User talk:DGG/Archive 96 Jan. 2015

                                       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

2015 already

Hi David. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll not let your new job detract too much from you being a voice of sanity at AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about edit on WP article

User:DGG, two days ago, I made an edit on a WP article entitled Cyclamen persicum. I added the section entitled "Plant properties," now changed to "Uses." In it, I had written the sentence: "...The Bedouins of the land of Israel used to collect the root, and after grating it, would mix it with lime and sprinkle it over the surface of lakes or other large bodies of water known to contain fish," but another Wiki editor came along and changed the name "Israel" to "Palestine." I wanted to know if this is deemed proper procedure on Wikipedia, i.e., not to use the name "Israel" when referring to this country and to ignore, as it were, the political reality on the ground, or perhaps it is because the reference to the Bedouins there occurred during the British Mandate? Just curious.-Davidbena (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm commenting as an editor, not administrator or member of the arb com. As presumably they were collecting the material long before the foundation of the state of Israel, I personally think Palestine the more appropriate. But there are several special restrictions that apply to editing in this area. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. I don't want to do anything formal, but if you engage in a dispute over this, you will be formally warned. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I have not challenged the edit, and I may decide to let it stand. Thanks. -Davidbena (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy 2015

Best wishes for the New Year - and may your choice to run for Arbship turn out to be a good move! Happy Editing and Arbing for 2015. PamD 15:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear DGG,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

An edit tag I'm not familiar with

I was in RecentChanges and I saw that someone's edit was tagged with "canned edit summary". Their edit summary is "Fixed typo". What does "canned edit summary" mean? --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

can you give me a link--it is not added by the edit summaries suggestion gadget. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

(tps) It's an edit tag added by Filter 633. It only logs at the moment, and does not warn or deny the edit. Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

An example - Edit summaries like these are commonly used to disguise vandalism. [1] [2]- NQ (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

examining the log, it seems to also be used for people actually fixing typos, including people reverting vandalism, with at least 80% useful edits. But perhaps it is impossible to be more precise, and it does indeed pick up vandalism. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Florence Connolly Shipek

Just in case you hadn't noticed this professor article, which is up for review... —Anne Delong (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

borderline, but probably acceptable. I did as best I could with it. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her

Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her is a Christmas carol about good news, this year's Christmas battle for me. (Last year it was A Boy was Born.) Please look a bit into the history and talk, to understand why I believe this is a blessing. Good wishes for 2015 also for you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

ps: It's not one of my articles, but I wrote List of hymns by Martin Luther and want them to be in presentable shape. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Good question, about the translation. As you perhaps know, we don't have (after discussions on Classical music) text and translation in Bach cantatas, - they are all available in external links, and many translations, not just one. - I stopped arguing on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I thought I better unwatch the article, but instead added a few lines yesterday, simply to make the text and translations appear below the image instead of beside (ugly on a small screen). Result: tagbombing. I am tempted to write the article from scratch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Forgive the chiming in; I think a better choice might be taking the editor to ANI. Doesn't seem willing or interested in editing collaboratively, even though there are a number of editors involved in the article. Softlavender (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you take a lot at

Brendan Pereira Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

interesting problem: whether to clean up the very poor writing and extensive promotionalism on the chance he might be notable, or just nominate for deletion. I used to fix articles like this, but my current tendency is not to do it unless they're so very notable that the encyclopedia really needs to have the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (relate) @ 20:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Manhattan

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Manhattan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Help request

Hi. I found your name at WP:ASSIST and I'm hoping very much that you have time to help me. I've spent literally the past year finding (what I thought were) good sources and using them to re-work an article that was previously deleted from Wikipedia space and moved to my user space. I consulted on several occasions with the deleting admin to make sure that I was addressing all of his concerns, and when he finally gave me the green light, I re-posted the article. Much to my dismay, it was marked for deletion within hours, and I'm unsure what I need to do to rescue it. I've asked for help and it may very well be forthcoming, but the time for AfD is limited and I'm getting worried.

Obviously the topic of the article is interesting to me (given that I bothered to write the article) but mostly I don't want to waste a year of my life and hard work, and I'm very frustrated and upset about it. There's much more background to this story but I don't want to bury you in it if you don't have time for it. (To be clear, there's no conflict at all. It's not about that. It's just history of what's been done and how.) If you decide to work with me, I can show you all the information. I really do want to do the right thing but I just need someone to tell me what that is.

Thank you so much for your time. It means a lot to me that you've read this far whether you're able to help me in the longer term or not. -- edi(talk) 06:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The people who participate in the AfD will decide. I have too little knowledge of the subject field to give an intelligent opinion there. As advice in making your argument: deal with the current objections, not whatever earlier approvals that may have been given, The rule here is WP:GNG, and a great deal hangs on the exact interpretation of the qualifying words like substantial coverage from independent sources in recognized publications. DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC) as interpreted/copy-edited by PamD 10:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand. My main problem is that I don't know what the current objections are because no one has clarified them for me. I don't know whether it's a notability issue or bad sourcing (and if so, what's bad about them?) or some other factor entirely or some combination of the above. That is, in fact, all I'm really trying to find out: I need someone to tell me what exactly is wrong with the article so I can work toward fixing it. As it is, I feel like not only am I being robbed, but my hands are tied so that I can't even defend myself. That's melodramatic, I realize, but that's how it feels. I do appreciate your advice though, and I'll follow it as well as possible. Thanks again for your time. -- edi(talk) 12:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

the best way to not to limit yourself to a single favorite topic, but use what you learn fro working on one article to work of another. If you do have a single key topic, you should prepare yourself by working on others. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for your help

Hi DGG,

I've made edits to my article Draft:Nancy-Gay_Rotstein as you've suggested and re-submitted it and am notifying you here as requested. Thank you for your help!

Best,

Bella3b65 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Bella3b65

)Bella3b65

Bella3b63, the tone is still too flowery and eleborate, Your changes were insufficiently drastic, and it therefore still reads as a personal tribute. Greatly abbreviate the material about her wire as a young girl another personal details. Try to avoid all adjectives. Do not begin a paragraph with ""She uses words as if they were diamonds," " even as a direct quote. And then refs to items like publishers weekly must show the date published, not just the year; refs to martial in books must have page numbers; combine notes and selected refereces. Do another round of fixes and get back to me quickly. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naqshbandi Hussaini Golden Chain

Since you suggested a merge (which was the result of the discussion), and since you have the tools, would you care to perform the merge please? It's been a fortnight since the discussion ended and nothing's been done to implement the result. Regards, Bazj (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

the conclusion of the afd was a different merge than I suggested, It was proposed by Cerebellum (talk · contribs), who is also an admin. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: I apologize, I refactored your comment for a typo which was messing up the {{User}} template. Just an FYI Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cerebellum, would you care to do the merge please? Bazj (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: Cerebellum appears to have been on a break for the last few weeks. Can I ask you again to do the merge? Bazj (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I can;t figure out what was meant or how to do the suggested merge--it makes no sense to me. It would seem obvious the different golden chains ought to be handled parallel, but that wasn't the conclusion. I will take another look, though DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Bazj (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Sorry about the delay. Let me know if I broke anything. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both Cerebellum and DGG for your time and effort. Bazj (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Of possible interest

I've been puppy-guarding a few articles related to a very persistent set of COI accounts, but have since then acquired an IT security client and most likely will be working with another one within a month or two, so I don't think it is appropriate for me to be involved anymore since the article is on an IT security company that may compete with them.

If you have an interest in picking up where I left off, the details are available here. Or if not, well, oh well. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen them, and will try to organize. I've said elsewhere that wiring articles on a company and each of its products is a pretty sure sign of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Requested on Copy and Paste Articles

To what degree is it permitted to create an article that is entirely, or very near so, a direct copy and paste from a single source now in the public domain? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is permitted, but it has to be specified exactly what part is taken from the source, and future edits must keep this distinct. Some of our templates, say "some or all" has been taken from particular source. In my opinion, this is inadequate attribution. Exact quotation marks or some other equally clear indication is needed. There are I believe several thousand articles in this unsatisfactory sate, and as editing continues over the years, the result is very confusing both in terms of attribution and in terms of keeping material up to date and not based upon totally outdated views. This has bothered me since I've come here, but it hasn't bothered enough others to make any progress.

The real problem is not just attribution; the more insidious problem is accuracy. The article you cite on Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine (1524 – 1574) shows this. The source, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is accurate as a summary for the facts as known at the time, but was never known for balance in the coverage, or for clear NPOV interpretation, and lacks adequate explanation of what to them was fundamental (That does not mean I do not think highly of it for many purposes--I even own a printed set.) The knowledge of sources, the interpretations of scholars, the interest in particular aspects, will be very different on every topic, no matter how old, from the state of things 100 years ago; even when religious orientation is irrelevant, cultural bias is usually present. (I do not know enough about this particular topic to give a detailed critique, because my own knowledge of the period in France is based primarily upon historical fiction, whose biases can be very similar to that of outdated histories.) DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that summary. It confirms most of my concerns and adds a couple. I am unsure how much I can correct, but I will work on it a bit and add some tags as needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crime Opportunity theory

Hello DGG. This article was pasted into mainspace in 2012 by the same editor who created it, and the only other contributor to the draft is you. Perhaps you could check to see if any of your edits would benefit Crime opportunity theory, after which this would be a G6 . —Anne Delong (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll get there tomorrow--thanks. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

09:10:01, 7 January 2015 review of submission by SCWP

• SCWP (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Stretch Ceilings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We do not feel that the Dropped Ceiling article covers a stretch ceiling adequately. Is it possible to submit a short text explaining the difference with a stretch ceiling to be included within the Dropped Ceiling page?

PhilSC (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly yyou may submit a revised version, with references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements , but consider instead expanding the main article to cover this subtype topic adequately, DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean put dropped ceilings into our suggested Stretch Ceilings page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCWP (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean to add a paragraph about stretch ceilings to the existing Dropped ceiling. Avoid orienting it towards any particular manufacturer. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

Wanted to express an apology should it be desired if my part in our interaction re: the Pakistani politician I nominated for deletion seemed overly curt or short: I most certainly would have handled the interaction with a little more patience had you identified yourself as an admin, acting as such, instead of what I took to be yet-another-article-"owner" of which I have run into plenty of in the past, particularly when dealing with notability issues. It probably also didn't help that I was already dealing with another editor at that same time who was trying to start an edit-war and assert ownership.

Also wanted to let you know that while I'm not upset with the interaction in any way, it was raised as a point of contention by another editor, Bgwhite, whom I took the time to respond and explain myself to, and that response covers your concern of cultural bias. Rather than repeat it in full here I'd like to invite you to read the response on my talk page.

(The TL;DR in case you find my reply to be too verbose: I brought up "English-language" because had such references been cited, they would have lent serious weight to an argument that the subject was notable by the very fact of being important enough to generate coverage in sources outside of the region/nation/language in question, not because I believe that all sources should be in English, or that only "Western" subjects belong on the EN Wiki, nor from a belief that non-English sources aren't acceptable. Clearly, however, I failed to communicate myself or my intent properly and thus have at least an equal hand in any confusion or misunderstanding that resulted, for which I do apologize). besieged^talk 01:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Besieged, you are certainly right that the very large number of inadequate and coi submissions tends to make us unduly cynical and negative. I often feel that way myself--I've learned to watch out for it.

All editors are equal in almost everything. Anyone may list an article for speedy deletion; anyone but the author may remove the tag. The only prerogative admins have is the technical ability to do the actual deletion if they agree that it is justified. When dealing with new editors it is particularly important to be both polite, and accurate. I'm not likely to get insulted and leave Wikipedia, but they are.

There is no reason to expect an Indian state politician to be covered in US sources, any more than there is reason to expect a US state politician to be covered in Indian sources, but they are equally notable here. International notice is not a requirement for notability in any field at alls, though in some fields national-level standing is expected. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you on all fronts. I still feel that to some extent that an excessively low bar for relevance results in pollution, but it's not really an issue worth arguing or making enemies over, nor is it likely to do any real long-term harm to the value of this encyclopedia, especially not in the more concerning ways that vandalism and BLP vio's can/do, and since it's not an argument I'd be liable to win even if I wanted to have it, not something I should really concern myself with. Certainly, vandal patrolling (one of my most common activities on the wiki these days, besides minor edits and corrections) will make someone cynical and negative with a quickness, particularly when fighting with some of the most recalcitrant, unrepentant types of vandals, and I believe that state contributed to my poor wording and lack of patience that resulted in me coming across as I did. More than anything, I wanted to be sure I hadn't offered insult where it wasn't intended as a result of the frustrated state I found myself in, as well as to be sure I wasn't being viewed as some sort of racist or bigot, because that's absolutely not true, and it horrifies me that anyone might think - or tell others - that I am.

besieged^talk 03:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I would not have used those words of you. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
• Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Not to be too critical, but if I wrote this bot it would have consolidated these posts into a more concise single post. Chillum 04:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And so we all who work at afc have been asking for years. Of course, nobody owns a WP process, so if you can write a bot, you could write a emplacement one yourself. DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

AfC

I expect you've noticed how I have practically stopped participating in discussions on reform of AfC. I've done a lot for that project, such as coaxing the 'draft' mainspace into existence and getting a set of competency criteria established for reviewers, and vetting 100s of G13, etc., but there comes a time when I lose interest in projects that have become basically a lot of talk with nobody listening. In contrast, there's nothing wrong with the NPP system, in fact it's a brilliant piece of engineering. The only downside to NPP is that in spite of being by far the most important new-article filter of all, totally ironically it has no recommended levels of experience for patrollers at all, no work group, no mother project, and no interaction whatsoever between the individual patrollers. That's why it's often called the lonliest maintenance corner of Wikipedia - and that's why the qualty of rewiewing there is pretty awful, and has a backlog of over ten thousand pages.

So at NPP we're still stuck with a lovely suite of tools and very few users with sufficient clue to use them. AfC on the other hand, although it has the 'Draft' namspace, has an incomprehensible mess of script which is a constant work in progress, a permanent stream of questions from users who don't know how to use it, raw newbies just hovering with their mouses over AFC Particip to add themselves as soon as their count reaches the magical 500, and programmers plying and vying for recognition of the best script; add to that some who with the best will in the world can't discuss things calmly.

The best solution would be to scrap AfC completely (you and I have discussed this before), merge AfC drafts into the New Pages Feed, add the AfC Helper Script's essential features to the Curation Toolbar, and create a software defined new user group for the reviewers. I've had several real life discussions at various venues with senior Foundation staff who all agree in principle that it is technically feasible and that it might ultimately be the best solution rather than reinventing a wheel for AfC. Ironically again, probably because there is no collaborative project surrounding NPP, it doesn't play silly stick-and-carrot games of backlog drives with users MMORPGing for barnstars and baubles. Such initiatives IMHO only invite more of the wrong people and reduce the quality even further.

Perhaps if my dream were to come true, some of the more reasonable AfC reviewers would migrate to NPP, and that would be a net positiver all round. I think I'm going to draft up a major RfC and challenge the broad community once and for all to offer their thoughts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Of course it is feasible--we did most of it for years; it's just redefining the group. Do you see any continuing need for Draft space? Perhaps it can be a place not for new submissions, but to which articles. including some new submissions, can be moved for improvement. I'd suggest not a broad afc to gather opinions, but a focussed one on doing the change. I think AfC as it exists has very few supporters. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the only supporters of AfC are the 'programmers' who use it as their playground. Just to underline my comment above, hardly had I spoken, than we get this. I do think there is a very pertinent need for the 'draft' namespace. Although the vast majority of AfC submissions are junk, as you have seen more than anyone, there are some rare rescuable items among them; it's also the destination for articles created using the Wizard - where I believe most of the drafts come from now. The draft namespace alows IPs and and editors who are not sure of themselves to create an article that will be kind of 'peer reviewed' before going live. You've got mail. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

so would you then continue to feed the Article Wizard articles into AfC? If we do, and use it for peer review before going live, we will have precisely the current problems. I don't think the "vast majority" are unsuitable--tho perhaps one could say "unnecessary" I estimate that at least half would survive Speedy, and half of these AfD , even on first submission. That's a 25% yield. When we were using NP as the only route, we rejected about 1/2, either at speedy or prod or afd. The difference is that because of the desire to use WP for promotionalism, we're getting more useless promotional articles, because more people know about us. Their number will only increase in the future. (& they're encouraged because a certain number do manage to survive afd , often erratically ) If we raise our standards a little we can keep them out, but somewhere we will still have to do the work of keeping them out. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate Workshop

Dunno if you realized, but the Workshop phase of GG is long-closed and the page is locked. :) No one would be able to respond to your points if they desired to, and none of it would be of any use anyways since the decision posting is imminent. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

oops. I'm new at this. I'll ask a clerk to revert, and wait for the proposed decision to comment. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gina Messina-Dysert

Hello, DGG - I'm not sure if this person's titles confer academic notability or not. I haven't found much in the way of book or news references. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

no significant publications yet. Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering...

...if you saw Draft:Antano Solar when you tagged Draft:Antano Solar John. It's not quite so blatant as the latter, which is why I didn't speedy it out of hand or even tag it myself; but I thought you might want to take a glance at it while it's still fresh in your mind. —Cryptic 00:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks, I'll check. I should have searched, but we need a better way of automatically marking partial duplicate titles. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gospel According to the Mark of Silver has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Adnan Ibrahim

Hello there, I was about to create an entry for the Austrian imam Sheikh Adnan Ibrahim, and saw that you deleted a page of that name on 1 July 2012 as an unsourced BLP. If it's the same man and you can restore the page, I'll add sources. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Philopater, I;ve undeleted and put an "under construction" tag on it. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!--Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Go to article "Bayt Nattif" at the article's Talk Page there

User:DGG, there is currently a debate between me and another editor on the WP article Bayt Nattif's Talk-Page (last section), concerning an entry there which I found inappropriate and relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Looking for your candid advice.Davidbena (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

my personal opinion is that either term is clear enough, but I do not edit in this area. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:DGG.Davidbena (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)`

speedy deletion of Critical Systems.

can you please help me here. I am trying to list information about a very notable new company with 29 employees that does outstanding work in their field. You stated that is was 'self promoting' but how do i write this to give information about the company that would not be considered 'self promoting'.

thanks.

Criticalsystemsboise (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)criticalsystemsboise

Please see your user page . DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Werner De Bondt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catholic University of Louvain. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nitesh Estates Limited

Hi there. A couple days ago you CSDed Nitesh Estates Limited and salted it. I was puzzled when it was [again] recreated. Just wanted to check with you to see if there's something I don't know about (re: a DRV or something I may have missed) before tagging CSD again. Thanks.

Rhododendrites I set it for semi-protection, but it was an auto confirmed editor who readied it. I changed to to full protection and deleted it again, and will advise the ed. to go to Deletion Review. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Red Bluff Fire Department

Hello! I was hoping you could help me understand why you nominated Red Bluff Fire Department for deletion. I am in the process of filling out all the pages linked to as part of the {{California fire departments}} template. As one of the cities listed in that template, and a county seat, I would have assumed that the page qualifies. I'm still new here though so I'd love help understanding. Thanks a bunch! --Zackmann08 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

[[User::Zackmann08|

Zackmann08]], and the other admin who did the actual deletion apparently agreed with me. I do not see how a fire department in a town that small could possibly be notable. (population 14,000). I will nominate for deletion anything below a county or a medium sized city. There is no presumption of notability for city departments. Most news sources will be about a particular non-notablefire or a routine fund-raising event, and therefore not be substantial coverage. I suggest you instead add the information to the article on the city, and make a redirect.

It would be perfectly possible to change the notability requirements for WP articles, and make it a little more like a directory. I've said from time to time it might be a good idea, but there is clearly no consensus to do it. Therefore, I've yotto follow not my personal preferences, but what the consensus does. I can't imagine it would pass them at AfD. To see, I just nominated Oroville Fire Department for afd.

If you want to do others, and test what the consensus will accept, pick the largest that isn't covered yet, and go slowly. It's what I do in similar circumstances. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Abandoned AfC drafts

I spent some time going through G13 eligible drafts today and was a bit disturbed at how many of them are notable (well over half). Since you are one of the few people who regularly work in that area, I thought I would ask you if this was normal or if the obviously non-notable stuff has largely been deleted already creating a biased sample in the remaining material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends wether you mean clearly notable, or just notable enough to be likely to be found notable at AfD. And notability is not always the problem: there are those which are notable, but are so promotional that it would be more trouble to rewrite than the importance would justify. Then there are copyvios. Then there are the substantial number that have already been moved into mainspace. Looked at from the goal of rescuing everything possible, then there are probably well over half that could be turned into some sort of passable article; but there are probably only 1/4 that are passable as they stand or with minor fixes.

In the past, I accepted about 20% and postponed another 20%, in order to make reasonably certain nothing I passed would be rejected. (and so far, I think essentially nothing has been, except when I've missed an occasional duplicate under another name, & a few copyvios I didn't catch.) Now I'm trying to accept a somewhat larger amount. The main group that I don't want to accept but I don't want to se rejected are ones which look like they need careful checking for copypaste from sources I do not have available, or unreferenced articles on geography or the like which probably could be verified, but not easily. Some of these are detailed articles on narrow subjects, some are suspicious because of the manner of referring or indentation or line-width.

However, I rarely go thru a daily list unselectively. Each time I do this, I tend to be looking for something--often a topic I recognize. I also work on the lists of those declined for some particular reason. Sometimes I look primarily for things to speedy as G11 (I'm not sure anyone else is doing that in particular). I almost always skip athletes and popular entertainers unless I notice something obvious one way or another, as other people have a more reliable sense of importance here. I try to select ones that I more easily can handle among the people likely to be working on this: for example, book authors whose importance isn't obvious, or subjects that should be checked in other language wikipedias I can decipher. This sort of patrol of new submissions, either AfC or NPP, tends to become dull, and I try to vary it.

I'll try to take a look at what you worked on today--you could take a look at mine if you like. The move log is the place to look. But incidentally, I see I have been deleting many more articles and drafts than you--but then I sometimes want to conscious clear away the rubbish even if it will be deleted by G13 a little later on. Concentrating on NPP/AfC has been making me cynical, perhaps unduly cynical. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My sample size was small, so I may have just had an unusually good sample, hence the question. I was mostly disturbed by CCDC47 which was essentially declined because the references weren't quite right and then untouched for the 6 months. CBS Watch was indeed unacceptable as it was written - an addition to being promotional-ish, the bad paragraph was actually a copyvio too. It was easy enough to fix though. The other two I delayed deletion on are (obviously) unacceptable as is, despite being notable. (And one of the deletes was notable, but a duplicate article.) ... I normally work the back of the AfC pending submissions. I'd say over half of those are acceptable-enough as is, but I'm easier on submissions than most. I always figured the oldest one were the toughest calls on average and the real acceptance rate was much lower because of obviously bad stuff being rejected quickly. (Although maybe not, I am always mystified at how many copyvios sit around for a month+, and usually they are not hard to spot - over half of promotional sounding stuff is copyvio too.) Thus, I was surprised I didn't see a lower average quality carried through to G13 candidates. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the oldest are those that are tough either because reviews don't feel comfortable either accepting or declining, or because they take some specialized knowledge. The problem with delayed deletion is it comes back again after 6 months--I used to do this a lot, but now I try do it only when I'm feeling really rushed, like tonight. So details tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Weininger_Memorial_Award

Please note that this article is not about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Weininger. I removed the link leading to the wrong page. Then you put it back in. Now I have removed it again. The citations and external links contain some explanation about who this memorial award is named after. e.g. what books he wrote, an obituary article in a newspaper and journal/newsletter article explaining who the award was named after. When I attempted to clarify this in the text of the article, it was removed I believe because it was deemed that the text appeared to violate copywrite, I think I may have taken some text from one of these sources. I gave up on trying to sort out that problem, but it is still important that we don't mislead the reader to thinking that the memorial award is named after the wrong Otto Weininger.PhilPsych (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be right. I did get the identification wrong. . What is now needed is a proper article about the right Otto Weininger. You did apparently take the text from here. If you do not have time to do this, just write a sentence or two of your own about him and add it to the article on the award. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nitesh Estates Limited Wikipedia Page

Nitesh Estates Limited is public listed company then how can it be not notable. Yes, I agree the content is promotional but that can be modified as not all content was promotional. The content that have proper references and are fact based can at least be put in this article. Also, if a company is notable then its wikipedia page must exist. Instead of removing the complete article we can work to modify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly.smith (talk • contribs) 05:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If you try again, try in Drafts space. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Esther Gokhale Article for Speedy Deletion

Hi, I'm writing to try and clarify what might be done to edit the article about Esther Gokhale which I wrote and you marked for speedy deletion. This is my third time writing, and I'm sorry to be bothersome, but every time I check you have deleted my postings. If you are deleting them to keep your page clean, then please feel free to respond on my talk page. Thank you for your input. Dandem1 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Dandem1 , I archive them, not delete them. There are several ways of finding them: looking in your user contributions and click on the date, or searching for the name is Special:Search including user talk space in the spaces searched. But I found them as follows: For your first query and the comments on it by myself and another editor, see here and here; the later ones are here, at section 65. . At present there is also a beginning stub of an article at User:Petersam/Esther Gokhale. There should not be articles on both her and on her method, and the best single article would be on her. If you want to make an article, please either ask Petersham to move it into your user space, or start a draft as Draft:Esther Gokhale. In either case it will not be speedy deleted, but if you want to restore it, when ready, you need to ask me. If I say no, you can then take it to Deletion Review. My advice is that if you go about it in a concise neutral fashion, including only good references, plus a single external link to her website, and take full account of earlier criticism, I probably will restore it. I have no prejudice against the inclusion of such topics, far from it. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser

Do you know where should I go to get training of CheckUser? I have been an Wikipedia Coount Crator for a long time now (it is a different thing, whenever I sign in there to work, I find 0 open requests). I am really interested to work here. I often see "backlogs" on WP:SPI pages. Where should I ask to give me CU training? --Tito☸Dutta 22:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You should probably ask this question at WT:Checkuser. I was not a checkuser myself before I was elected to arb com, which carries the checkuser right. So I myself have not learned it yet, and do not at present have plans to use it--and I haven't really figured out how to use it myself. I think most checkusers start by clerking at SPI, but if you want my personal advice, as you'll be a new admin in a few days, I'd suggest waiting until mastering all the details of adminship. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ulrich Vogt

Hi: I'm glad you rescued this from G13, but I am concerned that he may not in fact meet the notability standards. I have now revdeleted something you deleted there that provides background. I retranslated much of the text for accuracy, added the links for the one reference and the German National Library external link (the former had moved, I corrected it on de.), I've added his homepage and the pic. from de., I added educator to the lede and the Persondata template because that's probably his more important claim of notability, and I put the translated page template on the talk page - it was a straight translation of the German article, albeit with inaccuracies. And I fixed the problem of no wikilinks. But when I looked for additional sources, I came up empty except for mentions (he presented art prizes to some students, and a game site published an excerpt from his book on dice, with an introductory paragraph). Had you found anything more? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but its chance of being improved is better in mainspace. There's no practical way to check holdings of books in German public libraries, only in university libraries, and I don't know the possibilities for finding relevant book reviews. I want to look/consult further at that. The principle ed. of the article at de:WP is not currently active--but the little else he did there was on games, so I wonder about autobio. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 15#Seth Andrews

Hi DGG. Would you clarify your comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 15#Seth Andrews in response to editors' replies to you there? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have posted a follow-up question there that I hope you can answer. Thank you again. Cunard (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Request on 23:49:17, 18 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ryanjford

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

I've updated the Refrences and would like to have it re-reviewed. Ryanjford (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

unfortunately, it was mostly copied from the publisher website and must be deleted; I have however left some detailed advice on your talk page, if you want to try again. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/cultural identity theory has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

What is your argument for your claim? The template about DPR topics needs to be deleted or revised. It is based on non-referenced sources. There is no information about geography and almost no information on a lot of other articles within the template. Moreover, the article was set up based on Somaliland template. How is that relevant? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want it deleted, take it to WP:TFD, I strongly doubt if it will be deleted, however, any more than the article on the Donetsk Peoples Republic will be, on which you placed the same db-madeup template. If you want it revised, discuss on the talk page, and obtain consensus first. WP is not a place for political battles. If the disruptive nature of such editing is not obvious to you, you may be too involved to be editing the topic. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

DGG, OK. But I did not deleted them. You could have come back with this before throwing accusations. A lot of articles on the topic without reference and nobody patrols them. It seems you suspecting me in political bias and refuse to listen to me just because of that. Would not you agree that the topic is somewhat disputed? Nonetheless, some users choose to write stuff on such disputed matter without even introducing where the stuff was taken. It looked like an original research and blog to me and there were not any proof that it was not. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, the original user who created some article, apparently is blocked now, so I couldn't even find anybody to reason. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Curious request

Hi DGG. Could you please take a look at User talk:IZAK#History of Organized Jewish Wikipedians. What do you make of it? Thanks. IZAK (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

responded there. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Another curious request (I've heard pings are problematic) - could you pop over to Talk:Widener Library/GA1, where your opinion of the article and how closely it meets the GA criteria has been requested. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for undeletion #Nitesh Estates Limited

A lot of conflicts are there with "Nitesh Estates Limited" so, please modify the data that are not required or seems to be promotional over here instead of deleting the page on daily basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahrunsuri (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Bahrunsuri, 6 different admins have deleted this page; and another admin ahas protected it against re-creation. I am not going to restore it, or remove the protection. The only courses is for an uninvolved editor in good standing to make an unpromotional draft version and ask at WP:Deletion Review. If the company is important, an uninvolved editor will do that. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ameen Albert Rihani

Hello, DGG. This submission has a lot of information (maybe too much, and I already removed a list of conferences at which he "recruited" staff). The references aren't on line, and I can't see a way to determine if he's notable. I know that you have said to use WorldCat, but after multiple tries it never gives me any useful information beyond a list of books and which library closest to me has a copy. Maybe you can do better. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I made a further cut, and I may do further. For this culture area in the humanities, WorldCat is as you found useless, and there is no replacement. I think the only way to avoid cultural bias is to be liberal in accepting. But there is another problem. The text contained the words "back to top" and the end of several sections, which is an almost invariable sign of copypaste, in this case from his online cV, which I will try to find. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thought you should know that this user is now at WP:AN claiming you are harassing them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Article title change

Hi David,

Can you change the title of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Rappaport to be Theodore (Ted) Rappaport instead of Theodore Rappaport.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alimxd1 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Alimxd1: That would not be an appropriate article title -alternative names don't belong in titles. One forename plus surname is the norm. You could usefully create redirects from all other likely names people might search for him by or link to within Wikipedia: Ted, Theodore Scott, Theodore S., Ted S., Ted Scott ( all plus surname of course). Hope that helps, and that DGG agrees! PamD 22:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

And I'm pleased to see that he's already listed in the surname page Rappaport.PamD 22:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

yes, what PamD says is what I understand to be our usual practice. It helps people find articles. You'll notice the first line of the article gives the alternate name in parenthesis, as it should. But redirects can cover every possibility; I think it would even be ok to create a redirect from the form you propose, in case anyone should happen to type it. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economy of Iran

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Economy of Iran. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Delayed-maturation theory of OCD has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Rui L. Reis

Dear DGG: I have cut this one down by about 1/3, but it still has a lot of detail. It's too bad this professor wouldn't get going and do something.... the draft still needs references, but I thought I'd make sure you had him on your list.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Anne and David. I had a look at it. WOW! It needs drastic pruning by at least another 80% :). He's clearly notable, however. I've added a couple of references (there are lots available in the Portuguese press) and will see if I can whip it into shape over the coming weeks. I very much doubt if this is an autobio. The IP belongs to the Communications Centre of the Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The relative degree of involvement of press agents and the researcher varies for these. That it comes from a central office does't necessarily mean the researcher didn't write it. For a US scientist in most fields I can usually tell, but from another country and language it's much harder. In either case, these are usually paraphrases at best, when not direct copyvio. I generally assume they are, and try to rewrite a little. I'll do some further adjustments to the usual format here for scientists (mainly omitting some additional minor material), but I'll leave you to find other references if you like. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I've just discovered that it was copied verbatim from here. See Duplication Detector. It's going to need a complete re-write apart from the lede and the first half of the "Early life and education" section which I've written today. Voceditenore (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Voceditenore and DGG. I also have done some rephrasing. My comment above wasn't related to whether he wrote the draft himself - it's likely he or his best buddy had a hand in it because the material that I deleted was very detailed. I was just remembering comments about tenured professors resting on their laurels, and thinking that here's one who obviously barely stops even to sleep. I would have cut it down further, but I don't know which of the gazillion facts are important. Do you think its worth saving? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

He's unquestionably notable, so it's worth saving. The section on honors which I revised does not I think contain copyvio outside of the unavoidably similar names. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've also done more rephrasing. Names of organizations can't be changed, and some short phrases that are left are hard put another way.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wifione evidence

Hi DGG;

As you're recused on the Wifione case but not a party, perhaps you can provide some input. Basically, we have two accounts which are mutually incompatible and they need analysis. As you have very considerable content experience, you may be able to assist the committee in arriving at a reasonable decision. It's all explained here.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

yes, but it will take me till either Thursday or Friday. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Douglas Harper

Me again ... I added some references to this one, but the text seems a little polished. Google doesn't find any copypaste, though. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

next place to try is his university, especially when the article does not give a link to his web site. It's not copied from anything I can find there, and, curiously, it got the name of his chair inaccurately, and he uses a middle initial. It might be from a publisher-- One indication of that is the bold face for book titles, though that is not infallible. It might be from the IVSA, considering the wording of the section on it, but I can't find it on their web site. This is an example of where I'd think necessary to rewrite. I see you did some--I'm doing it more drastically. It is also an example of a prior incorrect AfC decline by a fairly experienced user who apparently did not think about WP:PROF. What is now necessary is to check the reviewer's other work. And thus the amount of work to do increases exponentially. One of the best reasons to immediately remove the entire AfC process is to avoid reviewer errors. If it had just gone to new pages, the copypaste would probably have been seen sooner. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Habib Davanloo

One more, but maybe an easier question this time. I'm sure this is a notable subject, since he is referenced in dozens of books, so I intend to move this to mainspace. However, I wonder if the section of other readings is appropriate or should be deleted. The items are not linked on line, but seem like works about psychiatry rather than about the person. What do you think? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right--they're all in the article on the subject Intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy--an article which needs some attention. I accepted the bio while I wa at it. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Lee Business School - Guidance?

Hello! Taking you up on your offer already. I'm trying to get through very old submissions at AfC and not sure about this one. (I'd just skip over it, but it's been sitting since December 3.) Can you take a look at it when you get a chance? Thanks! Julie JSFarman (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It gets redirected to the university, unless there's evidence of really strong individual notability. I'll check iff anything needs merging. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hydraulic fracturing

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hydraulic fracturing. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Draft:Ian Stuart (author) has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Draft:Philipos Loizou has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Captain William Harry Coombs 1893 -1969 has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enterprise Storage Management has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pat Ahern has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brahm Prakash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab University. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Erik R. Peterson

Hello, DGG. I came across this old draft. It says he holds a named chair, but I can't figure out how or of this fellow fits into an academic hierarchy. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anne, while waiting for David, I'll chip in. He seems to hold a "named chair" in a think-tank, not a university, and thus I don't think that would give him an automatic pass per WP:PROF, although the think-tank is a relatively prestigious and long-established one. The articles on both the tank {Center for Strategic and International Studies) and the consulting firm he works for (A.T. Kearney) both show the heavy hand of COI editing as does his draft bio. In fact it has the typical mark of a piece of paid editing—springing fully formed from a "brand new" editor, including the infobox, full of PR-speak and perfectly formatted but "padded" references. If I were prioritising which drafts to rescue, this draft wouldn't even make the bottom of my list. But maybe that's just me. Voceditenore (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

he is in my opinion notable. though it's not obvious ow to show it. The publications are joint authorship, as is customary for such groups.

The article is of course a press release, as are almost all our articles of people with similar careers. My approach to them is usually to cut down on repetition, name-dropping, and adjectives, and arrange the bio in our usually sequence.

A much worse press release is the one on his organization. A very high level of puffery and name dropping. I remove somed of this, and am trying to figure out how much more to remove. I agree with Voceditenore that these are particularly bad examples. But I think the center is in fact important enough to fix. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Congregation Orach Chaim

I've reluctantly PRODed this after doing some basic research. Perhaps you can come up with something. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be possible to show notability. But the odds are it's a copyvio. I'm going to ask for help on this one. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kurdistan Workers' Party

i rm unsourced ideology, you reverted, and directed me to discuss. The given source does not mention libertarian socialism and no improved source has been offered after a reasonable amount of time after the inline tag was added. i plan to remove the ideology again unless you have a source supporting the claim. will you revert again, if so perhaps we can discuss before and find a solution? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There are 2 questions: do they say it about themselves--if so, we normally accept it, though we do attribute it to them. Second, have others challenged it in reliable sources? In that case we say so also, If they have neither said so, nor anyone else, we do not deduce it from our own synthesis of the material. The usual best course is to leave it in with an attribution if there is any source at all. I haven't checked which may be the case in this instance, as I have no particular view on the actual subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

if you did not check for a source, why did you revert my edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Bob Gold & Associates

Hi DGG,

Just noticed you flagged the page I created on Bob Gold & Associates for a speedy deletion citing promotion as the reason. I was hoping to get your insight as to what in the page is considered promotional? Maybe the "Notable Work" section should be removed and/or some of the verbage I used seems like 'peacocking'?

Thanks, Christina

--Doanc (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Doanc thanks for the good faith effort so far. next steps:

1. don't write in bullet points. WP is not Powerpoint.
2. avoid copywriter's jargon "around the world" "partnering agencies" "array of clients"
3. Do not use marketwire and other press release sources.
4. "Together the agency helped coin the term “video intelligence architecture” and establish widespread recognition for the start-up in the cable TV industry" is a claim of attribution that needs an actual third-party independent reliable sources, and even more so for the quality evaluation ""widespread recognition"--that pretty much needs a citation from a major award. -- as for wording, "helped establish" is meaningless--it can represent from 1% to 99% of the credit.

I know we have many articles already here showing these problems. We don't want to add to them. If what you write sounds like it would be a pretty good press release, it's wrong for an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the feedback! I'm going to go back and try to find other resources besides press releases and change the wording so that it's more neutral. --Doanc (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon

Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon

You are invited to join us at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign (which also includes events in Brooklyn and Westchester!). Saturday February 7 Black Life Matters Editathon (RSVP). 12:00pm - 5:00 pm at NYPL Schomburg Center, 515 Malcolm X Boulevard (Lenox Avenue), by W 135th St The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eugene Paykel

Hi DGG. I found this one in the AfC Submissions without templates pile. I cleaned it up somewhat. It still needs some online references, but with 400 papers there should be something to be found. I thought you might want it on your list. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I rewrote a little to clean up probable copy paste, and accepted; it can be improved further in mainspace. DGG ([[User tal

Spyros Sofos

Hi, you apparently removed the PROD from Spyros Sofos, citing his role as "editor" of an academic journal as a criterion for meeting WP:PROF. This information, however, appears to be false: Sofos is merely one of nine members of the editorial board of the journal in question [3]. Want to reconsider? I'd rather have this article vanish quietly than having to go through an AfD, given the article's history (oscillating between self-promotion and defamation). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

when there's disagreement about notability,an afd is the only way to resolve it. I'll look at it tonight. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I asked because I expected there might not be actual disagreement once that factual error was clarified. But as you saw, I've gone ahead to AfD now anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it's borderline, but I need to check for book reviews with respect to NAUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Absentions" are not

Because Arbcom has an even number of voting arbiters, and ties go to "oppose," your "abstain" in 5.3 is effectively a support - the measure passes, while if you just chose not to vote but remained active the measure would fail - this is not how "abstention" works in the real world, but arbpol treats abstention in the case of ties as support. I wanted to make you aware of this. Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the problem and am discussing it. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have changed my vote to oppose, on the basis of arguments raised in arb com discussion. Considering other very recent vote changes in the opposite direction, I doubt it will make a difference. But I would have done so, even in the absence of your posting here. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this odd foible of ArbCom voting. I appreciate your attention to it. Given that it's obvious that you understood what I'd getting at, I thought I'd give you the heads up on the next tactical voting foible that I'd point out on other Arbitors talk pages at some point - this is more because I hate the fact that your voting system is so open to gaming.

Currently, Courcelles is voting support total ban if 1rr does not pass - I understand his reasoning in it's entirety, and to be clear, I am not accusing him of deceit. This provides an odd incentive to people who oppose all sanction at all - they can support a 1rr that they morally oppose to get Courcelles to oppose a topic ban. Assuming a 1 dimensional level of "badness" of punishments (which is a poor assumption, but I'm making it anyway because this is my problem set), by voting "support bad option unless less bad option passes" is, in many closes cases, two votes for "less bad option." IE - if someone's only motivation is to minimize punishment to Ruylong, in the event that 1rr is failing but site ban is suceeding, people who oppose both should tactically vote for 1rr to move Courcelles to oppose the site ban.

This can be fixed by running voting in secret waves revealing only gross totals and never removing options - for example, the way the pope is elected. Not exactly transparent, but it removes the two-votes-to-the-first-voter advantage that people currently get! I've got all kinds of other suggestions, of course. Hipocrite (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I find the entire system of Arbcom voting to be arcane and extremely inefficient, esp when they vote, strike it, revote, propose a new one with slight rewording and so on. Why has it not been converted to some form of Instant-runoff voting? Get your ducks in a row, post all the possible remedies at once, then vote your preference. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

personally, I agree that the way we consider multiple options to be the problem, but I don't yet know enough to suggest a better. It's a matter of the internal dynamics, not just the public vote. Though a particular case can indeed make a problem obvious, a solution is better discussed outside the context of a particular case.

As for the particular case, the extent of discussion has been so extensive that I want a break from discussing it further. But the extent to which the proposed decision was modified reflects the difficulty of reaching a decision, when all possible alternatives are not really satisfactory. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You landed in quite a doozy for your 1st case, eh? :) You were in the top percentile for the election IIRC, so I guess you can take heart that most Wikipedians think you're the right man for the job. Good luck. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

28 Nosler / Sources

Thanks for reviewing the citations, I am new at this and just corrected the citations, can you review to make sure this falls within guidelines. Thank you! 28 Nosler Nosler Info (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Nosler Info

Please comment on Talk:RTI International

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:RTI International. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Question: Draft:Clean Energy Fuels Corp

Hi and thanks for reaching out about DGG. As I am still attempting to familiarize myself with Wikipedia, any assistance you may be able to provide would be welcomed. I am happy to change my username, as I don't want to fall into the COI category. In the spirit of full disclosure, this article was submitted on behalf of the company stated in the name & subject of the article, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation (which I believed had been fully disclosed, but perhaps was not as clear as it should have been). The article was drafted to be as neutral as possible, however, you mentioned that it reads like a press release, and Coin945 stated that the strengths of the company need to be spoken to in a more specific manner. Because this feels like a slippery slope, perhaps it would be better to request an article be drafted, instead of submitting on behalf of the company? I welcome any suggestions you may have, and thank you for your guidance in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CE natgas (talk • contribs) 01:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

it is always better if someone unaffiliated with the subject and with no conflict of interest writes the article. So much paid editing here is improper, that it tends to arouse suspicion--which may indeed sometimes be unjustified suspicion. People will tend to question things they might not question if the editor were totally uninvolved. In my opinion the unqualified and promotional paid editors have spoiled the game for the good ones, and I have never advised anyone to make use of a paid editor. even the best of them--some of whom I highly respect for their unpaid work. All this, of course, is just my personal opinion & advice. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Speed deletion of Vladimir Beba Popovic article

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Vladimir Beba Popovic is a director of Public Policy Institute, organisation that operates in Serbia, Montenegro and Slovenia. He is a public figure in this countries and we have his biography on Serbian and Bosnian languages and we are translating it on more languages (Spanish, German, Italian, Slovenian...), so we wanted to have his biography on English too. Do you maybe need more external links or something, that can confirm that he is significant figure in our country (Serbia)? Best regards, Milicevic Aleksandra (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

advice

The rules for notability of individuals for the purposes of our encyclopedia is WP:BIO: they must have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Any language will do, English preferred but not essential. Online preferred, print is fine also. But it must be from outside your own organization. The Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian WPs article has just his bio on the organization site. The Serbian one contain s a long interview from a local web site, reprinting an article from a magazine, which is usable. The article is mainly a long quotation from his work,followed by an interview where he explains himself, so it is not ideally objective, but it does show that he magazine thought he was worth covering . Something additional is needed. As for style, we try to write specifically, and avoid vague statements such as ". He took part in numerous projects primarily with OCD Yucom from Belgrade and Biljana Kovačević Vučo. He actively provides services to civil parties in Serbia and takes part in the creating of new liberal and democratic movements and parties." What projects did he take part in,what services did he provide, and what new movements and parties did he create, or help create? By our rules for WP:BLP, Biographies of Living People, each of these statements must be documented by a reference. The articles says he runs his own business. What business is that? It says he completed "numerous specializations in various fields." Just what academic qualifications doe he have? DGG ( talk ) 13:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Speed deletion of Public Policy Institute

Sorry for desturbing, I just wanted to explain why Public Policy Institute article should not be deleted. Yes, it's true that this organisation operates on Western Balkans region, but they have many associates that are from all over the world and I think that they need to have their article in English, so that this people could see what are they doing. You may now say that their web site is made for that reason (to inform about their work), but I think that now Wikipedia has so much impact on everything, especialy in region where I live (Balkans) and if you want people to take you seriously, you have to have many different way in which people could here and read about you. One member of the PPI's Board of Trustees is Philippe Douste-Blazy, United Nations Under-secretary-general in charge of innovative financing for development and my opinion is that is very obvious that this organisation have some significats in whole Europe. Also, you can tell me which part of article is not written in Wikipedia rules and I can change it. And one more think, if you can explain me how I can put INFOBOX (with picture and basic informations about organisatio), I'm new here. Best regards, Milicevic Aleksandra (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

advice and status

Milicevic Aleksandra, itt doesn't make any difference where they are -- the English Wikipedia covers the entire world on equal terms--it is just the Wikipedia that is written in English. So that's no problem. There are two problems: notability, and non-promtional writing. For notability, we use the word in a special meaning, to indicate not intrinsic notability in the usual sense, which we cannot measure, but whether the subject has been the subject of references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. (See WP:NORG. Any language will do, English preferred but not essential. Online preferred, print is fine also. But it must be from outside your own organization. At present the article has no such references. Non promotional writing is writing that says not what you want the public to know, but what the public might want to know. It can not contain adjectives of praise, or descriptions of how good you are or how important ate the problems you work on. It should contain press-release phraseology or jargon. For example, not to meet " a need for clear and profession support...", but "to support ..." not " synergy of knowledge and opinions of experienced professionals and public activists. By promoting public dialogue and constructive solutions" but by "joint work of professionals in the field and activists, to promote public dialogue and find solutions" . It should, however, say what you do. Not "It is time for women's rights and gender equality in Montenegro", but describe what you have actually done there, and say exactly what you have published. It is not our practice to publish the names of the members of the program board or the board of trustees--this information belongs on your web page, not here.

I remind you of our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organization as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use, [4] Section 4, "Paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 13:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed some things in text, so please feel free to check it once again and to tell me is better now and what else I need to change. Milicevic Aleksandra (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Temporary protection from creation?

Is it possible to prevent a page from being created/recreated for a period of time instead of indefinitely? Given that Jimmylone has created World Calorie Currency twice with the same content it might be a good idea to protect it from being recreated and speedy deleted yet again. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 13:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello it's Jimmylone

No, I won't create such a similar page for a longer time, as it seems to hurt core interests (political?) of some people really bad. By the way, Mr coldacid, do you have nothing better to do (for example create something new/original for wikipedia by yourself) rather than just delete other peoples articles or suggest other articles to be deleted all the time? To be more positve/productive rather than negative/destructive?

Best wishes and stay positive

Jimmylone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmylone (talk • contribs) 15:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no "[creating] new/original" content for Wikipedia; I'm pretty certain you've been told before that content needs to be notable and verifiable from outside sources. On top of that, Wikipedia isn't the place to post essays or papers. As for your comment that I'm just deleting or suggesting things to be deleted, that's certainly not in good faith -- despite my own qualms with how the notability and verifiability principles are applied, I am simply trying to do what I think is best for Wikipedia as a source of information within the rules and expectations of an encyclopedia. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't do hair-splitting, you know what I really meant with "creating new wiki content": just write new Wikipedia articles in general (with old, verified content, if you hate new/original ideas so much). If you are really productive/neutral, you would have suggested to create a normal Wikipedia article (not in research paper form) about "Calorie Currencies" or more generally, "Energy backed currencies", as there are already plenty articles about them in the web, and not just plainly delete everything in front of you.

Jimmylone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmylone (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that you couldn't create an article on energy backed currencies. If you have reliable sources that can be used for such an article, please go ahead and write one. But republishing your own works on Wikipedia is not considered an appropriate use of the site, and as and encyclopedia, the onus is on us as editors to not produce original content and on the admins to remove such content when found. This is not me making up rules, but established Wikipedia policy. If you have problems with that, you're free to put forward policy proposals to change things.

I'll note as well that your claims of me being "negative/destructive" and that I "hate new/original ideas" when I'm simply following policy to letter and spirit feels pretty disrespectful towards me. Please be more civil; if you have problems with how Wikipedia is run, take aim at the policies and guidelines themselves, and not the editors who are applying them. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Even the (Wikipedia) rules has some margins, and should be carefully applied by its editors: E.g. what does "reliable" source really mean? Is a blog/news paper article/institution/journal "reliable"? Is a simple sentence of a Nobel price winner "reliable" (even without deep research)? As for being respectful or not, don't expect the others to be respectful, when yourself are not: Suggesting to delete something is one thing, but also to permanent blocking a page/user for being (re-)created is another and is, just like you have already written above, not in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmylone (talk • contribs) 17:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The rules for reliable sources are at WP:RS, which is in part a more detailed explanation of the WP:GNG standard of WP:Notability -- note there is a differences between the sources reliable enough to show something uncontroversial about a subject, and the more limited nature of the sources to show something controversial, or to show something notable in the first place. Nothing is permanently blocked here--if an article is protected from creation, and thou can show it is notable by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, you can ask the deleting admin or the protecting admin to permit creation, or appeal at WP:Deletion Review. WP is not the place to publish original research, and I do not think that the article being discussed is in any sense a borderline or debatable example. Subject closed here. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Madison Guthrie (and many others) AfD

Hi, could you clarify your close here? By my eye, only 3 of the 18 !votes supported a blanket keep. Of the remaining 15, 12 supported deletion and/or redirecting all of them, and the other three supported deleting most, with specific exceptions (or not so specific in one case). I'm thinking the numbers weren't an oversight, which means there must be some procedural issue with the bulk nomination, maybe? I'm typically against group nominations as a rule, but it did seem like this one generated less confusion than most I've seen. Anyway, I'm just curious what the close means for the articles and the way forward (and AfD procedure). Given the seeming slow participation at AfD lately, nominating 50 at once seems doesn't seem like a good use of available eyeballs. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you choose to keep all these [5] even though there were a lot of policy based delete votes. Now I'll need to delete them individually. What a waste of everyone's time. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

When they are of apparently unequal notability, they have to be considered separately. I know a mass nomination is a convenient shortcut, but it does't work well in such cases. The advice I usually give is to not renominate them all at once, but to select the least notable, and go 5 or 10 at a time. I don't count votes--I go by the arguments supporting policy. Personally, fwiw, I certainly hope most of them get deleted--they are just about my least favorite type of article, but that has nothing to do with it. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you consider amending your close to no consensus? There clearly wasn't any, and despite your advice to renominate the articles, I fully expect folks to wikilawyer "It was just kept two days ago!" on the subsequent afds. —Cryptic 07:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I got widely criticised for nominating them separately instead of bundling, and now you closed it claiming it should have not been bundled. Very discouraging, since there was 2:1 for delete them all and no one demonstrated any proof of notability on any of them. With your close we all wasted our time and have to do this all again 50 times, plus the hundreds of other similar articles we will not be able to bundle. There is a reason we are encouraged to bundle these. So how about closing it Delete without prejudice to recreation if someone is found to be notable. If not adjusted to delete, I am thinking of sending this to Deletion Review as I think you errored in assessing consensus and/or applied policy incorrectly. Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Deletion review almost never overturns to delete, and I can't see it doing so here. —Cryptic 08:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've got no experience there. If we can't deal with these in large blocks, everyone is going to get damn sick of the nominations required to clean them up. Also, I found that none of the AfD nomination tags (other then the lead one) were stripped from the articles so I can't Twinkle AfD nominate them. When I do it posts the whole group delete discussion to today's page. Therefore it looks like the close was malformed. I think it might be appropriate to revert the close and let another Admin assess this. Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

(replying to DGG's last response above) Not vote count, of course, but consensus. For consensus to be determined as "keep all for now" when only 3 of 18 participants supported keeping all, the majority must have been using really weak deletion rationales. (Unless it were an IAR close or a speedy keep based on the number of articles nominated, but that really needed to happen early on rather than after 10 days of discussion and a whole lot of research). In terms of the strength of policy-based arguments presented, the deletion rationales were relatively straightforward, policy-based AfD fare: checked articles, checked sources, fails WP:BIO, created by a sock, etc. All but one of the participants were specific about which articles their !vote should or should not apply to, with most people supporting the same action for all of the articles and two specifying lists that should or should not be deleted. What doesn't seem supported by policy is implementing an arbitrary numeric limit. As I said, I tend not to like group AfDs, but they are allowed, and this case looks like a pretty typical example of why/when they're used (articles created by socks, with signs of boilerplates, machine generation, or otherwise standardization, and so on). Given all this, I have trouble understanding this close as based on consensus, even a consensus determined only by strict policy-based arguments, rather than IAR or something more procedural. I have two suggestions assuming you're not into the idea of changing the close, and you may resent me for both :)

Suggestion 1: Renominate the smaller list or help identify which on the list contributed to your view that their notability is unequal. Since most of the participants !voted in a way that applies to all of the articles, that likely indicates they/we disagree that these articles were unequal to an extent that matters. For example, my own approach: I looked through all of the articles, skipped over those that were so bad they would qualify for WP:TNT and likely CSD (though I know that's not applicable here), and then conducted a search for sources for all of the rest, coming up with not one that passes WP:BIO. So while I can go through the articles again and look for sources again to come up with lists, it doesn't seem prudent to do so if I didn't see any worth keeping to begin with and don't understand the close's justification.

Suggestion 2 is simply to go to DRV (this would probably be on me, but if you wanted to post there first I wouldn't object). This may be the best way to go regardless, because I can't imagine I'm alone in feeling like a discussion I spent a bunch of time on wound up simply not mattering, closed without concrete guidelines to avoid such a situation in the future (sure, you say 5-10, but that information wasn't available until after it was open for 10 days, and what's to say the next closing admin won't limit it again to 2-5?). If the close were overturned, that would save an awful lot of repeat work. If it were upheld, it may generate a discussion of how to modify WP:BUNDLE accordingly. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 08:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just nominated some more similar but somewhat better constructed junk for deletion, one at a time. Every person that says these should be bundled will be referred to DGG. Legacypac (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, the most effective way to do it is to list simultaneously but separately 5 of the least likely to be notable. Normally, they will all be quickly be deleted. Then , nominate the next 5 . and go on fro there. It dies take a little more work , and it forces the commentators at the afd to pay a little more attention to the specifics. This is a good thing, if you are concerned about the merits of individual article, rather than removing a whole class of them a priori. It's easy in the immensity of enWP to see a whole next of nonsense, and want to bring it down with something definitive. but the concept behind WP:Consensus is that some intermediate ground can often be found, DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

So you closed not based on consensus but on your opinion of how it should have been nominated in the first place, information you share only after a full blown discussion. I'm reversing the close as malformed and not based on policy. Legacypac (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A nominator who overturns a close that doesn't go his way... and who follows it up with a spree of inaccurate AfDs in the same topic churned out at two-minute intervals proving that no WP:BEFORE work was performed. Huh. - Dravecky (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the reopen and advise Legacypac to take it to WP:DRV if they disagree with the close. -- GB fan 13:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

after I coded the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Madison Guthrie

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Madison Guthrie. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sophie McKenzie

Hello DGG, could you please let me know why you accepted Sophie McKenzie, I don't regard her as notable. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

one of her books has over 1400 library holdings in WorldCat, which is a great many for a UK youth book. . I'm sure there will multiple reviews. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at JustBerry's talk page.
Message added 15:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JustBerry (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Those beauty pageant winner AFDs

The nominator's rational has at least one problem in many of them if not two.

1- The only reason given to delete them is that they were created by a sock of a banned user or a banned user. That's grounds for speedy deletion, which these articles didn't pass, and so the AFDs with just that rationale have none at all.

2- That same rationale about the article being created by a banned user, is being used in at least one case, Jillian Wunderlich, on an article not created by a banned user.

The nominated AFDs have serious flaws. I think they should be closed....William 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I will not close these; I do not normally as an admin pursue action against one individual or on one topic to that extent, but let some other admin deal with it. I think it unfair to do otherwise; although I may be sure I have no prejudice, letting others do it removes any possible impression that I do.

• In this case, to be sure, any prejudice I might have is against keeping the articles. But I'm not going to !vote on these at all, much less close them--they fall too far out of my interests, and I might not be able to judge the quality of the sources. But if I did !vote, I would incline to !vote delete on such articles if there is nothing other than the state title, often on the grounds of coverage being only local or pr-based. And altho an article mostly written by a banned editor is not grounds for speedy, I have seen it often taken into account at AfD, depending on the extent of other editors' work. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You might be confused based on some of your posts. I only renominated about 10 of the articles from the group AfD, starting from the A states. I also nominated a few others that have not been at AfD before, starting with article created by confirmed banned Socks (that's how I located them). If there is a limit on how many pageant articles can nominated per day or week or whatever, please point me to that. There seems to be no limit on the creation of junk. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

As generally the case with WP procedures, it's not a question of what you are permitted to do, but how it can be done most effectively. There is no fixed limit, but I normally advise doing things that will be opposed in a slow and careful manner. When I deal with a group of related articles, I start with 2 or 3, and add small groups of others after I see the reaction. If all get quickly removed, then I start to go faster. If none get removed, I know not to keep trying. The idea is that nobody will be able to criticize me for the way I do it, whether they criticize me rightly or wrongly. (I would also in a case like this make a check for possible notability of each of them I was nominating, and say that I had done so and what I had searched. Doing this is the best way to get things that need to be deleted removed without fuss or disputes. Just as in arguing for keeping, evidence that there are or are not sources is what makes a difference. ) Please don't misunderstand me--I would personally like us not to include articles about winners of state level prizes who have done nothing further. It will be a slow process removing them, as is normal here. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)