User talk:DGG/Archive 77 Jun. 2013

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

IMPACT (International Multicultural Platform for Alternative Contemporary Theatre)

Good Morning

I noticed that you speedily deleted the article International Multicultural Platform for Alternative Contemporary Theatre. May I request that you also delete IMPACT (International Multicultural Platform for Alternative Contemporary Theatre) as it is simply a redirect to the deleted article. (I could not find a way to delete it)

I have rolled back the corresponding entry in List of theatre festivals‎

ed

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Canadian Hand Painted Porcelain From The 1880’S Onwards

Hi, DGG. I won't be re-tagging this page; however, its copyright status, on closer inspection, seems rather suspect – both the text and the images appear to have been copied directly from this entry on Google Sites, which does not seem to a simple Wikipedia mirror. Super Mario Man 16:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had the feeling too, and planned to check. I was hoping to rescue the pictures; It seems this is part of a collection donated to the Canadian Museum of Civilization in 2010, the images, taken with an amateur camera, were taken in 2000 and are labelled "own work." they were donated in 2011, but are probably the collectors and not the museum's. I think their copyright status is probably valid. I'm going to save the links to the pictures before I delete the article. The article tho, will have to be deleted. The copyright on Google Sites is 2008, so I suspect that is from the collector also. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time ...

... could you look at Daquan Marshburn ... I only had time for a very VERY quick search, and I have some reservations about it and the author, but I don't have time to really research it. — Ched : ? 02:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it may be real; check the article on the league. Not my field, though DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to merge a history together for a page?

Hi DGG! I have a question: how do I merge histories together for an AfD? Someone tried to nominate a page for AfD but messed up and put in two AfDs for Bernice Madigan. I was just going to delete the second entry but then thought that it might be better to merge the two histories together instead. I've actually never done that and I can't quite figure out how to do it. It looks like you're on, so I thought I'd drop you a note and ask. The two AfD links are : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernice Madigan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernice Madigan (2 nomination). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it might be irrelevant now, as it's looking like the nomination was someone's sockpuppet account (they'd nominated several similar people for AfD as some sort of vandalism-type thing) and the other AfD was tagged as a speedy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything involving supercentenarians at WP is exceptional. There's a long history of conflict, with people disagreeing about the criteria to use, and some unwilling to accept consensus solutions. I have learned to avoid anything connected with it. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might be a good rule for me to follow as well if I can help it, from what I can see from just all of the stuff just now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD for Gangadhar

This is a common name in India and the content in the article could be a hoax. Thats why I tagged it for CSD. There is no source and only claims. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unless it is so obviously a hoax that I can tell at a glance, it has to be deleted via either prod or AfD DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Tagged for PROD. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yosef Babad (1905–1997)

As you suggested at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Yosef Babad, I have moved this article to mainspace. Yosef Babad was an existing redirect to an ancestor of his, so I have put him at the title above; you may be able to think of a better disambiguating title. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joseph Heller (zoologist)

The article Joseph Heller (zoologist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, and fails WP:NOTRESUME.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Uberaccount (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endophin Power Company

Dear DGG, I got notice yesterday of a deletion of an entry I was worked on in the past but let get behind me. I have responded to the notice as best as I can with an attempt to save it. I really do not know exactly where I should be directing this to. I saw your name as a possible guide so I am contacting you as well:

As I delve further into this, I seems I did get some notice awhile bacK (after a month of inactivity as noted below: “… Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)…”

Anyway, any help you can give in resurrecting the work already done would be appreciated. Thanks

Reuben

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Endorphin Power company[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Endorphin Power company • ( logs | links | watch ) • [revisions]

I, Kangareu2001, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Kangareu2001 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

==[edit]

[[:]] • ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | mfd ) • [revisions]

(This user used the preload form for AFC undeletion, but did not specify the name of the AFC draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) Kangareu2001 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Endorphin Power company[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Endorphin Power company • ( logs | links | watch ) • [revisions]

I, Kangareu2001, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Kangareu2001 (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Endorphin Power company[edit] Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Endorphin Power company • ( logs | links | watch ) • [revisions]

Dear Wikipedia; I have just recieved your notice that proposed entries greater than 6 months old are deleted (Or, so is my understanding of the message I have recieved from you'se....At least that is my working basis from which I am trying to contact you...) I am not the only person that has tried to get an entry on a 10 year old community organization in Albuquerque. I did put a significant amount of effort into it in November of 2011 and was trying to uphold the documentation requirements. I was in the process of fact checking (some of the endorphIn power company's own references to itself were misprinted... I was trying to contact the source paper (the Weekly Alibi, a local newspaper. Long story short, I both got busy and had my computor crash on me.

Anyway, since I got your notification (perhaps again... I do not recall if one was sent earlier) I would like to start up again and finish the project this time. I do believe the organization is worthy of an entry.

thanks,

Reuben Last -Kangareu2001 (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangareu2001 (talk • contribs)

according to the recently adopted deletion policy for apparently abandoned AfC submissions, WP:CSD#G13, submissions can be restored to any user wishing to work on them in good faith. I have therefore done so. I removed a paragraph which I think gave too promotional an impression, and changed a heading. Remember that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe the subject, not advocate for it. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tinywords

Could you take this page to AfD? The 182.249.241.0/24 editor might have a point regarding the topic's notability, but they seem to want to avoid the proper channels for deleting a page. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are persistently edit warring over it [1]. A range block might be needed. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is trying to delete the page. I'm trying to preserve it as a redirect, dince the only two users who have actually argued that the article is notable are a COI user and a user with a grudge against Hijiri88 who has been going around attempting to undo the lattet's edits. The status quo is as a redirect, but I have had to deal with a bunch of silly insinuations otherwise. 182.249.241.31 (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page makes a credible claim of notability: "tinywords is the largest-circulation journal of haiku in English". Your redirect/deletion has already been disputed on the talk page. It was also speedily deleted and then restored some years ago. The proper venue to hash it out is WP:AFD. Your redirect lasted a couple of months, but the article has been around for almost eight years. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that despite their claim to martyrdom, the same 182.249.241.0/24 IP range has been vandalizing user pages of editors involved in both sides of the dispute on that article: [2] [3]. He might be a troll or joe job. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm a dynamic IP shared by numerous people on the same network. For evidence see the history of Iwate Prefecture, particularly on May 31 and August 6. 182.249.241.4 (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell [4]. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, DGG, could you examine the related Bottle Rockets (magazine) for notability? Thanks. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There are editors here much more competent than I about sockpuppettry. Some of them look at this page from time to time, and if nobody has helped out by tomorrow, I will remind them. (2) I do not think we have any rules for notability that are suitable for small magazines in very out-of-the-way genres. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:GNG might be enough. Do you have access to College & Research Libraries News? They seem to have covered Tinywords [5] in vol 64, 2003, p. 251. Another short review appeared in doi:10.1080/08893670410001698550. I was asking you to look at these because the editors who have been duking it out over the redirect don't seem to have access or care much for a substantive discussion. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the Voice Business

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

Hi DGG, This is about The Voice Business article that was speedily deleted. I wanted to inform you that I have made citation improvements and also watered down the 'promotional' tone my writing has. So is it all right if I directly recreate the page or is there another course of action you would like to suggest in my case. Sincerely Zahir Ak (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it again. It remained promotional, and two other very experienced WPedians agreed with me about that, the one who nominated it for deletion the first time, and the one who nominated it the second time. Rather than describing the business, it was a advertisement for it, saying how valuable its services were and giving an extensive list of clients with links to their Wikipedia articles. We remove articles like that regardless of the importance of the company. The question is whether you should try again: there is no point unless the company will meet the notability standard. There were zero sources that met the WP:GNG general notability guideline. They must be references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases. 5 of the 12 were your own website. The others were either essentially press releases or directory entries. I tried what I could find myself, but the term is too generic for a proper Google News search. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noormohammed satya socks

Over a year ago, I noticed that an account was systematically creating very poor articles for Indian television and movie awards: they all consisted of nothing more than "The [name of award] is selected by the audience" (or some similarly vague text), followed by a short table of award recipients. It was impossible to tell what the award was for, who granted it, how (if at all) it was notable, etc. I left some advice for the account [6]. There was no response and no change in the behaviour of the user.

A few weeks ago you noticed exactly the same behaviour from another account, and (presumably not even aware of my advice), issued almost identical advice to him [7]. Again, there's been no response and no change in the behaviour of the user.

I believe what's happened is that we had independently discovered socks of the same banned user, User:Noormohammed satya. The account I advised was blocked long ago, and most of its contributions (as well as those of its sister socks) have been deleted for being copyright violations, being non-notable, lacking sufficient context, and/or being contributions of a banned user posted in violation of the ban. However, the account you advised is continuing to run amok due to a backlog at SPI. The clerk has asked for diffs, but as I'm not an administrator I have no access to the deleted articles which would serve to establish a connection between the accounts. If you're interested in taking a look you can find the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noormohammed satya. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 links that might be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello. It occurred to me that you might be intererested in this discussion. Rivertorch (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilt Idema deletion

The page for Sinologist and Harvard Professor Wilt L. Idema has been nominated for deletion. You might wish to comment. ch (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

amazing lack of comprehension. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled

I'm puzzled by your note here. You wrote "I think this indicates at least some importance since its in the Fr WP."

But I wonder whether you read what is on the French WP.

It is simply a mirror of the English WP.

Its only reference is ... to the article on the English WP.

I can't imagine that you think that an article becomes notable solely because a mirror of it has been created on a foreign language WP. That seems non-sensical.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no, but I think it means we should use AfD, not speedy. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, first you remove the claims of importance, then you tag it for deletion for having no claims of importance...? And you're puzzled by DGG's behaviour...? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG -- I don't see why the mere creation of a mirror on a foreign WP, especially as here where the foreign article indicates it is simply a mirror of the English WP, should lead to that conclusion. And it had zero refs (let alone RS refs) other than its ref to the English WP article -- it entirely failed wp:v -- I don't see any basis for adding the tag, as you did, that it be augmented with information from an article that has zero refs other than to the the article you are suggesting it be used to expand. Can you explain? To me, it adds zero.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked for what I needed to, that the frWP article had not already been challenged there. There's no point arguing about a speedy tag here--there's a better place to do so, at AfD . Assuming nobody finds good sources the article will be easily enough deleted, which I think is what you are trying to accomplish. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photon Infotech

Can I borrow your opinion of this article?

I was giving this editor some advice on an AfC draft for a topic that I later discovered was salted in 2008. I was hoping to get him to find a few more good sources, watch the puffery, and get you or another admin who has good sense about handling commercial articles to lift the protection. Somehow he interpreted that as, "Have a sockpuppet evade the protection by recreating it at a wrong title," which is not at all what I intended! As a non-admin, I don't like using G4 unless I personally saw the earlier deleted version, which I didn't. I know it can't stay as it is. Is it worth moving to its correct title? If not, what is right way to get rid of it? Kilopi (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's not a situation for G4. G4 is limited to use when the previous article was deleted at afd; the previous versions here were deleted only at speedy.

Second, the present article is much fuller than any of the deleted versions, which were minimal. The earlier A7 speedies and the salting were rightfully done--no admin would have done otherwise.

Third, I do not think there are sufficiently good sources to show that the company is notable. But enough is asserted to pass a7, and the article is not quite promotional enough for G11. I doubt that further work will show it notable--my guess is there are no additional reliable sources, though I may always be proven wrong about that. The best course, as usual, will be to get a community decision. The simplest way will be for me to move it to the previous title, which does in fact seem to be the correct title, and nominate it for AfD. I think you used good judgment in dealing with this, and the key step of moving it over protection does take an admin. The AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon Infotech. I have notified the other editor. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll make an appearance at the AfD later. I remember seeing a source better than some of the current ones, but not necessarily enough to save it. Kilopi (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wendy Walk

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)�[reply]

Hanbali merge suggestion

Hey man, I replied over here. I hope we can find a way to generate some more discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're super-busy and I did write...well, a lot. But I just thought I'd remind you that I replied in case the talk page isn't on your watchlist. No pressure as it can obviously wait as we see how this turns out; it's just a friendly notice. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied. I'm very willing to continue discussing, the general issue I raised in my reply, but there's a limit to how much attention I want to pay this individual article. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James B. Hunt Jr. Library

James B. Hunt Jr. Library

Hi there, DGG, I hope you are doing well! :)

You previously raised concerns about this article at Talk:James_B._Hunt_Jr._Library#Close_paraphrase.

I was considering reviewing it for GA candidacy, but I wanted to check first with you to see if you could revisit and note on the talk page if those issues have been resolved to your satisfaction?

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

commented, at length. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List

FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blackboard, revised

Hi there, DGG. Just wanted to let you know that I've finished preparing my revisions to the Blackboard Inc. article. I've started looking for other editors to review it and, once there's consensus, move it to the mainspace. In case you're interested, here is:

I know you're quite busy on other projects and disinclined to be the editor who moves this live, but if you have any comments or feedback, I would welcome them. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, DGG. I've updated my draft again following your comment on the talk page from the 11th. I've left a note on the Blackboard Talk page explaining my changes. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gerhard F. Knolmayer

Oops, missed your rollback on this, I've reverted myself. If you're up for actually doing translation, I'll try and keep that in mind going forward. Best, --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm certain it's notable enough to be worth the effort, I can do a translation of at least the basic parts from French and German when it's easy & I'm familiar enough with the subject. As you know, I concentrate on academics. Other subjects--even other languages, only when formulaic or a short stub will do as a placeholder. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It's just good to know something academic like this fellow has a better chance at life that way. Very much appreciated. Have a great day! --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal

Would you take a quick peek at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy - KSSTA? I cleaned out some promotionally, and the refs are a little weak, but there's substantial citations of papers from the journal, so I'd strongly imagine it's notable. I'm not well-versed in what the best usual tests are to indicate that directly for academic journals, and you seem to have (from other discussions I've seen) a clean handle on that, so any suggestions for how to indicate that before I mainspace it would be appreciated. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified one point from the reference given, accepted it,changing the title to Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. It needs some additional information, which I will add tomorrow. The basic idea is very simple: if it's in the major indexes in the field, it's notable. Web of Knowledge is sufficient, because if it's in that it'll be in others also. All such articles need a careful but cautious check against the journal's web site for copyvio: there is really no way of expressing the basics without using the phrases from the website, but if the article includes the usual flowery statement of purpose, we remove that part. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion requested

Hi DGG,

I wondered if you wouldn't mind giving an opinion on something? You may have no opinion or experience with this - either way is fine. I found an article in the "delete" list last week about a giant, global protest called March Against Monsanto. There is much turmoil surrounding the article since it's beginning. I've been building the article by expanding on what the protesters have said, as well as using (the few available) choice articles written about the subject. However, I'm bumping into opposition by editors saying these are fringe theories and any mention of the protesters' beliefs must be accompanied by a discussion of the "mainstream view" (which, to these editors, seems to be that there is nothing to question regarding Monsanto or genetically engineered food: the subjects of the protest). I guess the simplest question would be: does an article about a protest necessitate a scientific debate about the protesters views? Per WP:FRINGE, if I understand correctly, only when these views are explored in depth would they need the disclaimer. Another part to the question would be, is there a way to determine the parameters so that editors can work on the article without being hounded - in other words, I thought I knew my boundaries and have little problem working on most articles in peace, but with this one I am facing a small team of editors who are making the work much more difficult rather than helping. Are you aware of any resources I have (like RfC's) that would deal with this? I am not satisfied that I know enough to ask the proper question - may be you can figure out my question or even direct me to a better spot. Any help would be much appreciated, anyway. Thank you, petrarchan47 t c 21:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to say that it is good, but it nonetheless must be faced, that WP is not an environment where people can work with controversial issues in peace. If peace is what you need, there are many good topics needing development both in the field of agriculture and in corporate history. You're doing the first step in WP:Dispute resolution, asking for a third opinion. I'll comment on the page about the issue, but I need to warn you that WP:DR rarely gives results that anyone thinks satisfactory. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, it does help. I should probably just retire if I want peace (and I do). petrarchan47 t c 22:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, would you consider renaming the section on the MaM talk page, to make it clear that it's not related to the WP:3O board? Thanks, a13ean (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! a13ean (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PRiSM

Hi DGG, been admiring your work here. Think there's article confusion ...see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRiSM Widefox; talk 14:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so there was--the NSA/FBI horror is so much to the front of my mind I didn't stop to think or look. (Though it did not exactly take me by surprise--what else could they possibly have been doing?) DGG ( talk )

PROD

Hello, today I found out that an article that I deleted was put on the PROD list. I was never informed of this and therefore never had a chance to bring it up to standards. Typically, in the past, I've been informed if something I contributed to was up for deletion. From looking at the deleted textbox, it looks like you were the final person to review this. Is it possible that you could restore it temporarily so that I may add relevant sources, etc.? I did not create with the intent of it being a promotional article. I am not affiliated with the author, publisher, etc. Thanks for your input. --domesticenginerd 20:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is apparently Love Does, a book by Bob Goff. (The program I used, Twinkle, should have notified you--I shall check my settings.) It was deleted by another admin, but since I our policy is to undelete any prodded article for good faith improvements, I have undeleted it. What it needs to show notability is substantial book reviews from 3rd party independent published sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases or material on amazon or publishers' sites. If you have them, add them. I'll look again in a week or two. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Chain

Would you be willing to provide some sort of informal mentoring to User:Curb Chain? He was reported to ANI after nominated another list of bands for deletion. My impression is that he is well intentioned but overzealous. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately the topics on which he primarily works are ones about which I am ignorant. I would have no way of knowing, for example, whether inclusion of a band in a particular list is or is not reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A mere redirect is not promotional

Maybe we need to reconsider the text of Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting and in particular #4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a reason for deletion, and sometimes even for speedy. For example, if I were to redirect my law firm to Punitive damages, it would be a G11 as I see it. The article in question was a redirect of a primary school to a school district or a town. It's informative to make such entry for schools, and its routine practice. A redirect isn such a situation in not promotional. If we redirected it to Public education, that would be another matter, though I would call it inappropriate, not promotional. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G5 speedy deletion

I've started a discussion of this rule here and thought you might weigh in with your ideas. Paul venter (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so I did. And at unreasonable length. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that contribution - it covered all the thoughts I had on the matter, and far more eloquently than I could have. Paul venter (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Change for the Cure

It's unfortunate this article wasn't speedied. There never was any organisation. Just one woman wandering around Toronto claiming she had cancer and a charity in order to defraud people. This article should only fall under WP:CRIME or WP:BLP1E.

Now the article's creator is making uncivil accusations at the AfD [8]. It appears this editor has been blocked for various things [9], [10]. I have asked them to stop their disruptive behaviour at their talk page, but given the apparent history..... I really wish Wikipedia would stick to indef blocks when they're given out. Regards Taroaldo ✉ 03:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my opinion on the article at the AfD. The community will decide. The AfD is the place to discuss this, not here. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Heh. I just came by here to say howdy to you as a fellow old timer, DGG, but this is just too good. Keep your daughters away from that Kendrick7. He ain't nothin' but trouble! (I guess Taroaldo has been around a while too, but I can't recall he and I crossing paths before.) -- Kendrick7^talk 05:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion declining the speedy was a mistake, and I wanted to communicate that to you. Sorry for bothering you. I will confine future comments on this subject to the AfD. Regards Taroaldo ✉ 07:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heyzap

Hi, TechCrunch's parent company AOL is an investor in many of the startups they report on via their "CrunchFund investment" including Heyzap through the aforementioned fund's own investor "Ron Conway". I think it is questionable whether they are a reliable source when they have this intricate web of COIs. The COI has been questioned quite publicly: "NYTimes", "AllThingsD". Under that light I would question their validity as a reliable source and their authenticity as proof of notability, on many of the startups they are referenced. comment byUser:Notnoteworthy

I think I said "reliable for some purposes". We have indeed used them very widely as proof of notability, but when I declined your prods, I was careful not to say that specifically. I think what we need is a more general discussion of them that everyone interested will see, and WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard, is probably the best place for it.

Some of those articles struck me as having been prepared by the same PR firm--I work trying to remove promotionalism quite a lot these days, and I look for such similar patterns. That doesn't mean they are entirely promotional, but I have frequently been saying that I regard promotionalism coupled with borderline notability as a reason for deletion at AfD. The place to decide on the individual cases is AfD. I think it fairer than a dialog between the two of us.

However, a least two of the articles in question had full articles devoted specifically to them in the NYTimes--do you think this also suspicious? 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current projects 7-3

I was reading through your current projects listed on your Userpage, and I was curious about 7-3; how would you first define what an "established editor" is? Autoconfirmed? 50 edits? Consensus? Anyhow, I liked 7-1 and 7-2 (and 7-3, just curious about the details). Please let me know when you put this in front of the community at large or if you'd like any help! Happy editing! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really should revise these. The problems at WP change over time, and so do my interests. I am a little less concerned about articles directly, and more about how we deal with editors, I no longer object to using A7 for organizations, and I'm less concerned about the misuse of speedy in general. Since I wrote that 5 years ago, there has been a greater degree of consistency in speedy deletions generally, and in fact with deletion process generally. But more important, as WP becomes important, we are under increasing attack from people and companies who wish to use us for promotion, to the extent that very strong measure are indicated. Many of the A7 company & organization deletions also qualify as G11, and often as G12, copyvio. Their authors have no interest in contributing to an encyclopedia, but want publicity for their enterprises, and a greater percentage of them are paid editors. I have come to think at AfD that for borderline notability, we should also consider the promotional nature of the article--the combination of borderline notability and considerable promotion is reason to delete--but since that's a matter of judgement, it's a question for AfD, not speedy.

I am still willing to restore articles if anyone intends to work on them, and I'm always surprised at the few admins who aren't, I'd now say, not "established editor" but "editor in good faith", & when there's actually a chance of improving the article. In practice it's usually clear enough--and a good faith editorcan even include the rare paid editor who wants to learn and conform to our standards. The problem is a more practical one, of people finding out about the deleted articles. But this is related to what I see as the main current problem:

in the advice we give new editors. too many people rely on the templates, either in New Page patrol or AfC. In any case where there's a reasonable effort , it is really necessary to explain specifically either what is needed, or why it's likely to be hopeless--and by specifically I mean showing that one has actually read and taken into account the particular article. I don't always do this myself--there are simply too many articles to deal with them all carefully--but I try to do it if there's a likely prospect of improvement, in either the article or the editor. But most patrollers and reviewers patrol or review using insufficient care or the wrong criteria.

I'm currently not that much specifically trying to save individual articles, or even to teach individual new editors--I'm trying to use my experience to help the people who work with new editors do it properly. At this point it's not a question of changing our rules, but the way we apply them, and changing the practices and expectations of the people who apply them. I tend to do this as Idid 5 years ago with speedies--I can't check every article submission, but when I see inadequate advice, I can follow up with that particular person. ` DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments subpages and CSD

Well I tried to submit another 30 but Nyttend reverted my edits again, against what I would see as a clear consensus so I am going to leave another note to ANI about it. I just wanted to let you know since you mentioned submitting them in small groups. Kumioko (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comments on my page. Basically Nyttend's actions completely violates the concept of a collaborative project. When one editor or admin can force their own will over consensus, that is a violation of policy. He should be desysopped for violating policy, not allowed to continue violating it. Kumioko (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

he won't be. Speedy is one of the things where people have a Liberum veto, but that does not apply to XfD. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

Well I know he won't be because, well, that just doesn't happen. Once an admin always an admin for the most part. Kumioko (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sue Snell for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Snell (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

D. C. Reddy

David, Reddy is Vice Chancelor. According to our article on his university, the head is the Chancellor, so in this case, VC is not the highest elected position. I know that that doesn't mean he's notable, but it does mean that the article does not show notability. --Randykitty (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Governor of Andhra Pradesh is the chancellor of Osmania University. So clearly Vice Chancellor is the highest post. All universites in India follow this rule. See this. Solomon7968 22:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I didn't know this. Thanks for the clarification and link! --Randykitty (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More info all universities in India except those starting with "Indian xxxxx" have Vice chancellor as the highest academic post. Solomon7968 22:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I knew that VC is sometimes the highest position, but when I saw a chancellor listed, I jumped to the conclusion that this was not one of those cases. I'll try to remember for a next time... --Randykitty (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blackboard Inc.

Hello there, DGG. I left a note with you last week, but it would have been easy to miss upthread. As I said then: I've updated my userspace draft again following your comment on the talk page from the 11th, and I've given specifics on the Blackboard Talk page explaining these changes. Hope you'll have a moment to look soon! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it;'s OK; I will move it tonight, when I can use my admin account. As you know, I don't usually do this, but in this particular case I am familiar enough with the subject field to accept some degree of responsibility for the article. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I know this one is an exception based on your knowledge of the subject, and I really appreciate it. I've also updated my draft now to incorporate the one reliable source from a problematic Criticism section that appeared last week; my take on it is on the article's Talk page now. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's me asking about Blackboard again

Hey there, DGG. All apologies if it seems like I'm pestering—but I'd love to see if you agree with the new update to the Blackboard Inc. article, either for additional feedback or moving over. Link again to my full explanation of the new draft here, and the latest version of said draft here. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

moved to mainspace. Good work! DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Non-free logo and categories are still disabled (as I always do in userspace drafts). Mind fixing those? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can safely do this yourself. It's purely technical. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this might seem silly, but I actually won't be the one to do it. If Jimmy Wales is serious that paid advocates (which I'll accept being called) never edit article space, I'd better take that seriously, right? I know it's not your viewpoint, as far as we've discussed—and it does conflict with WP:COI's guidelines about uncontroversial changes—but I'd prefer to follow "best practices" as he describes it. Relatedly: I actually raised a question about a similar situation at Village pump (policy) the other day, but didn't get much feedback. I'm thinking about asking at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Thoughts? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 05:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that you are asking me to do work, in order for you to make a point. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that is not entirely wrong. Of course, I've been asking you to do work Jimbo has said I shouldn't do. I press a point that might be silly because I want to follow the rules, but said rules may be worth revisiting. But I really appreciate what you've done—and Stalwart111 has actually made these final changes—which I appreciate as well. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 06:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johns article

Hi DGG - I'm getting in touch because of your input in the delete review for the Michael Johns (executive) page, in which it was decided that the page should be deleted. I didn't see the page, before it went, and so don't really have an opinion on whether or not it should have gone - but looking around the web, it did seem to me that although there's a lot of blatantly promotional material out there, this person is actually notable, both as a political commentator/analyst and as a leader/spokesman in the Tea Party movement. I went through the available online material to try to find sources that are reliable, and I put together a short article about Johns, that I've posted at User:Phrenology/Michael Johns (executive). A couple of weeks ago, the deleting admin, User:King of Hearts, said that he'd take a look at this draft article, but he seems pretty busy right now, and hasn't got back to me yet. In the mean-time (and because of your input during the delete review) I wondered whether you might be interested in taking a look, and letting me know what you think. Is this draft an improvement on the page that was deleted? Thanks for your time. Phrenology (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is a very considerable improvement. The deleted article was 56K, this is 11 K. As I said at the AfD, not that there was no prospect of notability , but that "it would be fairer to remove the entire contents from history and start over." It might still be challenged, but if so I think it would probably be kept, though of course one can never tell about AfD. I just moved it to Michael Johns (policy analyst), which is the qualifier used for him by the Library of Congress. You did a very nice job of this. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DGG! Phrenology (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Library cat

Hello DGG: I accepted Library cat from AfC, and per your background in library science (et al.), please feel free to check it out, improve it, etc. if you have the time or interest. Best regards, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Du

...is back again (again). Any chance you could salt the title? Cheers, Stalwart111 21:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Stalwart111 23:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And she is again with us! :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Yue Bor75 (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, or have shown some ability and interest in helping to develop broad topic areas, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I also raise a few questions about broader possible changes in some things here, which you might have some more clear interest in. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closure?

Hi DGG! I'd originally posted on Yunshui's page since she was involved with this, but I have a bit of something I'd like to ask advice on. I had opened a deletion discussion on Dianne de Las Casas becuase I wasn't sold on her notability. I'm still not. I withdrew it for reasons that were pretty much made invalid by Yunshui (afraid that deleting her would result in the deletion of other articles with similar tenuous sources), but she kept the AfD open, which I didn't mind. A week has passed and a non-admin has closed the discussion as keep. The argument for its inclusion was far from conclusive or clean, so I think it was fairly inappropriate for it to be closed by a non-admin. I think the other user was operating in good faith and non-admins can close AfDs, but I really think that this is one instance where it shouldn't have been closed. The only "keep" we have (other than a withdraw that was overturned) is a weak keep and there's still a lot of questions over whether or not the sources are really even considered to be reliable. Can you look into this and, if appropriate, re-open the AfD? I just don't think this is something that should be non-admin closed (especially considering that the user has only been editing for a few months) and I kind of think it should go into another week given that there was no clear consensus to keep. The AfD page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianne de Las Casas. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment at: User talk:King jakob c 2#Non-admin closure to AfDs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut Butter & Co.?

Hi DGG! I noticed that it looks like you tried to nominate Peanut Butter & Co. for deletion, but it comes up as the AfD for the first time the founder and the company was nominated. I didn't know if you wanted to fix this for AfD or maybe withdraw the potential nomination. I agree that the founder doesn't seem to have much individual notability apart from the company, but I did find some extended coverage for the company itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to fix this, but I do not know how. I've asked for help at WT:AFD. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

Fixed it for you - it's now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peanut Butter & Co. (2nd nomination) if you want to add some comments. Cheers, Stalwart111 23:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Stalwart111 04:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: CSD G11

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Tyros1972's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OK I think when in doubt I will use AfD since I am still learning all the rules. Sure there is rather obvious times I see speedy should be used (i.e. article recreated that has been deleted via the AfD etc.) Thanks again for your help. Tyros1972 Talk 12:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daewoo Express

Thanks for the review of the speedy recommendation. Hope you are not offended that I took it AfD. Thanks again. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perfectly reasonable thing for you to do. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted that list of Comments subpages to MFD

Not sure if you noticed but I submitted that list of Comments subpages to MFD.Kumioko (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PAIRS Foundation

Hi David. I've just declined a CSD on this article and it wasn't until I looked in the history to leave a message on the tagger's talk page that I saw that you had tagged it for deletion. I felt the article could be cleaned up of its promotional tone, but where you and I rarely, if ever, disagree on deletions and where your opinion is more experienced than mine, you are welcome to reinstate the CSD tag. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting more and both bothered by promotionalism, and it is perfectly possible I may sometimes drift too far, especially when I am looking at the same things too long--last night I was looking through the list of older accepted AfCs to find ones on organizations that shouldn't have been accepted, which in 2011 may have been more than half of them. At present I know I am influenced by the necessary effort to rewrite, and whether the organization is worth it in the first place, which is a rather broad interpretation of " exclusively promotional, "and "fundamentally rewritten to be neutral", but one that I think all of us are increasingly using; essentially anything can be rewritten neutrally, even if what will remain doesn't have a chance of showing notability== as both of us have proven in the past. I'll probably rewrite it when I'm feeling optimistic. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy on Mary Soon Lee

Hey DGG, I declined the speedy on Mary Soon Lee. There was *just* enough there to where I didn't think it fit cleanly within A7. I'm still not 100% on her, but I do think that there is some assertion to passing WP:AUTHOR. Her bibliography is pretty massive (I only added the stories published in the mainstream magazines and books) and I've added a few sources, so I thought I'd let you know that I've declined it and leave it up to you if you want to pursue AfD or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a bit thin on RS to me - mostly blogs. Needs more RS refs with coredepth. Overall the article appears to make claims of significance, but that long list of awards is unreferenced, and whether the awards themselves are notable is questionable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl, you managed to find a good deal of additional material. I should have looked further myself. I think it's good enough to stand at present. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's no biggie- I really had to comb for what I did find. I do agree with Kudpung in that the award section is probably one of the most dodgy parts of it. I'm still of half a mind to delete that part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

some of what they listed as "awards" are actually reprints in collections, and that should be verified & kept , as it tends to show notability. Otherwise, being listed as "honourable mention" or "nominated" is the sort of thing that should be removed, except for the very most famous awards, where the nomination level is itself selective, as for the Booker short list DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fons Hickmann

Sources don't add themselves you know. The fact that someone found sources four years ago and still hasn't added them is proof of that. How much longer does it need to rot before someone does something? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) No longer "rotting", I've added multiple references. He is a very notable graphic designer. Voceditenore (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As another ed said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fons Hickmann (3rd nomination), '[your] assertion that the GNews hits are only "passing mentions" is completely unfounded and utter nonsense'. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mica Kings listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mica Kings. Since you had some involvement with the Mica Kings redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).

Hi DGG - just notifying as per norm since you moved the page Mica Kings to Chhattu Ram Horil Ram Private Limited. Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_26#Mica_Kings. With respect to your remark there - the original article claimed they were so important in its industry it was the colloquial name - I have made some comments at - Talk:Chhattu_Ram_Horil_Ram_Private_Limited#Reference_-_interpretation - please go through it. In fact it was right thing that you moved page to CH Limited as the name Mica Kings - was a WP:HOAX - as you will be able to understand from my remarks at article talk page - now this hoax name as Redirect is being used as a name for self-advertisement and which cannot be allowed. The name Mica Kings was used in templates and other articles - where from I rmvd it ---- the redirect should be deleted - as per Wikipedia policy. Regards. Jethwarp (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and have now said so at the RfD DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Renaldo Fischer for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw that you tagged it for speedy, but the user requested it go through a more thorough discussion because at some point in time the books weren't always self-published. I kind of think that non-SP books are sort of depreciated greatly when it comes to establishing enough notability to skate by A7, though. In any case, I'm giving you a head's up since you had previously tagged it for speedy deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

commented there; I didn't think to check whether it had been previous actually published by a regular company. I've very rarely seen this, though I suppose it is a rational way for an author to keep their book in print. Agreed a case like this needs AfD. DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Computer Science in Russia (symposium) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Computer Science in Russia (symposium) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Science in Russia (symposium) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy tag was removed by another user and then replaced by another user soon after. I don't know that we can really speedy under those circumstances, so I started an AfD on it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to move it to AfD--when in doubt, it's better to get a community decision. I commented there. Our way to handle conference series needs clarification. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SpiderCloud

Hello, you previously deleted a proposed article submission for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderCloud Wireless, as you felt the material was too promotional. I have rewritten it and pared everything down to the bare minimum. I am very interested to get your view on the material here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cbranin/sandbox and will gladly try to incorporate any advice you have. I included the awards section, as the Wall Street Journal is obviously a very credible source. Thank you for your time and feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbranin (talk • contribs) 20:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

responded on your user talk p. It's getting there. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, Someone moved it to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cbranin/SpiderCloud_Wireless I've added an additional two articles as you have suggested. It's absolute bare bones minimum information, but am afraid to add to much. Do you think it would help or hurt to add more detail about the products? Thank you for your review and time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbranin (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I've added one more article, I thought that would be supportive, listed as number 8 in the references area. Hopefully you feel this is ready to move to mainstream? If you have further advice, I'm open to it. Thank you!

Just confirming, as you suggested earlier, you will move it into the approval space? If there's anything else you'd like me to do, please let me know. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbranin (talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, haven't heard back from you. Just wondering if you had any further advice, otherwise it's OK to move this in to the approval space I guess. Again, I think you very much for your help and advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbranin (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. Whether or not it will be challenged is unpredictable, but I think it will probably hold. All one can say about such things here is "probably" DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.199.104 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: A Hat in Time

Hello DGG, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of A Hat in Time, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. w^L^{<speak·check>} 17:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it very reasonable for anyone who disagrees to remove a speedy tag. The community then gets to decide on the article--in this case, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Hat in Time. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Hsin-chun review status

Hi! I'm not sure if Ho Hsin-chun has been reviewed or un-reviewed. Just in case I added another source with more material to add a bit more to her article.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewed; to make it unambiguous, I made a trivial edit of my own. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative

Could you clean up the promo language and emphasis on activities not really noted by independent sources? I have a feeling your tax dollars were at work in the creation of that article. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duckduckgo

DGG, I noticed some article creations by User:Duckduckgo (who probably needs a namechange anyway, as this is the name of a company), and at his talk page, I noticed your comment "I know this has been discussed in the past, and I know that what you are doing has been discouraged, so it disappoints me that you are still doing it." If this is a new user, then your comment is rather WP:BITEy, as that user is probably not aware of this being discouraged. If he is not a new user (which seems not unlikely), then it seems probable that he is one of those users that used to create DNB articles but are now blocked. The lack of edit summaries or "own" writing in these DNB articles makes it of course harder to detect the possible sockmaster. The teahouse invitations he sends to new users may be a clue though. The "clever" name as well.

Do you have any further evidence or indications that this is a returned (blocked) user? Fram (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to look at the article, not the contributor. I wrote that in fact before I saw the name of the user, as I had seen the exact same thing yesterday on several other recently submitted pages, which I shall now try to collect. As you say, the idea of doing this could occur to more than one person, but I think I recall seeing it on figures of a similar very slight degree of importance. I have also see the old (and in fact the new dnb cited as a source for people who are only mentioned, not the subjects of articles or receiving substantial coverage themselves. I'll try to find some of these also.

Fram, when you come back to see this, take a look at the item just above. It's .gov, but not a US-PD source. DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift reply. I'll try to look at this and the thing above tomorrow! Fram (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIgns of promotionalism

For anyone watching, there are some internal signs of promotional-style biographies for businessmen that are almost always copyvio as well (besides the obvious giveaway of a statement of how important the company is, and especially a statement of how important their duties were in previous positions in the firm.)

Headings that use <big> instead of our formatting

Placing the education at the end, with a final sentence of about spouse and children.

Not giving the positions in chronological order, and often not including earlier positions except the one just before coming to the firm.

The corresponding signs for academics are slightly different, depending on whether they're done by a central office or by the individual. For senior administrators they characteristically include multiple junior executive positions and in-university awards. For any faculty, if the individual wrote it, it will often includes full details of all publications however minor; if the central office, it will omit most exact titles, especially for journal articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Rabinor

I see you (rightly) rejected an earlier submission (WP talk:Articles for creation/Doug Moran (author)) by the editor who recently created Judith Rabinor, so you may be in a better position than I to evaluate what's going on. EEng (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Moran (author) also made it to mainspace. I've nominated both for G11,and if declined will take to AfD. Although the ed. has written a number of promotional articles, they've done some good work also. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, good thing I asked you. I was just going to have him thrown to the lions. EEng (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of ADC Review Journal of Antibody-drug Conjugates page - Please reinstate page

Just a request - professional courtesy - to reinstate the page for ADC Review / Journal of Antibody-drug Conjugates. This pages refers to a real (ISSN listed and indexed; see: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/828718061 ) open access, peer reviewed, medical publication, launched earlier this year. Just like any other medical journals, it should be allowed to be placed among other medical and peer reviewed journals. The language used on the page was not designed as an advertisement, nor designed to promote the journal. Given the upcoming and expanding field of ADCs, this journal is a relevant addition to published materials designed especially for the academic and medical research community - hence a reference made to this journal (as a page) on WikiPedia - in line with the rules of Wikipedia- is acceptable. Again, I understand that advertisement and promotion should not be part of WikiPedia, so if you don't agree with the language or content on this page, improve rather than delete the page. Thank you for your help and considerations. Hofland (talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct that you subject you plan to publish is an important subject, but that is not the same as saying that you publish anything important about it.

I will rewrite even a purely promotional article for subject I think important, when I have time to do it and it is within my competence-- but only if the article is very likely to be kept in WP, for there are so many in need of rewriting that there's no point in making the best possible article for something that will certainly not be judged notable.

The absolute minimum criterion is that it be actually published, not just planned--except sometimes for journals from major societies all of whose publications are certainly notable . The usual criterion for a journal to be notable in WP and thus for the article to be kept, is being indexed in the major selective indexes. The journal, which apparently has not yet published any articles, is in my view not really in existence, and, understandably enough, not yet in any indexes. The WP article you submitted here has a section, explaining, accurately, that it will not be eligible for Journal Citation Reports until after two years of publication, in the 2016 JCR to be published in mid 2017. It however says that it 'will be indexed there. It will be indexed there, of course, only if it is judged to be eligible, which is not the case for most journals, and there is no reason a priori for assuming this will be one of that relatively selective group, for you have never published anything else. You also mention that it will be in PubMed. If it does publish anything substantial in the way of original content, only then will it be there. It obviously cannot be even considered for indexing there or anywhere else now, because there is not yet a single item to index.

For the record, I could not even find a table of contents. Most new journals have the sense not to even try to get an article here until they have something to show. The classic example of an article that will be immediately rejected is a garage band that has not yet produced a recording. The same is true for a publisher who has not yet published anything: the only content on your website is material reprinted from elsewhere.

Your article is an attempt to get publicity for your new product. A key part of my role as an administrator here is to keep out press releases. When it's in pubmed, try again. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG. Thank you for your concern and constructive comments. This page is NOT an attempt to get publicity (there are better and other ways to do that. I appreciate the fact that you need to keep out press releases (and no, this publication is not a garage band without a recording - there are relevant article published in this journal). With reference to something to show (without being sarcastic, we're professionals, so there is no need for that), please see http://adcreview.com/page/editorial and http://adcreview.com/page/life-sciences-news-headlines and http://adcreview.com/page/industry-perspectives Also, please consider that the page is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the cohing in the category Publications established in 2013, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Publications_established_in_2013 - Some of these publications are, in contrast to the page for ADC Review / Journal of Antibody-drug Conjugates, blatant "press release like" promotion and marketing) Also, while the publishers are working on being included in other databases, it will take some time before this happens (2 - 5 years). While there is indeed a requirement NOT to promote or to "market" products, a brief reference to the publication should not be barred, especially since this journal is covering the needs of a growing research community of people in academia, life-sciences and pharmaceutical industries involved in the development of ADCs. Furthermore, an independent editorial board has been established to guarantee the quality of the content in this publication I'd like to suggest to accept this page as a stub and judge the validity of it's existence in 6 - 8 months and see how this journal holds up. Thank you for your consideration. Hofland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

what it does not have to show is peer reviewed articles, and it is therefore not yet a published peer-reviewed academic journal: what you linked to were two editorials and one informal presentation. It is indeed with the scope of the project of academic journals; "within the scope" means the participants in that project take an active interest in articles on journals, an interest which includes both getting articles for the notable ones, and removing the others. Based on my experience of actively following and usually participating in every discussion on academic journals for the last 7 years, there is zero chance that it will be accepted as a subject for an encyclopedia article at AfD until it's in at least PubMed or a comparable index. Even the extremely unselective DOAJ requires published articles, and we have never accepted DOAJ as indicating notability, much less the trivial status of being in OCLC or ISSN. (I'm telling you honestly the result of consensus, though it is true that I altogether agree with this standard & have always supported it & indeed worked to establish it. When people come here, I always give them the consensus advice, not my own opinion It would be irresponsible if I did otherwise.)

Randykitty, a good wikifriend of mine, also told you the correct standards, as I would have expected, since in the past we have agreed 98% of the time. . (I am slightly broader on inclusion than he; there is some disagreement over the borderline area of whether the new journals from an organization every one of whose published journals is notable can be considered notable immediately; AfD decisions on these vary.) It would not be fair to you if I gave you advice to write an article which will inevitably result in a very public discussion of why the journal is not notable. As a molecular biologist myself. I agree that the subject is an important field, and I wish you success. First comes success, and then the article.

An announcement of something not yet notable is inherently promotion. We do not publish announcements of things that are not yet notable: as one of our basic policies WP:NOT says, we are not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)verage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. Also, given the importance of ADC in cancer therapy and the inclusion in ISSN and OCLC databases (other databases following), this is a relevant - non promotional - inclusion (note that everything that could possibly be promotional for this journal has been removed. Thank you.. Hofland ( talk )[reply]

DGG. With reference to the above. Based on the inclusion criteria used by one of the editors in this case (User :Randykitty) other new publications should not be included either (this includes anyt

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric A. Spiegel

~~Can I ask you why the copyright violation is being ignored.~~ Never mind I see what you did...sorry spoke to soon. :- ) Moxy (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG -- A BIG thank you for your help in getting me started on fixing this. I see what you did and now understand. Many, many thanks! CRHassettVA4 (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I rewrote it entirely. The copyvio from the source listed was only in the first paragraphs, but I assumed the rest was copyvio also and I rewrote them also, as well as changing the general pattern of the article to our style. I rarely do it for business executives, but he seems important enough.

Ashleigh Lynn-Hayes

Hi, I noticed that you denied speedy for this article and suggested redirection. But where should it be redirected to? I couldn't find anything related to "Ashleigh Lynn-Hayes" or "The Scorpionette" when I did a quick search. I can only assume that the article creator has made a page for a character that he has created by himself (just as he has made an article for his own short story). Widr (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you are quite right; I had not noticed the ed.'s name. Deleted as no context. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]