User talk:DGG/Archive 90 Jul. 2014

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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

Possibly misleading files used at Star Valley Medical Center

Do you think you could look through 7simplepromise (talk · contribs)'s file uploads and compare them to their deleted files for possible similarities? Because on at least two of them, (File:Hitachi MRI.jpg and File:SVMC Charitable Golf Tournament.jpg), they've just re-uploaded one of their files that had previously been deleted with a different license description. The only reason I'm asking you is because I notice that you've interacted with them before. I know its a lot to ask, but judging by those two, this might be a wider problem. Thanks. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

it looks like they're the same, but I don;t normally work with images. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

== Amy Myers ==

So pleased that Amy Myers has gotten her due. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missivonne (talk • contribs) 11:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

I want to thank you for attempting to mediate Franklin child prostitution ring allegations WP page. I'm certainly willing to find a compromise, but other editors are not willing to compromise with your prudent suggestions. I'm a bit perplexed, but I thank you. Nick (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

removal of a bunch of AFC templates

This recent edit of yours took out a bunch of AFC templates. I restored them. If this was a script-driven edit you may want to check your other uses of the script for similar problems. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

CE Delft

You deleted CE Delft recently. Would you mind restoring it? It may fail to state its importance, but it has been a notable organization in the Netherlands for almost 30 years. Cheers, --Jens Nielsen (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 01:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Jensbn, I've restored it temporarily, but you must immediately add to it some good references from third party sources that show it is notable-- see WP:CORP. Do not however, add back the praise of itself that was in earlier versions. I 've place on a tag that should stop immediate deletion, but if it isn't better this time next week, I'll have to list it for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ivo Boscarol

Hello Mr. Goodman,

I have now completed the Ivo Boscarol article. Old version was a mere translation of an outdated and unreferenced Slovenian wiki article. Please have a look at it. It was not an easy job, took more time than anticipated, finding proper references and contents made quite a few gray hair. I am open to your suggestions.

Best from Slovenia AndyKamy (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

AndyKamy, the main problem is that much of the material you added this really belongs in the article on the company, especially the photos of the plane. This is always a problem when the notability of an individual is closely involved with the notability of a company for which he is chiefly responsible. Sometimes it's hard to justify two articles. In this case, I think they can be written to be sufficiently distinct: he is notable for his personal role in designing the plane--the company for producing it and related models. I think it will stand under criticism, but nothing here is predictable. Whether the details of the competition are appropriate to either article is something I do not know--I'd suggest asking the experts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. also added a interwiki link to the Slovenian WP article --it automatically makes the backlink there--you do not have to add it. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and observations, for the addition of an interwiki link. I will try to harmonize both articles, on the person and on his company, including the pictures, to be distinct yet complementary. The details of the competition will also get a reconsidered context, and the opinions of the WikiAircraft experts will be taken into account. AndyKamy (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Prospective bio Andrew J. Maloney (former US Attorney for Eastern District of NY)

David:

I am attempting to write this article from scratch, using about two dozen references, mostly articles from the NYT. You may remember the speedy nom and delete a month or so back. You were kind enough to userfiy the original article written by the subject's son. You placed that at User:Duke Maloney/Andrew Maloney. I've placed a proposed userbox in a new section at the bottom of that page, along with 16 references that ought to be enough to prevent this page from being prematurely deleted (I'm gun-shy at the moment!)

I have a couple of questions:

• Title of article - the full name of the subject is Andrew Joseph Maloney, Jr., but the name, as listed at the US DA ENY official website is Andrew J. Maloney as are all but one of the mentions in NYT articles I've read (other than the standard second mention 'Mr. Maloney'. Should I go with that? No other Andrew J. Maloney article titles exist, nor do DABs.
• I've picked a generic infobox officeholder template; it seems to be a good fit since a US District Attorney is appointed by the President and is the chief federal law enforcement officer (or one of two, three, or four) for a state. I did not, however, find this usage for any other former US District Attorney.

I will post the lede and body for the article as a block for your inspection and advice.

Thanks, Phil - Neonorange (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Neonorange, the rule for middle names and initials is WP:MIDDLE: use the most common form, which in this case in apparently Andrew J. Maloney. Give the full form in the first sentence. (btw, for second mentions in WP, we use Mahoney, not Mr. Mahoney.)

inforbox practice is not very consistent at present. If the infobox specialists want to change it, they will do so. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, explanations, and advice. I was trying to poke a little fun at the gray lady, but upon re-reading my sentence, I see that it's just a straight line. - Neonorange (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

David, I've written a spare lede and placed it on User:Duke Maloney/Andrew Maloney. I intend to write a similarly spare article, and let additional details be added by others, as justified. I think I should take down the userfied material, as I have a local copy, likely Duke Malony does also; so I think it no longer serves any purpose. Thanks for your help. - Neonorange (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick Request for Help

Hi. Just to let you know that Duke Maloney may get in touch with you for help in expunging an edit where he was over-specific in providing some information to another editor with whom he is collaborating in an article on his father. If you look at my comment at the end of User_talk:Duke_Maloney#Beginning_of_new_draft_article you'll be able to work out what happened. Given the particular subject of the article and his professional work, we'd probably be wise to err on the side of caution on this one. Thanks in advance for your help. RomanSpa (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just noticed that you've already given some advice on this article a couple of sections further up this talk page, so you've probably got some familiarity with what's going on already. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Whoops

Thanks for the clarification! I guess it was just me or how the editor wrote it, but at least it has been solved. Also, I hope this isn't much hassle, but can you review this article I created just to see if it meets with Wikipedia standards? I want to see what needs to be improved so it's a good quality article, and is there any parts of info that should be sourced/cited or addressed? The article is Canberra College. Thank you. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Burklemore1,the article is fine. One thing more: if there are alumni who have WP articles, add them in a Notable alumni section. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Request to review article

David, This is Mary from the LPA - could you review an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mfrm123/Chester_Edward_Ide is it ready for moving to the mainspace? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfrm123 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Mfrm123 The actual notability is a little dubious: tho there are some publications about him, the actual work was never widely played, and apparently not recoding in any published recordings. This is interesting example in showing how much can be said about a minor figure. Tha basics are OK. The style needs some adjusting:

1.Try to combine the short sentences into longer paragraphs.

2. Some of the bio detail is a little excessive. His musical work is what is important.

3. as details: We don't use Mr., just the last name, or "he" ; titles of newspaper articles go inside quote marks; titles of newspapers in italics.

3. and, what is an "Ideal engine"? :

I'll check again in a few days. I'll be at LPA one or day this week, but I do not know which. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll work on it, although it may take me more than a few days to get to it. Mfrm123 (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Mfrm123

Actually, I had the time to edit it while at the LPA this week. I think it is finished - I tried to incorporate your comments. Would you mind taking another look at it? If it is OK, do you want to move it to the mainspace, as with the other article, or should I? Mfrm123 (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Mfrm123

Thank you for your help!! Mfrm123 (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Mfrm123

Ambedkar Polytechnic

Hello again, DGG. I found two old drafts about this college and merged them into this one, since they appeared to have similar text. There's another version of the text HERE, but it appears to have been copied from Wikipedia. Is the specific information, such as the list of staff members and contact information, appropriate? To me it seems more like a college web site than a Wikipedia page. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this one out to me; our articles on universities in that country are remarkably bad, but I never imagined like this. It's so much an advertisement that the actual college website is much more sedate. (We never include staff other that the highest level of administration (for most universities, only the President or its equivalent), we only include alumni with WP articles or obviously qualified; we never include examination test results ). I will reduce it as I usually do. (one frighteningly common feature: they're apparently proud of the no. of journals the library receives: 20 ). DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Great. I knew something had to be done; I just wasn't sure how much. Thanks for taking it off my hands. Hmmm... it seems from the items below that you have a little work cut out for you... —Anne Delong (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nag

I know you're a busy man, Sir. (Or perhaps sleeping off your North American Early July Bingeathon.) Sorry to nag, but bump.

My own comment? Rather a lot of this is currently sourced to the organization itself. Still, the organization seems noteworthy (in the normal, non-WP sense of the word), and there appear to be plenty of other sources. (Sources for precisely what, I don't claim to know: I've been too busy/lazy to look into any.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Hoary.

just what article is this? DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:AndrewHanauer/Jubilee_USA. -- Hoary (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

they probably are notable in the ordinary sense, once we can get them to show it. I'll comment there. DGG ( talk ) 18

39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. I asked again because this matter does seem to have dragged on for some time, during which the person making the request has been unfailingly cooperative. (See my own talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

in a few hours. 10:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep on eye on two article, please

Hi, David. Based on this comment, I think somebody is going to nominate Barbette Spaeth and John McWhorter per WP:POINT for deletion. Since I am busy off-wiki, can you please monitor the situation? Bearian (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. This history might indicate a single purpose account. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is not associate professors, but the particular physical theory. Anyway, McWhorter meets WP:AUTHOR. I'm rather doubtful about Spaeth. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Need some adivce about a philosophy prof

Hi David. I need some advice on Draft:Andrew Brook, a philosophy professor at Carleton University, which has all the hallmarks of having been written by a student. It originally looked like this and was, of course, rejected. However, I've spent some time referencing and re-writing the bio part to see of if he might meet WP:PROF. See JSTOR and WorldCat. Is it worth me continuing to fix it? Or should I just let it be? I've left in the original creator's lengthy exegesis of Brook's book Kant and the Mind, although in my opinion that section needs drastic pruning if the draft were to go into article space. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

He meets WP:AUTHOR and the GNG, because of the biographical entry in the standard encyclopedia, Contemporary Authors. Chancellor's Professor and similar designations may or may not meet WP:PROF -- the meaning depends on the university (in this case it's a term appointment but a distinguished one--I will add the link to their policy) , but he's been President of the national professional association in his field, & therefore meets WP:PROF. For establish WP:PROF, it helps to use the specific shortcuts if they apply., because then there's no need to analyze citations etc.

As you say, the article's section on his book seems excessive. (There's a problem with non-fiction books: for fiction, its accepted the work itself can be used to summarize the plot--it's a plain description, not OR;l for nonfiction, there's no clear standard for summarizing the contents. We've usually not accepted a chapter by chapter summary in detail, but this is not as unreasonable.) In this case, the section seems to be adequately cited for the purpose to the reviews, a reliable source for the purpose. Given that adequate secondary sourcing, I'm not as comfortable drastically shortening it as I would be otherwise. I'll make a few changes and accept it.

actually, I would have accepted the original & just normalized the section formatting. The rejection reason was flat-out wrong, for he met WP:PROF on the face of it. (what happens, is that all of us tend to judge on the basis of impressions, not reading the drafts through carefully. Myself included. Life is short and the submission queue is never-ending.) His CV is sufficiently reliable documentation for routine bio details. Of course, that part is now immensely superior now that you've done it properly. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, David! I saw this query at the AfC Help Desk, had a look at the draft, and had pretty much the same impression as you that he would pass WP:PROF. The main problem was that the creator didn't know that his full name was John Andrew Brook. Hence, many important sources, especially the ones supporting the Rhodes scholarship, DPhil dissertation, etc. were "lost" + the reviewers couldn't see past the formatting problems. Anyhow, all's well that ends well. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

deletion tagging=

I will be next time care full in tagging article for deletion. Sulaimandaud (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks . DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yu Yongfu

Hi. You suggested this article is a copyvio but this report only shows 4.7% confidence of a violation, and running the tool without a search URL, no matches are found. Have I missed something? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

this is a more recent version, adjusted to merely be a paraphrase, but not a close enough one for G12. ; the earlier version was copyvio and deleted as such. This is promotional, tho I'm not sure enough for it to be G11. I intend to edit it. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 19:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi DGG, The text has been edited. The questions raised by you and the others were considered accordingly. How to prevent it from deletion. Thanks Arturlazarian (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Arturlazarian

I intend to adjust the currently inappropriate style as best I can. What will happen to it is up to the community, if anyone chooses to nominate it for deletion at WP:AfD. One thing it does certainly need, that yo can help with, is a reference for his place of birth and his education. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet more promotional articles from the same stable

Hi David. The same stable that brought us Matthew Knowles (actor), Barbara Amaya, Tejune Kang, Ron Shimshilashvili (actor), and Benjamin Wey has also produced Alex Munoz and Zach Everson. I've nominated the former for AfD after the PROD was removed by another SPA. The latter still has the PROD, but I may have to take it to AfD if it's removed. What an incredible time sink! Isn't there anything we can do? The editor responsible for all these articles + adding promotional material to several others has already received a final warning from Deb for adding promotional material to WP [1]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've dealt with Munoz. And with the editor. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Alas, the PROD was removed from Zach Everson, so I've had to take to AfD. Hopefully, this will be the last from that editor, at least in that incarnation. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you possibly

review and supply some indications in the lead to that article? I've been searching around to try and tweak it further. My problem is, I haven't found much yet because so much reportage is copycattish, full of errors, not focused on the larger picture, and it is taking an inordinate amount of time just to fix the numerous errors in source clashes (names, spelling, ages, etc). It's personally depressing both to feel that such an article is required, even after the other two. Of course, no obligation to take note of this request either. Best Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani , just which article? Yongfu? I don;t really see the pointt in breaking out a lede for a stub like this. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BIRDCON resistance

Please see User talk:SMcCandlish#Any chance of a negotiated close? (version of 23:46, 11 July 2014). It seems to me that your decision at WP:BIRDCON is being resisted.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I commented. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.—Wavelength (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vista Verde School

You might find the discussion here interesting. Whether or not for the same reasons, I think we both share the same preferred outcomes in such cases. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

for the exact same reasons: consistency and to avoid destroying a working compromise. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What bothers me more than anything else is the determination of some users to use mass AfD nominations as a back-door way to get current practice changed, although they are fully aware of the most probable outome. To achieve that, they would need to nominate over 1,000 school articles for deletion, which would almost all have to be closed as 'delete'. That will of course never happen. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

mass afd nominations are never a good idea, but single afd nomination are I think a perfectly valid way of testing consensus; I've done it from time to time. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC);

Can't argue with that - I have too, but at the mement a couple of editors appear to have nothing better to do than go through the cats of school articles, country by country, and list them at AfD. Some could just as easily be uncontentiously and boldly redirected. IMO their time would be better spent improving and expanding some of the 'notable' school articles that are in desperate need of attention.

BTW - are you going to London? If not, are there any presentations you would like me to visit on your behalf? There aren't many that actually interest me so I will be spending much of my time there assisting on the WPMUK booth - and socializing ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MGM-Pathé Communications

The stub has been expanded and sourced and now shows the company meeting WP:ORG through WP:NRVE and WP:NTEMP (See HERE). You are cordially invited to revisit the article and advise. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

InMarq article

Dear DGG,

I've recently created an article about a newly emerging InMarq platform as a service in Netherlands. The organization is at the early stage of development. There is existing research data and the platform itself presents a new concept for digitalizing retail industry.

I believe that there is a lot of valuable information that could be created on Wikipedia related to retail industry and digital content. I have a lot of respect for the services wiki editors do and refer to the collection of wiki knowledge on a daily basis. Please help from your point of view with editing the InMarq article.

Thank you for your time and effort!

Hristos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hristos Heron (talk • contribs) 11:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopedia of the things in the world that are already notable. The articles says: " The InMarq team is currently involved in analyzing and planning the implementation of the system for Netherlands." And you say the same, above. Once it is developed, and there are references from 3rd party sources discussing it substantial, then will be the time to write an article. At present, every reference in your article either was devoted to the economic background, or the general need for such products, or was a reference to the online bios of the people involved.

I wiah you success; when you are successful, then it seems very likely that there will be potential for a good article.

In the meantime, yes, we do need articles on the retail industry in general, as well as individuals and firms that are already notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

When you find the, add them and resubmit the article--without them it would never be accepted here. For our guidelines, see WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:Reliable Sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Jean-Serge Brisson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean-Serge Brisson 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/Jean-Serge Brisson (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. 117Avenue (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

RowenaPmjx (talk · contribs)

That was a spambot. The linking was kind of weird, but the long article name combined with the user page edit indicates that it was a spambot. I can't remember what the name people have given to that spambot. It has been active for a long time. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Mss AfDs

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

G13 notifications

Did you ask for all these notifications to be posted here or is there something wrong with the bot? It's almost seized my browser loading your talk page.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

the bot is placing them one at a time instead of combining them, because they haven't considered it important to so them batchwise. But I would much rather receive notices of everything ZI've previously dealt with even in this manner, than not receive them at all The reason I get so many is because I am one of the very fe people postponing afcs instead of just deleting them, and everything i've postponed gets notified to me six months later. As is typical for me, I felli it essential to deal with the items, even if it would be more efficient to fix the system, because I know I can deal with the items, and trying to fix the afc system has proven an almost hopeless undertaking, and pushing to get it done only arouses bitter hostility from those committed to it.My opinion is increasingly that we would do better to return to the old system of having everything written in mainspace and deal with it uniformly, than to use this system further. Your effort, which I strongly supported, of requiring qualifications for reviewing has failed to remove the already established people who insist on doing it wrong. I'm trying to figure out how to approach this: I am now inclined to literally follow the informal guideline that anything with a reasonable chance of passing afd should just be accepted. The only alternative is to systematically involve the wikiprojects, but those running AfC/drafts have refused to implement even well-tested ways of doing this. There's an inherent gap in our way of devising procedures: it is much more fun to devise complicated procedures than to do the actual work they entail. (Especially considering the true work of helping newcomers will be the same whether or not there's a system to do it--we can systematize sending form notices, we cannot systematize providing specific appropriate helpful comments.)

at a practical level, I move those I cannot deal with in 24 hours to User:DGG/Current G13. I'm a little behind at the moment as I'm upgrading computers, which inevitably means a few days of partial downtime. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, David. It reflects my opinion entirely but I doubt that I would have been able to express myself so succinctly. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

bio

I've prepared another biography page and will submit it later today. Be interested in your your comments. Many thanks for all your help. - Kent Lawrence Kllwiki (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible deletion: William Tomicki

Dear DGG:

I wanted to thank you for your interest in my Wikipedia article.

If it needs work, I apologize and will work hard to bring it to Wikipedia's standards. I respect your relentless truth seeking.

I am always happy to provide more information, backup, support materials and references in my sincere endeavor to maintain this article. I do not wish it to be deleted. A momentary frustration/stress led me to consider deleting the page but I hope you will allow me to change course and strive to keep it.

Believe me, I am devoted as you are to accuracy, transparency and honesty.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM TOMICKI wtomicki@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.125.71 (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comments: William Tomicki

Dear DGG:

Thank you for your comments.

I some time ago eliminated any mention of Chevalier and Lord of the Manor in my Wikipedia article. I am trying very hard to meet all objections with proper editing.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM TOMICKI wtomicki@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.125.71 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

but nonetheless I doubt it meets what we call notability. This is not a personal reflection, just our peculiar standards. It's highly advisable for the subjects of articles to avoid editing WP about themselves at all, except for requesting changes on the talk page, and if there's a discussion about inclusion, they can do best for themselves by staying out of it. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Vibgyor High School

Could you take a quick look at this. Bearing in mind that Wiki is not a newspaper and the WP:UNDUE partucularly the section at WP:BALASPS I would like your opinion on the content. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If one of them is severe enough to potentially close down on of the schools, perhaps it's appropriate content. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi DGG,

Thank you for reviewing the wikipedia page I submitted recently. I was hoping you to get your input on the main reason why the page was declined so I can look to improve the page if I can? Thank you in advance for your response. Many thanks,

Julien

217.20.25.200 (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

At present, every single reference on the page is either a press release, or a mere routine notice, or a blog posting by a user of its software Articles here need to show their notability by having substantial third party published references from independent sources. If the company's products are truly important,it should be possible to find suitable articles in professional journals and in periodicals that cover the business world.

Mentoring

At StringTheory11's RFA, you and I were neutral, and I was persuaded to support based on a promise to get mentoring by Secret, very much like my own promise of CSD mentoring, which you were a key factor. I'm not sure where Secret is, so I've taken it upon myself to mentor at User:StringTheory11/AfD, roughly similar to how I designed my own. You are welcome to participate if you choose, or if you have feedback on his or my efforts in this, I would welcome them. If nothing else, I just wanted you to be aware of the mentoring. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll get there. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Promotional college page

Hello again, DGG. While I was checking out this old draft, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gandhi Institute For Technology, I came across this page: Gandhi Institute For Technology. It seems highly inappropriate to me. It looks as though the page has been gradually turned into a college website. I don't see a good version to which to revert. What do you think? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi David and Anne. I've whacked out the majority of the content from Gandhi Institute For Technology (copyvio from their official website and other completely unsuitable garbage), rewritten it as a stub, and tagged it for multiple issues. I've also left a couple of stern messages on the talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Voceditenore. I often lean on DGG's expertise with these college pages, but I'm sure he has plenty of other activities to occupy his time! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

there is surprisingly little difference between even a good WP are and a really good college website--good college websites don;t bother trying to be promotional, and the problem is when they resemble a promotional website. (In fact, I have often wondered why anyone pays any attention to non-informative advertising for anything, or why any advertisement or web page uses empty adjectives of excellence.

Anyway, I did some further cleanup. It's gotten pretty automatic by now. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Need some advice on a prof – Draft:Thomas J. Givnish

Hi David. I fixed this draft up from its quite unfortunate prior state. The author got rather short-shrift at the AfC Help Desk, so I put on my Don Quixote hat. Could you take a look at the draft and see if it's suitable enough to move into article space? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I accepted it, after rearranging the lede paragraph to emphasis his named professorship, which is the simplest proof of notability for WP:PROF. Thansks for spotting it. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi DGG - what do you think about this university president? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Anne (and David). He probably is notable, given his positions. But all the tenses will need to be changed. He died 4 months ago. See his obituary on Zee News (and multiple other news outlets in India). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Real estate crowdfunding

Hi David. I'd be interested in your opinion about this article. The background to its creation is in the AfD for a related article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patch of Land. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Another admin has redirected it to Crowdfunding (what I was thinking of doing), and I've merged the three usable sentences from the former into the latter. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this seems the right thing to do. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Brandenn E. Bremmer

Interestingly enough, the topic underwent a VfD (yes, it's that old) back in 2005 under a slightly different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandenn Bremmer. The new article was somewhat longer, but I suspect you're right about its notability. Best, Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

10:16:08, 28 July 2014 review of submission by Ripplebox

• Ripplebox (talk · contribs)
  • User:Ripplebox/Vector Consulting Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I read though the notability guidelines. I have referenced 3 important Indian newspapers and magazines in the article. What do we mean by verifiable? Are these not verifiable sources? The Vector Consulting Group has changed paradigms for 5 entire industries in India by introducing innovative applications based on the Theory of Constraints philosophy. These are applications unique to the Indian circumstance and have been recognised with International awards (also referenced) and being studied in various schools. Should I talk about the process of the Theory of Constraints instead? Or perhaps on the changing paradigms within these industries? This topic is becoming increasingly notable rather fast. Since submitting this article for review I have come across two more credible and verifiable sources viz The Business Strategist magazine and indiainfoline.com Your guidance is most appreciated. Thanks. Ripplebox (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not whether the information is verifiable; the problem is whether the information is sufficient to show the company is notable, and whether the article is primarily informative rather than entirely promotional. The requirements for notability are given at WP:CORP. The two sources that need to be considered are the articles in EPC World and Business Standard. The others are mere mentions, except that the AMCF website confirms an award. The awards are not well known, and do not by themselves prove notability. Frankly, I consider both articles to be press releases, and not independently written articles. They seem merely to repeat the information the company provided, without substantial editorial control. However, this is a matter of judgement, and you have the right for this judgement to be by the community ,not by a single editor. As for promotionalism, the article reads to me as promotional. It is oriented towards what the company wants to say, not what a reader who heard of the company might want to know. I think you could improve the tone by not including unsourced statement, such as "VCG’s services have often been described as ‘implementation-based’" -- if you use it, it needs a specific quotation. Similarly "Commentators point out that when a management philosophy is in its nascent stage, client organisations will link payments to benefits." This is unsourced, but, more important, you need a reference that for this particular firm, its fees are proportionate to the benefits if such be the case. Please just fix these points, add a the references you have, add a link to the company website in external links, and let me know. I will then move the article into mainspace. Whether I nominate it for AfD or not will depend on the other references. But with them, it will have a respectable chance of passing afd, and that's all that's required. If I still doubt it, I will nominate it for afd and then let the community judge in the discussion that will follow. It has indeed sometimes happened that my standards here have been considered as excessively high. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

14:12:09, 28 July 2014 review of submission by ECGINC330

• ECGINC330 (talk · contribs)
  • User:ECGINC330 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ECGINC330 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I received your message regarding the article being denied. thank you for taking the time. Given the amount of articles being submitted constantly I am sure you have a lot on your plate.

I have one question though. I noticed the companyTranspara has an article with only a single reference to their Microsoft Pinpoint profile. How did this pass the Wikipedia terms of notability?

There are probably at least one or two hundred thousand articles among the 4 million in WP that shouldn't be here. Some were written long ago when standards were much less demanding and have not be checked since, most were simply never noticed. In a database as large as ours, mistakes of this sort are unavoidable; that we have no single system for evaluating new articles, and no central controls on the manner or the quality or consistency of how it is done, which makes ths situation particularly difficult. There is also a corresponding error of at least as many articles that we should have accepted but didn't, and many times that of articles that could potentially have been improved to acceptability but that nobody worked on. But to have less than 5% error in a project of this scope and size run by volunteers mostly without special knowledge or training is to me a remarkable positive accomplishment, that few people 13 years ago would have believed possible.

I encourage you--and everyone-- to call problem articles to attention--the first step is to put a tag reading {{notability}} at the top, which will eventually get them looked at; beyond that, anyoen can nominate for deletion, though it is not very productive to do so without have understood our practices in WP:Deletion policy.

As for this article, there's indeed a problem--it was never properly checked, due to a gap in our procedures, which has since been partially filled. I've listed it for speedy deletion, as there does indeed seem to be no indication of importance, let alone sources for actual notability. If whichever other admin who reviews it should disagree, I'lll list it for a community discussion at AfD. I'll be glad to review any other similar ones you may find. I work here primarily to rescue articles, but , alas, I have always needed to delete much more than I can rescue--rescue is so much more difficult.

But let's see if anything can be done for your article--it needs substantial 3rd party published independent product reviews or similar published discussions, which unfortunately are not easy to find in this product area. If you can find them, please do resubmit.

I consider it essential to respond to all good-faith questions here, especially because I do make errors. I can;t do everything, but whatever I do, I want to do properly, though sometimes I may not get to everything immediately. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Mark project defunct?

DGG, I see that you have been a contributor to WikiProject Citizendium Porting. I am inclined to mark it as defunct, as there has been no work on it in a couple of years and it seems unlikely that Citizendium will be a useful source of content for Wikipedia articles in the future. Is that o.k. with you? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I am reluctant to give up on cooperation with Citizendium, unproductive as it has been so far in both directions. Maybe I'll look to see if there's somethingI can move to keep things alive. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

O.k. Have you seen this TfD? RockMagnetist (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks, I commented. DGG ( talk ) 08:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Mergefrom/mergeto templates

Just a quick reminder that if you're proposing an article for merging into another article, the merge target is whatever title the content is actually located at, not an alternate redirect to that title. In the case of Australian Academy of Science National Committees, for example, the merge target is Australian Academy of Science, not Australian Academy of Sciences, because the content about the academy is at the non-pluralized "science" title while the pluralized "sciences" one is just a redirect to it. I actually see you try to merge articles into redirects instead of the real merge targets fairly frequently — but that causes the redirect to stop functioning as a redirect, and will never really be seen by anybody anyway since the redirect isn't the title people are actually looking at. So if you're proposing something for merger and the target title that you proposed is actually a redirect when you get to it, you need to correct your nomination to point to the title which actually contains the actual content that your nominated article is actually going to be merged into. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
• TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
• Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
• Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)