User talk:DGG/Archive 43 Aug. 2010

Jan10, Feb10, Mar10, Apr10 , May10 , Jun10, Jul10, Aug10, Sep10, Oct10, Nov10, Dec10

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Afro-Latinos (2nd nomination)

David, this is a new one for me and my instincts are to keep my distance, at least until someone drags me into it. I closed the 1st AfD yesterday as No Consensus, essentially saying the list subject was notable and that any entries that could not be verified should be removed from the list. User:Off2riorob disagree and we had a short discussion on my talk page. Now today I find that Off2riorob has been essentially blanking the page in a bit of an edit war. As a consequence of this, another editor User:Schuhpuppe nominated the article for deletion today, yet in the current discussion, he is arguing Keep. Others appear to be stepping in, but I'd be interested in your take. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Wine Bar

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Griswaldo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thoughts on this?

DGG, I'm curious what your thoughts are on the merge discussion here -- Talk:Joe Muggs. One thing that is clear to me after doing some rummaging in the restaurant area of the Wiki is that it gets much too little attention. The Daryl AfD has garnered a lot of attention because the issue was being discussed in several forums on the Wiki before the AfD went up. Compare the Daryl AfD to this one, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Big_Spring_Cafe started only a day or so later. This category needs serious cleanup and attention. I was, of course, pleasantly surprised to find very few entries that are as obviously promotional in nature as the Daryl entry was. Still there are plenty of entries in this category that do not appear notable, and plenty others that are clearly notable but do not convey notability because they are so poorly written.Griswaldo (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

House concert

I am trying to save this from a proposed deletion. Can you help me find some other sources, especially from academic journals? Bearian (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough material there at this point to support it. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Bearian (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it made it onto the DYK section of the Main page. I think this is the first article that I've saved from Proposed deletion and within a month gotten onto the Main page. LOL. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matched betting

Matched Betting Betting exchange is not matched betting, actually they aren't even similar, this is a enormous mistake that can mislead readers —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckNorris9999 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I closed on the basis of the opinion expressed at the AfD; I had no personal opinion. Checking the original form of that article in the history of the redirect, and the present article on Betting Exchange, I see very little in the way of reliable secondary sources for either of them. My advice is to get some sources and improve the present article, explaining the differences and giving sources for it, and then discuss splitting the article. Surely there's a considerable amount of material in UK papers? DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination). --Gwern (contribs) 11:18 4 August 2010 (GMT) 11:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Robert Williams (1767–1847)

Thank you for salvaging this from PROD - a clear keep, but still. I have added material around the MP material. In point of fact, referencing and providing "life facts" is rather harder work than verifying who was an MP when: as you probably know, there are pages by Leigh Rayment that we can take to be reliable, and which are fairly comprehensive at least for this period. I have no wish to exacerbate tensions, but the nomination took a most unfortunate form. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Michael Hyman

DGG, while reviewing my WP:CAL deletion sort, I came across Eugene Michael Hyman. I've heard of this judge as I drive into the San Francisco Bay area quite a bit. Don't know if you are around or monitoring his article, but I have cleared up a majority of the citation requests and have introduced reliable sources to include recognition on the United States House of Representatives. Between that cite, the 60 Minutes one and even the Law.com profile, this judge has received substantial and significant WP:GNG coverage. I am going to put in two more cites and then request that the AfD be closed as a Speedy Keep. No offense to you is meant - you know I have to your page and respect you for all you do. In fact, about the restauarant copyedit and iVote at its AfD, I told Cirt in my edit summary that "you gotta love when DGG is on the same side of the AfD debate as you". I take no pleasure in this matter but must source his article as a loyal WP:CAL member. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UN award is sufficient for notability , and I've just said so at the AfD. But the inclusion of something in the Congressional Record is trivial--any congressperson can include anything, and it's notorious as a place for laudatory local news stories on one's constituents). Please don't be concerned at finding I was mistaken--anyone active here who thinks they never make errors is deluding themselves. I think (or at least hope) most editors are glad when their mistakes are pointed out to hem and corrected DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CR mention depends on the member. I've looked over his article and several mini bios. Looked like the sponsor "got it right". Thanks for being big here and at the AfD. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York Titans

Regarding the New York Titans article:

There is a redirect to the New York Jets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Titans) already and I believe that is how it should remain. Not only does the New York Jets article mention their previous incarnation but it will also lead to the History of the New York Jets article as well.The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to whatever way those involved wish to do it, but since the Jets are a subject of significant interest, it would be a good idea to make sure of consensus on the talk pages. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. Although no one was truly interested in talking when the article merge was suggested so unless others get involved this could take a while.The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 23:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest it again on the talk ps. so people with the article on their watchlists will see-- if no response after a week, go boldly ahead with the redirect. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Afro Latinos

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(The other editor's position seems to be sufficiently clear by now. DGG ( talk ))

Hi, could I ask your advice as to what is the best thing to do with this list of Afro Latinos

It was a huge uncited list I sent it to AFD it was closed as no consensus at 6 deletes and 3 keeps, and I said in the AFD that I was going to remove the uncited if it was kept and after it was I did remove it all to an archive I created to allow users to cite and replace, there is some support to just replace all the content, after I removed the content a user then renominated the list at AFD which is presently open and there is some commentry, mostly from me on the article talkpage. IMO uncited as it was with no explanation as to why people were on the list it had no value at all to readers. The AFD was open for a couple of weeks, so far there are a few users that object to the removal but no one is coming forward to improve. I saw you commenting about lists and would appreciate your opinion on what is the best way to resolve this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments...

Keep as for similar categories. If an editor insists on removing content for an article or blanking it, does this show we should delete it? I could get rid of anything that way. If inadequately sourced, it should be sourced, not blanked or deleted.To be removed, it would be necessary to show it intrinsically was unsourceable DGG

Its a list not a category, I removed the uncited content , another person then nominated it for deletion, that is nothing to do with me, I simply wanted it to be a cited list. I do not care if it is deleted or kept, only if it is cited. I don't know if it is uncitable and don't care. Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes it's a list. (the same thing has been known to happen to categories). If one or several eds do it, the result is the same.

With respect to your question above, which I had not seen when I commented at the AfD, the proper course for poorly sourced lists is to help source them, item by item, unless you think you can show they're impossible to source. Deletion is not the way to improve articles. It's the way to get rid of unsatisfactory articles that cannot be improved--trying to remove improvable articles just interferes with that. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is all well and good, but it was a huge uncited list , 32 thousand bytes of uncited genetic claims....I went for deletion as it imo is difficult to source, it was kept imo wrongly 6 delete and only three keeps, clear consensus to delete. At least thanks to the closer of the first AFD User:Mike Cline the list is at 2000 cited bytes now as he has added cited content. Rubbish is better deleted and it someone want to recreate it and work on it that is easy. Deletion is not forever you know. Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a redlink but you know what to do if you support keep.. ...Huge uncited list of people who live or were born in South America that look a bit African Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- You accept that there is cited content, and you still want to delete? In order to find what needs improvement, it's necessary to be able to see it. It is easy for me as an admin to see deleted content, but not for most editors.(I do do have a few dozen deleted lists in mind that I intend to re-create, as well as a hundred or so other deleted articles. But it I find I'm too busy try to keep the number from getting larger yet. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no cited content at all, a huge policy violating list was what I stumbled on. There are now 2000 bytes and two afro latino notable cited names courtesy of Mike Cline. I asked your advice on this issue because I saw you commenting that lists and such should be cited and have value and explanation as to the reason they are on the list and so on (do you remember recently saying this? or do you want a diff to your comment?) , and you comment in this AFD in some opposite manner to your comments and then say you have not even seen my request for your valued opinion, hilarious, this is your talkpage. What a fucking bollocks Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my friend, there is so much activity here, that I follow it by the "new messages" editnotice, and therefore if there are several comments successively in different sections, it sometimes happens that I do not see them all. As for the issue, all lists should be sourced. Some can be sourced adequately by the cites in the primary article, but lists of this sort about ethnicity or nationality if challenged do need specific sources in the list. So look for them, and remove entries that you are unable to source as meeting the criteria, not merely those that currently lack direct sourcing. People have sometimes argued, as you apparently are doing here, to remove lists because some of the items are erroneous or uncited. I think that's a destructive approach. I think it's been discussed here enough, if we want to avoid this getting over-personal. . DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did not delete anything, I moved it from the main space as uncited and created an archive for it on the talkpage and told everybody that was where I had moved it to, it is still there waiting to be cited and improved and replaced. There is nothing destructive about wanting to have quality content. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously do not agree on how to deal with these, but we've known that for some time, and we are not likely to convince each other. All I can do is try to convince others at AfD to prevent what you are trying, which is in my opinion a singularly poor approach to improving the encyclopedia. In the time this has all been discussed, numerous sources could have been added. Once you accept that content should be improved if possible rather than removed, we can discuss how to do it--where, in practice, deletion process does sometimes have a limited role as a last resort. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute twaddle, keep - uncited crap. Keeping valueless crap is detrimental to the project , take my word for it. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely we must get rid of uncited material, but according to deletion policy, WP:BEFORE, by sourcing it if possible. As far as this page is concerned, the subject is closed. I do not rely upon you for my understanding of the way to improve Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell you what you can come along after not reading my post to your talkpage and you can vote comment keep of a uncited list but that means nothing to me, I removed the whole worthless list, whether you vote comment keep or not, if it is worthless uncited content I wil remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - uncited crap - hilarious/. Off2riorob (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of minor Airbender characters

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Parent5446's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Codehydro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moksha Script is probably a hoax

DGG, I'm an expert in writing systems and I have a suspicion that the Moksha Script is a hoax. I can read and transliterate Russian so I might actually try to look up said "sources". However, I just want you to know that I think it's a hoax. I've never heard of it before and it's a significantclaim.

To elaborate, it's not in Peter Daniel's Writing Systems of the World. Neither does it appear anywhere else on the internet. More telling is that it sounds unlikely. You see, in the past few years I've only come across a few scripts I never read about before, Alaska Script and Carolines Script, and both of these are probably contact syallbaries like Cherokee or even Rongo-Rongo. But a hieroglyphic writing system like this would definitely appear somewhere in the books.

What's more, its presentation appears fake. No writing system known has 3,000 glyphs. Maybe 3,000 glyph-combinations (Chinese), but not glyphs. And non-Chinese writng systems don't organize glyph-combinations so simply as to make 3,000 distinct combinations. The way the glyphs are presented looks fake. The phonetic values would be C, V, CV, or CVC. But all that is given is whole words, as if the hoax-maker doesn't really understand how hieroglyphic writing systems work.

Furthermore, the glyphs look fake. Glyphs only look pictoral if employed on monuments or very near their creation. Soon after, like Egyptian, Chinese, Sumerian, they decay to abstract scribbles.

What they're proposing is like the Yi Script (southern China). But the Yi Script hasn't been pictoral since it was first invented, thousands to hundreds of years ago. And the Yi Script is a derivation of Chinese. What would Moksha be a derivation of? Egyptian or Hittite Hieroglyphic. So then, where's the empire? Archaeologically, Mordovia was barbaric during that time frame. Empires, even kingdoms, leave behind tell-tale evidence of existence, the world over.

The hoax wouldn't be a big deal because the learned could see through it. But these people are being rascals disrespectful of history and people's eagerness to trust Wikipedia. Also, you should really give this matter attention because to the learned, it make the hoax-creators look ineffably stupid. You have no idea how widespread misunderstanding of hieroglyphic writing systems are. They are always composed of about 300 individual signs which combine to spell words using one or more phonetic signs using their phonetic values and usually one sign with semantic value. There aren't "5,000 or 10,000 letters in Chinese." That's blithering ignorance and fantasy.

Blissglyphs (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no linguist. but I'd consider the symbols in the figure not pictorial but the sort of abstractions that's characteristic of invented languages. The word choice in that figure looks highly unlikely to me, as well. there's a nice little book In the Land of Invented Languages" by Arika Okrent ISBN 9780385527880 (including a good chapter on chinese). You probably know it, going by your username. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luboš Motl

As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (2nd nomination) back in 2007, you may be interested to know this article has been re-nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (3rd nomination). Robofish (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commented DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rights of Englishmen

There has been an edit war going on over the acceptability of sources. Please help source this moderately important article. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am having three of my students help me with research online. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, I am still working on it. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN for Fox News reliability - Motion to close

David: Did you mean to your close !vote here in the "Motion to Close" as arguing to close the motion (ie - keep the RfC open) or to close the RfC? — Becksguy (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I am a little confused about the state of the discussion and the motion. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclupedia proposal

Hi, there's a proposal by Tisane for a new project called Inclupedia. It's being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Inclupedia (and on meta, link in that thread); I thought your views on it would be valuable. Fences&Windows 00:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fences&Windows 00:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian perspectives on ...

Hi, I was wondering if you have any comments on a host of new articles with titles starting "Libertarian perspectives on...". They can be found at Category:Controversies within libertarianism. Iridescent recommended asking for your opinion. Most of the articles were created within the last few days by Tisane (talk · contribs) although some such as Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights and Libertarian perspectives on abortion have been around for years. It's the new articles I think may be problematic as it looks to me like a case of content forking, and that if the various views are actually notable they should be integrated into the main article. Nev1 (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relied on Iridescent's talk p. I'll be glad to help delete or merge most of them. If we're going to do POV splits, which might not be a bad idea and actually clarify NPOV as I discuss there, this isn't a good start on it or the way to go about it. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Erlandsen

I don't understand the two references you added with this edit. One is a dead link, and the other doesn't seem to be a reference at all. Could you clarify what these are references to? Fences&Windows 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the Norges bildesportforbund ref [ttp://bilsport.no/nyheter/marius-erlandsen-kjempet-i-tet/"Marius Erlandsen kjempet i tet"] and the ranablad.no refs Seirende gentleman work for me, as I would expect--the first is a major Norwegian auto racing site, & the second a major newspaper. They are both articles specifically about him. The third one is about someone other entirely; I had realized that & deleted it, but not completely; I just now removed the traces. There are more at GNews to document the rest of the details. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the Ranablad link after I queried it, and I added the Bilsport link. Yes, there are more references, he probably scrapes notability. Fences&Windows 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for some input from you on an AfD - Chemung County Historical Society

Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemung County Historical Society, would you? It just seems like it pushes my inclusionist buttons (historian, country boy, etc.); but I'm having a hard time with my hardnosed deletionist principles, especially on the notability and verifiability questions. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can meet WP:V. WP:N is a guideline, to be ignored when it helps to ignore it. The actual working principle of what gets included in Wikipedia is that it includes whatever the people here want to include, just as an edited publication includes what the editor chooses . Our discussions on WP:N should be seen as discussing what we want to include, not what we must include and exclude. DGG ( talk )

Deleted stubs

Hi can you restore the red links found in User:Dr. Blofeld/DNB. I'll source them later. Once I get access to Oxford biography in a few or two I'll try to help expand some too. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 10:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first 5 or 6 done. I don;t want to get too much ahead of your actual sourcing them. General agreement is the underconstruction tag should be good for at least 48 hours. Remember, all public libraries in the UK are supposed to have the ODNB. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of T2 SDE

Please undelete T2 SDE. It was speedy deleted due to lack of 3rd party sources, but the article has one third party source DistroWatch.com: T2 SDE. How many third party sources is enough? I did not get an opportunity to put a {{hangon}} tag and add additional 3rd party sources:

I restored it, and sent it to WP:AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T2 SDE (2nd nomination). I very strongly advise you to add the other sources immediately--they were not in the version of the article I saw. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the undelete of the article. I added third party sources to resolve the AfD. The talk page got deleted someway, but anyway I recreated the talk page in order to add an explanation of the resolution of the AfD. Obankston (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD close on Gslsctic Quadrant

Could you also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic quadrant? I believe the result of "delete" was a misreading and inappropriate and that "no consensus" would have been more appropriate. My count is 7 delete votes, 5 keep votes, 1 move, and one rewrite (and it was rewritten after the rewrite vote). Moreover, the majority of the delete vote were concerned only with the version that was purely dealing with star trek. On its deletion, the in-star trek information was no longer the dominant. —CodeHydro 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is to ask BK on his user talk page whether he would take another look in view of your comment, and that the changes met his requirement to " replace with the real-world concept. A small mention of the fictional use may be appropriate there. " If he declines to change it, then there are two alternative: One is to take it to deletion review, saying the article had changed & it wasn't noticed--that's generally considered a good reason for relisting an afd. The other to to just rewrite the article, making sure that you have even more real world material than the deleted version--especially in the section on traditional fourfold division and also condensing the Start Wars material--I think it could be said in considerably less space & prominence. I normally advise rewriting, because if deletion review sustains the close, it's harder to reinsert a better article later. But ask him first, & draw attention to my suggestions here. We do not always agree, but he's reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice! I have posted on BK's talk. Hopefully he'll allow work to continue on the article. —CodeHydro 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way?

David, hope you are well in the sweltering Brooklyn summer. When I am home, life in Montana is bliss. Question. Is there are quick technical way to determine what % of all WP articles (we currently have 3.37M) per our home page) are standalone List articles? Even a ballpark number would be useful in this RFC. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I can see is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=List+of+&namespace=0 this list--a very long one--though it doesn't discriminate which are "free-standing". Lists are bot treated as a special type of article, except for Featured Lists. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tomičić

Possibly, but it's an autobiography. Surely it should be deleted and if he is notable enough someone with no COI will recreate it? Harry the Dog WOOF 15:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we have no such rule--it is not possible to delete via epeedy on such ground alone, or even at AfD. Autobio is discouraged but not forbidden. A remarkable percentage of ourt good bio articles on less-than-famous but still notable figures were created buy the subjects or their close friends. (A lot of bad one were also, of course, and those have to be improved or removed. According to WP:BEFORE, we improve if possible rather than remove). DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not a rule, but when someone creates an autobiography as tenuous as this, it should be a consideration surely. I see no prima facie evidence of notability here. What I do see is someone who has created two COI articles and seems to be self-promoting. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

asserting one has developed a industry is enough to pass speedy.--notability is not required. What you should do is tag it with coi, and notability, and ask the person on his talk page to try to explain the importance a little further. I'll check his work myself, but not till tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where you are seeing that he has "developed an industry". He has organised a couple of conferences and done some writing. Nothing that seems notable to me - no awards, no inventions. The two articles are pure self-promotion. In any event, I have done as you suggest, Harry the Dog WOOF 18:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't talk as if my decision meant that Wikipedia would necessarily keep the article; neither I nor any one person has authority to make such a decision. If we did have a system where an admin was the sole judge, I would use much more rigorous standards than in speedy. Speedy is for articles that give no plausible indication of possible importance or significance whatsoever--the word "notability" is deliberately not part of the policy; additionally, it is not to be used when the admin has any doubt. In either case, that's what Prod and AfD are for. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't mean to do that. But what I am saying is that unambiguous advertising and self-promotion are reasons for a speedy. To me this article falls into that category, which is why I tagged it. And one admin does have the authority to accept or reject speedy deletion. You turned down speedy and that's fine, so I have followed your suggestions. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unambiguous advertising or promotion are a reason for deletion, and the standard from WP:CSD is "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. " In this case, it's apparently a list of his writings, and that does not count as necessarily spam but rather as a factual article. Notability would depend on whether any of these, or any others to be found, are 3rd party refs that support notability . AfD is the place to discuss that.

As for admin powers, yes, an admin can delete an article, but only if it strictly meets the list of specified criteria, or in closing AfD, but in closing AfD he is not actually deciding whether it should be deleted in his opinion, but whether the community thinks it should be deleted under applicable policy. Deletions by both speedy and AfD can be overruled by Deletion Review, or by simply making a better article that answers the objections. Decisions to not delete at speedy can be reversed by asking for AfD, at AfD by bringing another AfD (or by deletion

exander|Interim velim a sole mihi non obstes!}} I'm wondering whether to try the experiment of seeing whether it's possible for an article to be both GA and listed at AFD simultaneously. ☺ Suggestions as to further artworks and works of literature are welcome at Talk:Diogenes and Alexander. Uncle G (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the question of the desired degree of aggregation is not actually a simple one, and has no automatic answer. Wikipedia could be done in many different ways. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We haven't reached that question yet. The suggestions that I'm looking for are what other works there are. We have Classical, through Mediæval, up to a brief treatment of Fielding and the 18th century. The 18th century is your field of interest, yes? Uncle G (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - that we have articles for or that we could have? Anyway, the present article is not about a work, but an anecdote or phrase. For these, the question is in differentiating WP articles from wikiquote; the difference (similar to WP/Wikitionary) is that WQ does not give more than minimal context any more than Wikisource does, and since the article does give context and influences, it is fully justified for Wikipedia. But the general practice seems to be to write the article about the work in which the phrase is found. (that does not work in this case, where the phrase is much more important than the known work). On the analogy of this article, I could do about a dozen phrases and aphorisms from Blake, and the same from Austen. I could do a number of specific incidents from Life of Johnson and one or two phrases. I could some from Thomas Paine. Whether any are in already , I don't know, but I doubt it. My feeling is the place to start, like here, is the ancient classics, because there have been so many centuries of things for them to influence in different cultures. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that the unmodified AFD discussion heading is leading you astray. The article isn't about a phrase at all. It's about a story, of a meeting between two people. It's a story told several times, in different ways, in anecdotes, poems, and the like, by many writers; and it's a story also illustrated many times over in paintings, drawings, and sculptures, by many artists. What I'm hoping for is that from your interest in 18th century literature you'll know of yet further re-tellings of this story, given that the article has re-tellings from times prior to that but hasn't, yet, anything beyond Fielding because that's as far through history as the sources that I have found thus far have taken me. I know that I can find 21st century re-tellings of the story on the WWW by people named "ziggy", but what I'm looking for are works of art and literature, discussed in secondary sources, that tell/re-tell/re-interpret/re-imagine the story from the 18th century onwards, as Fielding did, and as the Mediæval re-tellers of the story did before him. Uncle G (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yes, I took you in a more general sense, I did not even imagine that you might be asking me whether I knew of any 18th century use of the story (I'll think about that--I have some ideas) But I think what led me astray, it's my prior knowledge of the anecdote. "Can I do anything to help you? Yes, you can get out my light." --this is the way i remember it; I do not know where I first saw it in that version, but I certainly knew it in high school. I call it an anecdote--it's not a full story, it's an incident, an emblematic exchange of speech-acts. It has meaning because one knows whom alexander is, and one understand Diogenes as the prototypical philosopher, even if one does not know the details of his philosophy. And, to be sure, I talked about what I have in mind, which is not what you meant to ask me. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's definitely more to the tale than the punchline alone, as the Mediæval embellishments (which one source I've found but not used relates to some vague Ethopian "Book of Philosophers" translated from Arabic) and Fielding's retelling indicate. (On that point, I've heard the punchline used in a made-for-television movie. But I'm not writing "You're blocking my sunlight" in popular culture so I'm happily not pursuing that line of research to see whether anything encyclopaedic could come of it. ☺) It's definitely an anecdote, too. I look forward to the ideas. In the meantime, I've finally found a directly supporting source for the statement that this anecdote has extensive literature and artwork surrounding it … Uncle G (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have chipped in a couple of paras but worry that the article may become too rambling as there is so much to say. I don't have much to do with GAs but will put it forward for DYK, for which it seems to qualify already. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(In-)appropriate edit to journal page?

Hello, DGG. I write due to your interest in academic journals and your familiarity with the editors involved.
There has been an edit to Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment in which the editor added a comment that appeared in an editorial about an article that was published in the journal.[1][2] The edit is problematic in that editorials are not RS's, the statement put on the WP is not supported by the editorial, the statement on the WP page is incorrect, and pages about journals do not generally pertain to specific articles that appear in them. Because I am the editor of that journal, I prefer not to edit it myself. If you get a chance, would you review that page and do (or not do) whatever you think appropriate? Thanks.— James Cantor (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Editorials are good sources for the editor's opinion, the distinction from news items can vary--I would not absolutely rule out a Globe and Mail editorial as a possibly RS. But you are absolutely correct the G&M editorial makes no such statement about the article in SAJRT, and I have removed the paragraph because it is not supported by the source cited. In fact it would appear the opposite: the decision to publish an article describing the treatment led to a backlash about it. More generally, in writing about a journal, the decision of a journal to publish a controversial paper can be newsworthy, and the decision of a journal to publish a paper of particular importance can be also. But whether this paper is of that importance is moot here, as there's zero evidence. If there is actual evidence, it might be relevant content. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I agree.— James Cantor (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry H. Flagler

Since you realized this might have been a copyright violation, I wonder why you left it for others to do four simple things: this, this, this, and this. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I do try and check these, as well as tag them, & I should have done so here--I was aware I was leaving it incomplete. It did not read as if copied from a single source, though, which is a requirement for speedy ( and in fact the author of the page you found himself compiled most of it from several different obits and news accounts--he did link to them.) Unfortunately, (or , in a wider sense, fortunately) I cannot do everything myself. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It did not read as if copied from a single source, though, which is a requirement for speedy. This doesn't sound right to me--if half of an article is lifted from source A and the other half from source B, that's still an unambiguous copyright violation, isn't it? This issue is not just academic--I am looking at some other articles that seem to fit this profile. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ew of York Clubmen ==

Could you please tell me whether you personally believe I am (somewhat) right and a decent case can be made in six months time, or do you think the keeps have good reasoning behind them and I shouldn't wast more time on it. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 21:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had I noticed the AfD , I would have voted to merge or delete the article--it does not make sense to me as a separate list. Whether others will support this view besides the two of us is something I cannot determine--afds are unpredictable. Being featured is not in my opinion a permanent bar to deletion--mistakes can be made anywhere, and you are correct that our standards can change. The reasonable first step would be to propose de-featuring it at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates-- if it is not de-featured there, it will probably not be deleted either. But in deletion, admins do have the need to judge by what is put forward at the AfD, and the only thing an admin can properly do when he thinks the consensus wrong even though it has some basis in policy is to join in the discussion, and see if he can convince people. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that the only exception to this would be a completely backwards "keep" consensus on an article with serious WP:BLP or WP:V issues. Only in these cases would I support a "supervote" delete. This wasn't the case here. There was really no other way anybody could have closed this. What I find weird about this case is that it's being discussed not only at DRV but on two user talk pages but I closed the AFD and didn't see any orange bars. I only found out about this because I posted to the DRV right above it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look Ron, I don't have any issue with the close and what you did that's why I didn't notice you. What I'm taking issue with is the arguments put forth. I simply cannot understand how the article in question is not a content fork. (btw DGG, would you consider archiving this hefty page?) Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 23:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alkafleg SB13

Simply put, I can't quite figure out what the topic of the article is. Yes, it's some sort of glider, but no real explanation is given. Anyway, it would also be deleteable under G12, due to passages such as "totally stands out and turns heads wherever". I'm confused, however; how does the group of Iranis relate to this aircraft? Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah, G11 was what I meant; I wasn't trying to suggest copyvio. Nevertheless, the whole thing smacks of promotion; I read its meaning as being "this thing, whatever it is, is wonderful; here are some of the aspects that make it better than its competitors". Thanks for consulting me first; are you planning to file a DRV? Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback.

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Donald Duck's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Donald Duck (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Donald Duck's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Donald Duck (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard J. Rosenthal (sculptor)

Hi, I'm puzzled why you moved this article to the above, and not to either Bernard J. Rosenthal or Bernard Rosenthal (sculptor), either of which would be unambiguous: if he has the initial he doesn't need the disambiguator. Or indeed to Tony Rosenthal which seems to be the name by which he is best known! There's a messy little dab page at Bernard Rosenthal (disambiguation) which I've cleaned up somewhat, but which shouldn't be needed. If this sculptor is the primary usage for Bernard Rosenthal (and the redirect still points to him), then a redirect hatnote to the other chap, Bernard Rosenthal (scholar), would suffice. If the sculptor is not the primary usage, then the dab page should be at the base name. I only dropped by to stub-sort the scholar... ! PamD (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and someone else stub-sorted him while I was going off at tangents! PamD (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I'm pretty sure he's the primary usage for "Bernard Rosenthal", but also sure that he ought to be at Tony Rosenthal. I've done a {{db-move}}. PamD (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pam, I think you are right, and I should have been more careful. I'll let some other admin do the move, as I do not want to take the chance of making two successive errors on the same article. DGG ( talk ) 09:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's all OK now, and have done a G6 speedy on the now unnecessary dab page. Thanks. PamD (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Bsherr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SpicyNodes

Could you possibly have a look at SpicyNodes. The author asked if the 'notability' tag can be removed; personally, I'm not sure. It has lots of references, but once you begin to actually look, most are not what I would consider reliable sources. I have a lot of concerns that much of it is not verifiable; it is mostly based on claims that come from the org. But...I'm certainly no expert, so I'd be grateful if you could have a go at it, and feel free to contact Wxidea (talk · contribs) of course. Best, Chzz ► 20:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original article [3] was indeed overly promotional, and made too strong san effort to includes every possible mention. The current way it's handled as a redirect to the producing organization seems much better--but the text of that article still needs some cleanup & is about to receive it. DGG ( talk ) 15:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bookworm Short Stories

Hi! I see that you deleted an article on Bookworm Short Stories back in March 2008 with "hoax" as the deletion comment. Could you have a look at this newly created page and see if it's the same thing recreated?--Plad2 (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Singapore business registry (you can search by name here, there are a number of defunct entities that would tend to corroborate the claim that there is a defunct Bookworm Press in Singapore. However, even if all of the claims are true, the article's topic may well be non-notable. ^Bongo_matic 07:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, though it was marked for speedy deletion as a hoax, I declined to delete it as such, and and it was taken to AfD as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookworm Short Stories. I seem to have then been convinced it was a hoax, apparently because a sockpuppet admitted it, but I cannot find that now. I suggest considering it anew on its own merits. I can now verify the books in Worldcat and additional publications from the publisher there also [4] and [5]. So it is definitely not a hoax. If the sockpuppet said it was, he was presumably playing games with us. I do not know how to determine the notability, due to the unavailability to me of materials from the place and period. I'd suggest adding the Worldcat links, removing the statement of racial problems unless a someone with sources available to them can find a source for it, and letting the article be. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]