AFCH gets confused. But when used in normal cases it still does frequently does not work right: my estimate of the frequency of this is about 1:20. The best way to clear them up is not 1 by 1, but systematically, and I'm still trying to find the most efficient way. I'm not a tech type, but it somehow seems to me that the problem looks like the macro timing out, and that in turn depends on how fast the database is running.

And , one of the good things about WP is that people like cleaning up different things (just as what I like to clean up is promotionalism and fluffy wording. I don't go around telling other experienced users they must do it; I just fix what I see.) Like most librarians I know on WP, I find the system of categories so wrong-headed & applied so inconsistently that to avoid conflict I let those who understand it do it; uncategorized articles are tagged, so someone who thinks the system understandable always deals with them and this causes less confusion. (I think the rules on article titles similarly perverse, but I do it in the accepted way, because assigning titles is absolutely unavoidable for the work I do here & if I did not conform it would really cause confusion; again, I don't argue about things I cannot change. ) DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to project revival

Dear user, I, with Willbb234, are a attempting to revive the Wikiproject Requested Articles, of which you are a member. If you wish to be a part of our effort, feel free to add your signature in it's talk page. Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 16:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Rainbow Honor Walk

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rainbow Honor Walk. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Gratton

The above article for Dean Gratton has been penned for deletion. However, in January 2014 you noted "a considerable improvement over the previous deleted article" and, as such, you declined the deletion. The article has not changed much since then, although there have been additional notable reference for Gratton, since 2014. The article needs to be updated to reflect these new references rather than deletion. I would welcome your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinAndrewMoon (talk • contribs) 09:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KevinAndrewMoon The most important thing that needs to be done is to add substantial book reviews from third-party independent reliable sources, not the sort of press releases or mere announcements thatare now listed in the afd discussion. I'll do it if I have a chance, but I'm also busy with a lot else, so I could use some help. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Thank you for responding. Gratton had several positive books reviews but, alas, these tend to stay 'online' for a short while.

If they were published in reliable newspapers and magazines, they would not have disappeared from online, and would in any event stil be available in print. If they disappeared, they are more likely to be unreliable blogs. DGG ( talk ) 14:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Cozean

What do you think? There's a saying in Upstate New York, "I know who you be. You be that Nancy Cozean!" (True story!) Bearian (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the city is too small for the notability of the mayor to be assumed. Anyway, the article is almost totally unsourced. And you'll have to explain the saying. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Draft:Ishvinder Maddh

Hello. You rejected Draft:Ishvinder Maddh. I conduct a project for new editors, mostly in German-language Wikipedia, where I'm a longtime volunteer editor. The draft's author is one of them and also fluent in English so she could contribute in English Wikipedia, too. The project focusses on socially relevant topics, and Ishvinder Maddh is a well-known figure in the Austrian movie landscape and renowned as a sort of "cultural ambassador", that's why he is in our scope. The article is written in a different style than I would use (e.g. a little "excessive" use of references) - but I can't explain to the new editor what's wrong with it. :) First and foremost, I think it's written in a neutral, not in PR style. I hope you could reconsider your rejection (I'm not that familiar with enwiki's draft system), or could explain me some of the abbreviations you used. (We have a similar problem in German-language Wikipedia with new editors and insider language, now I can experience this first hand...) 1. "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. bio" What does "bio" in the context of the Five Pillars mean? 2. "WO does not do that" What does WO mean? 3. "Topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia (AFCH 0.9.1)" (from the edit summary). What's 0.9.1? Thank you! --Raimund Liebert (WMAT) (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raimund Liebert (WMAT) (talk · contribs) -- I will give you a full explanation later today--this will take a while to explain properly.And I'll deal properly with the article. In the mean time, I apologize, DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are several factors involved. 1. Although all the Wikipedias in the various languages I have seen appear to have problems with promotionalism , because of the very diverse readership of the English WP, there seems to be a special pressure here. I don't know the figures for elsewhere, but for many years almost half of the submissions to the English WP are eventualy rejected for either lack of notability or promotionalism, which commonly go together. For businesspeople, especially those who call themselve sentrepreneurs, the figure is probably more like 80%. Consequently we have a very high degree of suspicion. It's inevitable that we make mistakes--guessing at the numbers, we probably fail to remove about 10% , and we probably unreasonably remove about 2%. That does not excuse our errors, and we need to improve in both direction, but as a practical matter I doubt we will ever get the numbers reduced by more than half.

Furthermore, promotionalism in the world in general, and in Wikipedia in particular, is so pervasive, that even people without a promotional intend tend to write in a promotional manner. Sometimes., they even copy the style of promotional articles in WP, saying in all honesty that they think this is what is wanted. On the one hand this gives an increasing urgency to the removal of the large amount of promotionalism entered in earlier years when we had lower standards, but it also requires remembering that not all promotional-looking articles here are deliberate advertising. It's very easy to lose sight of this, and I know this is not the first time I --and others-- have done so.

There's not actually a sharp distinction between promotionalism and the incidental promotionalism that necessarily accompanies an article about any notable current individual or organization. Finding out about something will tend to encourage attention to it.and finding out about good things, or people who do good things, will inherently to at least some degree promote them.

There are a number of differences between the enWP and the deWP. I'm quite aware of them, because (though a typical of Americans I have no real speaking or writing knowledge of any language but English) as an academic librarian I have just enough reading ability in German (and in French and, borderline, in Russian) to revise articles translated from those languages into the enWP, and to fix the customary Google translations they are usually based on.

Most of what I work on is from German, because for a wide range of academic fields, the articles in the deWP are more complete than in enWP. As a rule, the articles are also better written, as there are (presumably) fewer non-native speakers in the de than the wp WP.We have a special page WP:Translating German Wikipedia of advice on this: perhaps the key difference is the greater insistence on specific formal references in enWP. (That does not mean our content is more accurate--just that we insist everything be written out, and avoid the sort of general references found in the deWP.

2.A key procedural difference is the enWP has a two-step process for accepting articles from new editors: they go first into Draft space, and are then evaluated by a process called WP:Articles for Creation, where the standard is to only pass those that have a reasonable chance of being accepted. After approval, the nrew articles go into our regular New Pages Patrol Process. The purpose of Draft space is to give editors a chance to revise--and also to decrease the likelihood of a promotional article being mistakenly accepted. (we still continue the userspace subpages for rough drafts). "AFCH 0.9.1 " is the current version of the program that handles the details. "WO does not do that" is my typo--it should have been "WP does not do that".

3.As for the draft: the reasons I judged it promotional included:

The duplicated list of film productions,
the use of vague language "facilitated" , "explored" , "ventured", "under his guidance"
Style characteristics such as the inappropriate use of bold face for project names, the inappropriate capitalization of terms like Tourism and Film Productions, Aviation Industries, etc.
The list of cities visited
The second picture & its legend, which is non-informative and amounts to name dropping
The excessive citations more than are needed to reference the actual content.--we call that WP:CITEKILL
And, especially, the nature of the citations: most of them are press releases, travel promotion sites, non-authoritative websites, quotes from the subject, mere mentions in general articles,

and combinations thereof.

I have reverted my earlier review, and I have re-reviewed. The promotional elements do need to be fixed. I am additionally not at all sure that the few good references are enough to support notability (of course, we recognize that almost all references available for the Indian film industry is very unreliable, with even the best news sources contaminated by the expectations that producers and other participants will pay for news coverage, so we tend to be a little flexible.) DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your time and thoughts. I see Jenishh next week, I think your advice is most helpful.

In German-language Wikipedia promotionalism is a (social) issue in the Onboarding Program (de:Wikipedia:Mentorenprogramm) where many new editors seek support by experienced editors only because they want to write about themselves or their company. However any conflicts of interest or promotional language cannot be used as justifications for the rejection of new articles; many deletions of new articles are because of our notorious notability criteria which are also known in the general public: at least some years ago I often heard, "if you want to write about yourself, better go to English Wikipedia." Specific formal references became important a while ago, it's more like in English Wikipedia now. However there are still tons of articles without strict referencing from former years - which makes it sometimes difficult to explain to new editors why they can't write their articles like existing articles anymore. --Raimund Liebert (WMAT) (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have for the last 10 years been doing the same sort of activity you do, at theWP-NYC editathons. In the beginning, 8 or 10 years ago, we would try to accommodate people who wanted to do an autobiography or had strong COI. After spending an undue amount of time with them with very little positive results in articles, our practice has changed. Unless the notability and available sourcing is really excellent, we stop them. Consequently, unlike most of the editathons in the US, we have almost 100% results in our articles not getting deleted in Wikipedia . (We can't prevent them trying it outside the editathon, but we do not want it under our banner. And in practice we do effectively stop almost all of them, because--NYC being the sort of place it is--most of the people who try to get articles about themselves are early-career musicians or artists. The effective argument for them is that if their notability is inadequate, the article will get deleted--after a discussion in which it will remain on permanent record in WP why the person was found not to be notable--and that this will not help their careers.

More generally, unlike what I believe is the pattern in Europe, WM-NYC has no centralized control over editathons--any person or group who can find space and attract people can run one, and we list them on our events page if they are at least in principle open to the public and otherwise in line with the purposes of WP. Everyone in our chapter is a volunteer in the chapter, though sometimes a WPedian in residence or an employee of a co-operating institution. Our membership includes many very experienced WPedians with a range of interests (about half of us librarians or other educators) ; enough volunteers have always come to guide every event. We have no formal way to enforce standards, but we volunteers are fortunately in approximate agreement on standards & practices; when there have been disagreements, we have worked out a modus vivendi--which I think we do better for lack of much in the way of formal structure. (There are of course also non-public editing sessions usually in connection with educational programs, and one or two of us generally help there also, but we do not usually list themas current events--they are included for the record in our event archive. Please note that all of the above is only my own personal interpretation of what I think we do. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal matter and possible conflict of interest

A blanket statement to the effect that "personal matter implies a conflict of interest" is downright obtuse. Conflict of interest is based on content, not authorship. If the subject of a page makes edits exclusively aimed at ensuring that personal and biographical information be reported correctly, the notion that there can be a conflict of interest is ridiculous. I was not the originator of a page about me, I simply added my date and place of birth (conflict of interest?), where I did my studies and the various stages of my career. Where in the world is the potential "conflict of interest"? As for my research description, I merely provided background to the language of the award that I received, which is the reason as to why the page was created (again, not by me in the first place). That language already places my research activity in a well-defined context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massimods (talk • contribs) 12:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about it further. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the tag should or should not be on the article, the repeated attempts to have it removed are permanently in the article history, and make the conflict of interest obvious to anyone who looks. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus East

I noticed you moved Marcus East into the draft space to incubate, and now it seems that the draft author has moved it back into the mainspace with very little changes. I want to see what you want to do with it because the person could very well be notable, but the article in its current state is still very promotional. I'm weary to AfD it, since AfD is not cleanup, but I cant very well move it back into the draftspace since it was moved and the old Draft page is now a redirect. Just wanted to see what your opinion on it was. CodeLyoko^buzz 19:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what it needs is not AfD, but G11. It's written as a resumé for a job. Probably I should have gone to G11 in the first place. Thanks for noticing. If people don't take the chance we give them to improve promotional articles, they generally get deleted. The possible notability here is so weak that there would be no point in spending time trying to fix it. Even when there's a better chance at notability , general opinion is shifting towards the view that we should delete not fix obvious promotionalism, though I still do so if the person or other subject is very highly notable & in my field. (and, in practice, the only effective way to get articles fixed if the editor is uncooperative is AfD) DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, well thanks for the information about it, I'm normally weary to nominate stuff for AfD if the subject might be notable because I tend to normally see the "AFD is not cleanup" argument, but this is good to know for the future! In this case, I guess i felt like G11 might not apply and AfD would be better, but in the future if I see a promoatinal article thats been moved out of draft after being put back in i'll G11 it.CodeLyoko^buzz 21:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]