User talk:DGG/Archive 97 Feb. 2015

ARCHIVES

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

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

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

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

Totton

Could you please take a moment to look at your strongly worded assertion that Totton "is not a medical practitioner". (sic) A 20 second search of the General Medical Council web engine suggests otherwise, as do several of the reference within the draft. It is possible you know something to the contrary, but if not, perhaps you would consider removing your assertion. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FeatherPluma, I seem to be in error. I will strike out my review, and either review it again or leave it for someone else. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I make mistakes too, although we both try hard not to. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

Please weigh in here even if it's that last time you comment on AfC. I don't care if all said and done you might not even agree with me, but I'm just trying to drum some sanity into that project which is now deliberately burying its head in the sand and turning itself into a walled garden. You'll need to read the whole thread. It's not too long. I still have that April 2014 consensus as a trump card up my sleeve. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why would I not agree with you on this--it's a basic step worth taking, which can be carried over to the combined NPP/AFC process when we finally remove AfC. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorpWatch

Is this website considered a reliable source? (see here). CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New editors

Okay I was under the impression that if it was something like posting your facebook/email/twitter that you had to put the csd up, thanks for the notice. (I do sometimes just put a welcome message though for other people though) Wgolf (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorpWatch

Is this website considered a reliable source? (see here). CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New editors

Okay I was under the impression that if it was something like posting your facebook/email/twitter that you had to put the csd up, thanks for the notice. (I do sometimes just put a welcome message though for other people though) Wgolf (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Isis

I seem to remember some comprehensive list of former administrators (not Wikipedia:Former administrators) that mentioned Isis as having been the first person to become a former admin, due to egregious behavior, and I figured she'd be a great example of someone we wouldn't want to have around. You came to mind quickly as someone whose username lots of people have heard and who definitely didn't overlap with Isis, i.e. I couldn't use Magnus Manske because he was around before Isis. Bonus points because you're on Arbcom — people might want to throw an average user to the wolves, and perhaps they'd want to do so with a "normal" administrator, but I suppose they'd be less likely to want to get rid of a sitting arbitrator in this case, so I figured I wouldn't get the point across much better with any other pair of usernames. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:08:14, 2 February 2015 review of submission by Ssantacroce

Ssantacroce (talk · contribs)
- Draft:South Shore Chiefs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What's the difference between this team and my team? We are a minor league football team and are a member of the largest minor-league football (league) in the nation. What am I missing, (that a team like this has that enables them to have their own page) (other than it's history)

THANKS Steve

Ssantacroce (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well, for one thing "The Raiders were the first minor league football team to gain 501(c)(3) Not-For-Profit status from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). " I take this to mean they are a particularly distinguished team. For another, they list 11 players who played in the NFL. for a third, I'm not sure the article would stand if it were challenged.

But other people too can approve articles. If someone does, and I notice, I shall certainly bring the article for a deletion discussion at WP:AFD. The consensus of the community will then decide. No individual here can make a final decision on such things--it is always the community in the end. It is my prediction that the consensus would probably be to delete, and that's the basis on which we are supposed to judge whether to put AfCs in mainspace. You can also ask for an opinion at WT:WikiProject American football. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:14:48, 2 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Cameron Cunningham

Cameron Cunningham (talk · contribs)
- User:Cameron Cunningham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi DGG,

I've made some amends to the Nils Bergman wikipedia draft. Please can you kindly review as I've resubmitted it. I think I've addressed all your concerns successfully.

Cameron Cunningham (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made some further revision for style and accepted it ; it's at Nils Bergman. The basis for accepting is that it will probably pass AfD. It will certainly pass AfD if you add additional references providing substantial coverage about him and his work from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. I also suggest adding some fundamental information: where and when was he bordn, what dates did he get his degrees, for what period of times was he at his initial mission hospital (and where exactly is it located), and what have been his subsequent professional positions. Has he written any books for a general audience? If so, add then. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:59, 2 February 2015 review of submission by Bonquita.henessy

Bonquita.henessy (talk · contribs)
- Draft:ImageSource, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi DGG, can you please tell me why my sources are not reliable? All my sources follow wiki source rules and I want to make my next submission approved. Please let me know which sources for the article you declined are bad so I know where to do more research. In addition, this article is not intended to promote this company...if you look at Perceptive Software, OnBase, Oracle, they provide the same information/format as the one I am writing for ImageSource, Inc. Please provide in depth details that will help me get this article approved.

Bonquita.henessy (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, and most important, if you are writing for the company as a staff member or paid consultant or any similar paid relationship, please be aware of our our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest. You must declare this. See our Terms of Use, m:Terms of Use Section 4, "Paid contributions without disclosure" . In addition , Wikipedia can not be used for the purposes of promotion-- we are not a directory. See also our rules on what makes an organization notable.

As the first reviewer also said, most of the references are not, as is required, providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Almost all are mere announcements, or minor awards, most of them very local. Being a business partner of major companies is not notability.

Signs of promotionalism include listing all your social websites, listing every possible business field in which your products can be used, using the register trademark symbol, and including not just the CEO in key people. In addition, when someone claims that their particular company or organization is appropriate for coverage here because the most famous companies in the world are covered, I usually think that this might indicates an intent at promotion, rather than providing the information a general reader might want to know. Once more, we are Not a directory.

The standard of acceptance at AfC is that the article would probably survive a deletion debate at WP:AFD. Based on my experience, it would not,without much more substantial content and sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:52, 2 February 2015 review of submission by Bonquita.henessy

Bonquita.henessy (talk · contribs)
- Draft:ImageSource, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

DGG, please help me understand why my article I created is unreliable and is declined compared to articles if you search; Perceptive software, Onbase software, and oracle for example. I am not promoting this company I want to create this page to educate viewers the history of ImageSource only. I am not trying to sell or advertise. Please direct me in the right direction.

Bonquita.henessy (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is very rare that an unaffiliated person will write an article on a small company, though it can happen. Usually it's either the owner or his family or a staff member, press agent, paid writer, or consultant. If you are none of these things, I apologize for suggesting you are. In any case the article will be judged by the same standard. Haven't you understood my comment that the company is not Oracle, and is therefore not likely to have the same degree of reliable coverage? As for Hyland Software, it's ten times the size-- and I appreciate being referred to the article, for I just now removed some advertising, staff listing, overlinking, and trivial awards. And [:[Perceptive Software]] is also ten times the size--and again I thank you, for the article is equally promotional. I just removed some of it, but there's more to go.

I can understand that you may have been in good faith following their models, but did you not notice at the top of each the prominent orange notice indicating that each of them had been tagged as an advertisement, and also as having been probably written by an affiliated editor? From the looks of them and other such articles, either a good many promotional editors are copying each other very or the same group of promotional writers is extensively writing in that industry. (It's a little harder to see it, butte perceptive article had been earlier removed as non0notable. I think it might just pass now, after my improvements, as might Hyland, but I need to consider sending them for a deletion discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:23, 2 February 2015 review of submission by TheosophyAtlantian

TheosophyAtlantian (talk · contribs)
- Draft:C. JoyBell C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not requesting a re-review, however, I would like to say that I disagree with you in your saying that the article I wrote reads like an advertisement. If this article reads like an advertisement, then that means you don't have any quality control reviewing your submissions to Wiki, because I have read a ton of small-minded Wiki articles that are the poster children for personal, edifying advertisements. As for your problem with "notability", well, why don't you check how many hits "C. JoyBell C." gets on Wiki! Because everyone in my university is asking about more information on her and she is adviser to a wide variety of very influential minds in this day and age. The information that I submitted in my article is a toned-down, mellow representation of facts. If you do your own research before being cynical, then you would find out facts for yourself and see that my article is not anywhere near "advertisement" sounding. Moreover, C. JoyBell C. is an Indie author, so how many Indie authors do you know are on CNN and TIMES Magazine with interviews that I can post to my article? I suggest that you get real. Wiki is outdated and people laugh at it for it's misrepresentation of most content. This is in fact one article that does not misrepresent. Have a good day.

TheosophyAtlantian (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It is just because we do have some sort of quality control that we try to weed out the promotional stuff. If you think that "almost unstoppable fervour and passion... a recognised household name, one now synonymous with wisdom, beauty, courage and inner strength; playfulness and childlikeness... adored by her fans from all walks of life... " etc does not read like an advertisement, you may be too close to the subject to be able to write about her from the neutral point of view that an encyclopedia requires. JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, you are certainly right that we do indeed have a great many "poster children for personal advertisements" . These were either added in earlier years when standards were lower, or escaped quality control. At the very least, we don't want to add to them. We get about 1600 article submissions a day, and include about half of them, and screening this many is a formidable task for the very limited number of volunteers who work on this part of our many quality control processes. (there are even higher priorities than advertising, like removing vandalism, copyright violation, abuse, and personal information about private individuals)--all of this not just in new articles, but in the 100,000 edits per day to existing ones. The same volunteers are also actively engaged in trying to improve or remove the older unsatisfactory articles--my guess is that there are at least 5% that need to be removed or drastically edited--and consider that we have 4.7 million articles, that 10% amounts to a quarter million. If you care to list a few of the advertising ones you've noticed, I'll be glad to look at them right now, or you can place a line reading {{advert}} at the top and it will get added to the list of 16,000 being worked on. There is no subject so important that we will print an advertisement for it. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:40:36, 3 February 2015 review of submission by Ocean Sanctuaries

Ocean Sanctuaries (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ocean Sanctuaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ocean Sanctuaries (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No further reviews requested. You may delete this entry if desired. Sounds like your point is: try again once you're more well-known/famous and are being written about in third-party sources and the press. That may be a while. The entry was *not* designed as a 'press release, but to provide a 'look-up' source for the general public.

Thanks for your time anyway. No further revisions will be made to this entry.

Ocean Sanctuaries (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

done . DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roomi S. Hayat

Hi DGG, I've just thinned out some of the outstanding cruft at Roomi S. Hayat and generally cleaned it up a bit more. I was recently emailed by the main COI contributor there, who asked me to stop inserting 'wrong' information etc etc. I suspect we are about to get the biannual attempt to reinsert the fancruft and cult of personality type information we got rid of last time. Could you keep an eye on it as well? Regards. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 22:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more touchups. I'll place PC I if necessary. BTW, ever think of becoming an admin? DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Erm, yes, more so these days. Only because there are quite a few technical things I could do with tools. Foam Concrete being a pertinent example. I guess I still feel a little apprehensive after my first attempt at RfA under my previous username. Mr. Stradivarius did offer to nominate me about 18 months ago (somewhere in in my TP archives), but I had no appetite for it then. I guess I just figured I'd wait until a couple or so existing admins thought I was ready and offered to nominate me. I have two remaining concerns about running: firstly, I have no GA or FA class work to my name. Secondly, I can sometimes be inactive for for a month of two due to real-world pressures. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Just noticed this comment "I have no GA or FA class work to my name". That has never even remotely been a qualification for sysop. (In fact some users such as Carrite consider getting the GA and FA qualifications on an article an enormous time-sink.) I have no opinion on your qualifications for the job, but if that chimera is standing in your way, do not allow it to! Also, as long as you stay abreast of Wiki policies, having real-world pressures that take you away for such time periods should not matter either. Just my tuppence. Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I never did any GA or FA myself either. I intended to, when I first came here, but I got involved in the opposite end of the spectrum instead (and I also find the GA/FA discussions not particularly satisfying.) It is however true that the simplest way to become an admin is to cover all the bases & so I think its the safest advice to give. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: Haha, I love the Chimera comment :) I'm working on an article at the moment that I came across as a delisted GA, I'm hoping to bring it back up to listed status, and along with some other modest endeavours in the mainspace over the next couple of months I hope it will give me the confidence to run again. Thanks for you tuppence. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs and PROF

Thank you for more clearly defining the situation in your comments at a couple of the AfDs I recently filed. I just wanted to point out that many of these AfDs were made under the same understanding of what PROF said/meant. You have now clarified that, but I did not (and do not) intend to continue to nominate articles after getting it clarified. These were just already in the pipe, so to speak. Nearly all of the articles I have nominated over the past months were created by the same editor (under a couple different names, which are publicly linked). That editor is now desysoped and banned from BLPs specifically for poor sourcing practices and violating NPOV across a large number of articles and a long period of time. It has been a very lengthy process to attempt to unwind some of the damage, and I genuinely attempt to avoid collateral damage. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK., I understand. I won;t keep reminding you, I'll just !vote as I normally do. Thanks for clarifying. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I mentioned you at ANI. No worries, just that you had clarified this for me. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esther V. Yanai

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from [[{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I appreciate that you've brought this up and I do hope that other people can add to the information about Esther V. Yanai. I do feel she is notable, however, with the land that is named for her conservation efforts and the award she has been given. ReachingtheStars (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a while for people to find references before trying AfD. I would like if it could be shown that her career meets our requirements.Deleting an article is not the ideal outcome, but, alas, many years of experience have shown that nominating for deletion may in practice be the most effective way of getting it improved. It should't work that way, and I cannot defend our practices of not focusing on improving articles. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monte Carlo Fashions Limited

Anilmehta9 (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Please see, I have edited the some content and already given useful resources.[reply]

For example: http://www.sebi.gov.in/cms/sebi_data/attachdocs/1405331158947.pdf

Request you to please review article once again.

Notability requires references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. You have one potential such reference, the Times of India article. It strikes me as somewhat of the character of a press release, where the reporter repeats what the owner of the firm chooses to tell them in an interview. It is of some significance that they chose to do the interview. It is not sufficient, and the other material is mere notices that they have raised money. A document such as the pdf you cite merely shows existence. We are not a business directory, as explained at WP:NOT DGG ( talk ) 15:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anilmehta9 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I will try to improve the article by following guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule.

Adler's Jewelry

Hello there, I am writing to request that you review the page for Adler's Jewelry again. I have added inline citations for the entire article and worked to neutralize the tone. Everything stated in the article as it stands is entirely fact. All of the information in the article comes directly from original historical documents, including passenger lists, naturalization records, and historic newspapers. This is how true historians work -- from primary, historical documents. There is no higher form of accuracy. Thanks for you help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livinghistorynola (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will get there tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've rewritten it in mainspace Adler's Jewelry. But you need to see WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTORIGINAL: true historians do work from primary sources, but WP is not the place for the publication of original historical research, which necessarily involves synthesis and interpretation. We do not have the capabilities to review it the way academic publishers do. (there are indeed some very highly qualified academic historians here, and a large number of very intelligent amateurs, but the basic rule here is that all editors are considered equal.) We instead base our articles on secondary sources, on the published works of the true historians, published in reputable journals or as books by reputable publishers. I'm not going to list it for deletion, but the present article is stretching the boundaries a little. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:27:23, 5 February 2015 review of submission by Destony521

Destony521 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Kizawa Memorial Hospital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear DGG: Thanks again for reviewing my article. I put a note at the top of the article but I just wanted to state again that I have resubmitted because I made changes as per the recommendations. I think the article is up to WP standards in its current state. Much obliged. -Dustin

Destony521 (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will get there tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Destony521 (talk · contribs), encyclopedia articles are written in paragraphs. They are not fact sheets. A list of all the routine departments of the hospital is not encyclopedic content. The ate are too detailed. Public transport is relevant for potential patients and visitors, not for WP readers in general. There are no sources besides their website and related ties. And, most important, there need to be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. We do not automatically assume that hospitals are notable. see WP:ORG DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redlink

Can you peek at my notes about "personal names" linking at the WP:Redlink article. It still is confusing to understand. I am not sure if I am interpreting it correctly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take a stab at rewording it. It still reads that we should not have red linked names.

New articles

I was pleased to see comments you made recently about deletion proposals. Maybe there should be a minimum time for writing an article before it gets a delete notice attached to it (unless there is something seriously wrong). A warning early on would be OK though. best wishes Aaabbb11 (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this has been proposed several times,but has always run into a problem with the mechanics. Extensive discussion is in the voluminous archives of WT:CSD. You might want to raise the question on that p. whether we want to try again, perhaps limited to A1/A3/A7/A10. G11 & the other G reasons are not suitable for a delay. But the problem with the mechanics is that we need a sure way of going back to them, because it's hard enough to go thru the NPP list once without missing anything. Merely a rule saying admins should not delete until after x hours would help, but experience has shown some admins will ignore such limitations when they think it's obvious, & I can't blame them much, because some A7s are indeed obviously hopeless from the start. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio's oppose

Please consider the merits of Salvio's oppose. I think it's the best idea in front of the committee now for this situation and will help vastly address both peoples complaints. Nothing say it has to be a popular result but a fair result that benefits the encyclopedia that stops disruption is the way to go. Those sanctions of admin boards removal is something that has seemed to work well with Tarc. I would ddefintely sacrifice my pride for such an equitable result. It doesn't address the off wiki issues butI don't follow people on private websites and can easily ignore the attack page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the revised motion DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Central meridian

I see that you added a {{merge to}} template to an accepted AfC submission, Central meridian (planet), but you pointed it to the talk of a disambiguation page and did not start a discussion there. I'm about to suggest that it be merged instead to Meridian (astronomy) and start a discussion there, but I'm just checking to make sure you didn't make a mistake and/or start a discussion already somewhere else. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, my error, I should have noticed. go right ahead as you have planned. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi Kristina Brown

Feel like weighing in here? TIA. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Horton (personal trainer)

Have you noticed that the Tony Horton (exercise instructor) article (previously deleted after discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Tony Horton (exercise instructor)) is back, under the new title Tony Horton (personal trainer)? I tagged it for speedy deletion (g4 – recreation of a page deleted after an AfD discussion), but it was said to be better than before and not just a copy, so the tag has been removed. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we have an article on this subject?

Why don't we have an article on Maria Jose Cristerna, better known as the Vampire Woman of Mexico? Recognize this woman? Seriously, she meets WP:GNG with flying colors. Was the page deleted or something? --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, one reason is that nobody has tried to write it. Whether it would pass afd would have to be determined by trying. The only advice I can give is that the key to getting such articles accepted is really good mainstream references; high quality referencing can usually defeat prejudice. DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Thank you for your advice. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Rosenberg

As the creator of the current article, notification would have been nice. The Dissident Aggressor 01:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DissidentAggressor, like most people I rely on Huggle for this, which goes strictly by the article history. Although you did create most of the content, someone else created the original article--I and others have repeatedly asked for the relevant bot to notify all significant contributors, but the request has always been declined due to first, the difficulty of specifying who is a significant contributor, and second, the fear it would lead to a form of lobbying.

I created the article in its current incarnation. It didn't exist as the logs will show. That previous versions were restored after creation seems to have caused the problem. The Dissident Aggressor 07:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but Huggle isn;t that sophisticated. anyway,you made a reasonable argument for keeping,and we will see what the community thinks. DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top Hat Trading Deletion

Hello DGG,

Why you are request the deletion of Top Hat Trading article? Article meets the rules of Wikipedia. The company in question show in several magazines in UK that is a very strong sources for Wikipedia and have enough sources on-line too. Text don't have any of promotion, so i don't see any reason for deletion of article. I suggest you to remove the deletion of article, I already re-write the article 2 times, don't make me re-write again please :)... If you have any questions is only contact me back, but please consider remove the suggestion deletion of article! Thanks DGG, and have a good nigh :)Johnf1982 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC) comment removed by its author.[reply]

It's at AfD now, where I just !voted for keep. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion inappropriate

Regarding this, please can you explain why the deletion tag was inappropriate, as WP:G13 states "Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months." and does not mention anything about notability at all... Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 08:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puffin, It wasn't inappropriate to nominate it for G13. However, anyone can postpone such deletion, or even have a G13 undeleted. I gave the reason I was postponing it. I generally postpone G13s of anything I think has a reasonable chance to be rescued, by me or someone else. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ryka Aoki page

I see that you've marked the Ryka Aoki page for speedy deletion. Please go ahead and delete it. I had started a page thinking I could help out some students who were looking into creating a page for Ryka Aoki, but it turns out that they may need to create a new page rather than just add to an existing one. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pylduck (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Deleted per WP:CSD#G7, and AfD closed accordingly. JohnCD (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:David M. Cote

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:David M. Cote. 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, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Alumni

Should these types of sections exist? I dislike them. I would think categories, List pages, or nothing at all would be better. I was asked about adding James T. Butts to the list, which is fine if they are considered acceptable, but I would rather delete the entire list... CorporateM (Talk) 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They have always existed since I've been here. Perhaps they were in some sense a way to add content to school articles, but I see no reason to remove them. I don;think they;re meaningless: the extraordinary list you've linked to gives considerable context for the school's athletic record and the role of the school in the community . Ideally the sources should be specified, but we've in practice accepted the assumption they're in the sources for the article on the person unless challenged. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top Hat Trading Limited

Hello DGG, why you are insist in proceed with deletion of Top Hat Trading article? I don't see reasons for that, and my opinion is shared by other users too, because you are the only that are try proceed with deletion and any user contest the article. The question about links, seems that you may are confused, because for me and Meters (Other User) references links don't need any type of registration to see.

I would like to challenge your decision to deletion of article "Top Hat Trading Limited", because I don't see enough reasons for that, may not is a very notable company, but is enough and have enough sources to keep the article on-line.

I look forward to a response where we can hopefully resolve the situation ASAP, avoiding the need for deletion of article. Johnf1982 (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to think the references marginal. ~~ If the community disagrees, it won't be the first time. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok DGG, I respect your point of view and you have the right to keep your intentions to proceed with deletion of article, but the references, mainly the UK magazines are enough sources to keep the article, we see a lot of articles with less references and keep live so I kindly ask you to consider your decision to avoid proceed with all process of deletion of article. Johnf1982 (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I am wrong, the consensus will find for keeping. It's not my view that matters, but the consensus. As advice, the best response to a suggested deletion is improvement of the article with additional unquestionably reliable substantial references. I don't pursue AfDs once I've listed them--I rely on the community to make the decision. DGG ( talk ) 09:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon DGG....

but was this removal of my comments intentional... and if so, why? Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt, of course it was accidental, and I restored them. I never delete comments at AfD, and anyway you and I are in essentially total agreement, as we usually are. If I had to name editors here whose judgment I really relied on, you'd be the first person I'd think of. DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courtesy. Be always well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Anderson merge

"I'm willing to do it". SpinningSpark 10:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC) OK, OK,. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate references?

Hi DGG: After seeing an extensive article in the Toronto Star, I made a short article about Brendan Frey, a professor at the University of Toronto. Although I don't know him, he is the supervisor of a lab in which a (non-notable) relative of mine works, and since I made the article I have found out that their names will appear together among the co-authors of a paper which has recently been submitted to a journal. This puts me in a conflict of interest, so I hadn't intended to make any more edits to the article. However, today an IP editor removed all of the references, stating that they were inappropriate. Since you know much more than I about what's appropriate in this type of article, would you mind taking a look at it? I don't really care if this fellow, who I have never met, has an article or not, and if I have made an error in creating it please feel free to send it to AfD. However, if those references are inappropriate, then so are most of the ones I've been adding to other Professor articles, and I may need to change my editing practices.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the problem was it wasn't clear that the references referred to people talking about his work specifically. I'll make some adjustments. (One way to handle it is to use the quote parameter in the references, but usually it's better done later in the article.) DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DGG. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Donetsk People's Republic topics

Template:Donetsk People's Republic topics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanca Padilla

Hi, I saw that someone created the page Blanca Padilla in january and you deleted it because there were no references. I was thinking about creating it as I have found a few references (and there is probably a lot more than whas I'm going to mention) so I wanted to ask you if you thought I should create the article or not. Sources include Vogue (1, 2), Glamour (1, 2), GQ (1, 2), Telva (1, 2, 3, 4), Madame Figaro (1, 2, 3), La Vanguardia (1, 2, 3), ABC (1, 2), El Mundo (1, 2, 3, 4), El Confidencial (1, 2), Mujer Hoy (1, 2, 3, 4), Zeleb (1, 2, 3), Chaos (1), Las Provincias (1, 2,

3), Diez Minutos (1, 2), El Correo (1, 2), Diario de Sevilla (1, 2, 3), Telecinco (1), Europa Press (1, 2, 3). You also have some very short things (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17) as well as links that we can not use for the article but they show her notoriety (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). Thank you in advance for your answer. MirandaKeurr (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as being an unsourced biography of a living person; you will of course understand that the possibility of abuse can have such consequences, that it would be unfair to all if we did not require sourcing for these articles. Whether the person's career is suitably notable for a Wikipedia article was not involved one way or another.

Since there are sources, the article can be restored. I do not work in this subject field, and cannot therefore definitively judge whether the article would be acceptable under the provisions of our guideline WP:BIO, but the references you have given certainly make it probable. I could tell you the various bureaucratic procedures, but the simplest thing to do will for me to just undelete the article and add the references in the form you have given them.

Please follow up by revising the article to incorporate the information. The first step will be to remove some of the material in the second paragraph--and the tone of it is such that it may have been copied from an external website, in which case you should replace it with your own text.

You are quite correct that only the major articles are really necessary; taking a quick look at a sample of the ones you have listed, it is possible that some of those you consider minor are as significant as the others: the criterion is that it provides substantial coverage from a third-party independent reliable source, not a press releases or mere announcement. It would seem that many of the references duplicate each other, as I believe is customary in the field. Select the most accessible and important. Give not just the link, but the author and title of the item, and the journal published and date of publication, as well as the date the link was accessed. As for external links, the best practice is to make a single external link to her principal web site, which will presumably list the others. Istagram is not the best choice for the site, unless there is no other.

almost all the references you supplied are in Spanish. This is perfectly OK, but if it is at all possible to include at least some English language references, that would be helpful, as most of the readers of the English Wikipedia do not read spanish, but can be assumed to be able to read English.

If you wish to include picture, I'm sure you are aware that we can only include a picture for a living person if it is available under a free license--almost certainly this is not the case for any of the published ones.

I've looked at your contributions--as you are clearly knowledgable in a field where I am not, do not be surprised if I ask your advice about borderline submissions. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer and undeleting the article. I'm now going to revise it and start with re-writing the second paragraph as you asked me to do. I'm going to read again all of the sources and select the most helpful ones for the article, as well as looking for some in English. About external links, I usually add Fashion Model Directory and Models.com as they're commonly seen on models' pages. Then for the pictures there is a Blanca Padilla category on commons. Thank you again for all of the advices. MirandaKeurr (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An AfC question...

Hi DGG, I know you've helped me out in the past with reviewing AfC submissions, and I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Should this draft should be declined based on lack of notability, or does it have enough sources/claim-to-fame to pass that test? I know it has some COI problems, but wanted to know if I should decline it based off of notability first. Opinion? (or maybe you can review the draft for me?) :) Thanks so much! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is written like an press release, but the subject might be notable. The German WP article was deleted -- see discussion on here--Google translate works adequately on it to clarify. Note that at the time German deletion discussions were based on fixed criteria, not primarily on a sourcing rule like our GNG. The founder has an unchallenged article on the German WP at de:Herbert Haum . It would have a decent chance if rewritten, but I'd advise the contributor to first translate and expand the article on its founder . I'll decline on this basis. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

btw, my admin status is only on the enWP; I cannot see deleted particles on the deWP. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:16:34, 12 February 2015 review of submission by Shomikz

Shomikz (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Value360 Communications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The previously written content was ill-formatted. I corrected it as per the Wikipedia format of starting the page with a brief detail, followed by history, services, clients, references and external links. The language of the content was also changed as well the style. Wikipedia's guidelines were followed in the edited version. Therefore, I would request the editor to reconsider these changes and approve it. Shomikz (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Shomikz, tho it's not overly promotional at this point, I declined it because it still fails to show notability, as I explained there. I cannot recommend resubmitting it unless you get at least one really substantial article about the company, because it would probably be deleted at afd even it were approved at afc. AfC is just a prescreening--the actual result is what will happen at afd. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFC deadline

Hi DGG, how many time will take for we get a answer from an article for deletion? In this particularly case, I'm talking about Top Hat Trading. Thanks! Johnf1982 (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'Proposed deletion of Vee (application)' by You

Hi David,

Received your message regarding 'Proposed deletion of Vee (application)' due to 'insufficient refs for notability'. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JyotiAg

I have given the relevant & credible sources to my knowledge from following sources - 1) Respectable Industry Portal - http://techcircle.vccircle.com/ 2) Well known Business Site - http://www.bloomberg.com/ 3) Blog of the Investment Fund - https://lightspeedindia.wordpress.com 4) Technology Website - http://www.nextbigwhat.com/ 5) Sutra HR Website (one of the top HR companies in India) - http://sutrahr.com/

Would like to know what kind of references you require. Where is the article lacking reference links? This will help me to edit the article. Thanks! JyotiAg (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg reference is to a mere directory listing. Blogs are in general not acceptable, and this particular one seems to be the investment firm advertising the company it invested in, which is therefore particularly unreliable. Whether the others are acceptable is unclear to me--the question is whether they represent true coverage, or just press releases. I have removed the prod tag, but if better references are not promptly added, , the article is likely to be sent for a community discussion at WP:AFD, which is the only place such issues can be decided. The community makes the decisions, and my role is both to make sure all reasonable good faith efforts have an opportunity for such decision, while quickly removing the ones that wouldn't have a chance. good luck with it. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KPS Capital

Hi DGG,

A year ago you deleted KPS Capital and/or KPS Capital Partners. It is a company that controls jobs of some 47,000 people and thus should be in WP. It appears that you deleted the article because of concern about advertisement. That problem can be avoided. What do you think? Ekem (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ekem, The new version is considerably better: now try expanding it. The main things that are needed are:

You need other newspaper articles, of the same strength as the Pittsburgh one.
Looking at the Pittsburgh article, it is a source for the currently unsourced statements about the firms strategy in the first paragraph. Indicate this. It also talk about the involvement of labor unions., and this should be added also.
There should be sources for each of the acquisitions. Give the dates, prices paid, and the ref. Routine newspaper coverage does for this.

It's enough improved that I'm not planning to challenge the article . DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Michael Carrigan

Hello again, DGG. I don't understand what this person's role is in the University. There are quite a few news reports which could be added as references, but most of them are election-oriented. Is this a notable subject? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little odd--basically, he's chairman of the board of outside governors. In theory, in most US public universities, these people have an advisory and final regulatory role only, not an administrative role. More recently, they have in some cases been playing a major role --even a dominant role--in university administration, often over the bitter opposition of the university faculty. Of he does, there should be good references to that effect. It wouldn't normally fall under the provision of WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights

Quick question: I just got some microfilm copies from the library for my COI work on Mylan. Some of them have quite a bit of content about how Mylan was ethical in a field (pharma) renown for corruption. These sources were published before a price-fixing scandal at Mylan, but some of them are after Mylan was instrumental in exposing widespread corruption (bribes at the FDA, fake test results, etc.), so at this time in history they were champions of ethics and had a beaming reputation.

Anyways, the point is, at least some of the content in that particular period of history is likely to be contested due to my COI and the sources are not available online for someone to verify. Is it a copyright infringement if I just upload the microfilm copies to Dropbox (or something similar) and use a public link directly to the PDF copy of the microfilm in the citation parameter in the article-text? CorporateM (Talk) 23:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way this has usually been done here is that According to the second paragraph of WP:ELREG, we do not make convenience links to copyvios. Nonetheless, this has in effect been done here frequently, by making links to copies that the firm in question has placed on their press-release page in their website. Possibly, the company may have received permission to use it in their advertising, and then it would not be copyvio. For you to do it personally puts you in a difficult position if the copyright holder complains. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who would actually complain about the copyrights of 30 year-old microfilm, but if it's not kosher I've gotsa do the right thing. Interesting story: I actually originally advised they abstain here. They felt the page was overly critical and I said it wasn't critical enough. Then someone added a section about a lethal injection drug controversy that was well-sourced and that tipped the scales such that the ratio of critical content will probably remain the same in a GA article and we're not shooting ourselves in the foot by improving it. CorporateM (Talk) 14:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfA clerk application

Hey DGG, I saw this (pointed out to me in IRC) and I've been thinking about it. Not sure how the community would receive me, but I'm interested in what you had in mind exactly. I'm interested in this because I think that the user who does this should be a user familiar with how Wikipedia works and while probably could pass an RfA of their own has little interest in doing so. I'm not interested in the traditional existing admin permission although I would be interested in a local interface editor or TE2 type group with some of the admim tools. Anyways, it will be quite some time before I run for anything (ArbCom next year will likely be my next run on enwp) and would be interested in clerking RfAs. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about whether I should say that an RfA clerk should necessarily be an admin, but decided it was not a requirement--after all, the arb clerks are not arbs, though many arbitrators have first been arb clerks. It came ip in this years election for arb whether an arb necessarily had to be an admin, and it was decided it is not necessary. Personally, however, I would advise you or anyone that it would be wise to test community sentiment at an RfA before running for Arb.

As for RfA clerk, I do';t propose to discourage or encourage anyone--it might be taken as an attempt to exercise authority at something about which I know very well I have no right to do so whatsoever. I suggest you ask others for an opinion. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a pretty good feel for the community's sentiment towards non-admin arb and I intend to run again despite that until the community says that being an admin is a requirement. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:16:03, 16 February 2015 review of submission by Sahuil

Sahuil (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Case School of Engineering, San Diego (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the proposed page. I hereby would like to request a reconsideration of your position, as the Case School of Engineering, San Diego is a stand-alone unit that specializes in Wireless Health and Wearable Computing, distinguishable from the main campus activities. I strongly believe that CSE-SD is in a similar situation as the Tepper School of Business (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tepper_School_of_Business) for Carnegie Mellon University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Mellon_University). The page of the Tepper School of Business has multiple references to the Main page of Carnegie Mellon University, but still holds an independent page. I am aware that the link with Case Western Reserve University is through the Case School of Engineering; but due to the impact and explosive growth of Wireless Health and Wearable computing, I believe the inclusion of a free standing page for CSE-SD will give this nascent and growing field the place it deserves. As a parallel note, the is an added uniqueness in our academic offerings, as there is no other university currently offering equivalent degrees. Please do not hesitate in contacting me if you have any questions regarding my request.

Sahuil (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sahuil, your purpose seems to be promoting the activities of the school. See WP:COI.

The present article isn;t the least parallel to the one on the Tepper School. Tepper is a major first-order division of the university, as are most business schools. We normally give them separate articles, as we do law schools and medical schools. We would not give a separate article to a branch of a medical school in another city. As for Schools of Engineering, we sometimes do make separate articles, but not necessarily. As you observed, we did make one for Case School of Engineering, which is certainly sufficiently important.

The information here, or some of it, belongs in that article. (Part of the information here is unnecessary detail and belongs on the school's website, not an encyclopedia, such as the amount of study time for each course. or the fact that exams and quizzes are given. Some of the information is puffery, such as "The resulting peer-to-peer interactions are mind expanding and an important part of the student's career development;" it adds no information and does not belong in an encyclopedia.

But I thank you for calling my attention to the article on Tepper, which is an pure piece of public relations, with outrageously extensive details of ranking, that'll need to be drastically rewritten. I've started. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Chamambra page

Dear DGG

The reason why I am writing to You is that it was You who deleted a page (Chamambra) edited by me for the reason discovered from the deletion log:

07:50, 2015 February 15 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Chamambra (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion:)

I would like you to help me restoring the page as the deletion process happened very fast and I did not have the chance to reply or contest the deletion.

Could you explain me the reason why the page was deleted, and furthermore, using these issues I would like to rewrite the page and correct the mistakes that led to its deletion.

But first, I need the page to be restored in order to do that.

Thank you in advance.

Yours, Dajes13 (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dajes13 (talk · contribs), another administrator nominated it for deletion, as being advertising, and also as being copied from your website. I agreed, and deleted it.

We can not use material from your website here without a full free license under the formalities of WP:DCM, which irrevocably permits anyone in the world for using , modify, and distributing it for any purpose, even commercial. But that is not advised, for material on a website is usually written in a promotional manner, and is generally not suitable for an encyclopedia. It is better to rewrite. For example, lines such as "The intention to correspond with the person’s concept of living through fulfilling the desires." do not belong in an encycopedia.

I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organization as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use, [1] Section 4, "Paid contributions without disclosure.
In addition, Wikipedia may not be used for the purposes of promotion-- we are not a directory. Our articles describe the subject, not advocate for it or praise it, and are directed not to prospective clients of contributors, but to the general public, who may want the sort of information found in encyclopdias. See also our rules on what makes an organization notable.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobo Ice Cream

Hi, DGG, and thanks for withdrawing the AfD nomination that Ritchie asked about. I wonder if I could get you to also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobo Ice Cream? That one was NAC speedy-closed by User:Davey2010 after less than a day of discussion. I asked him to reopen it since I didn't think it qualified for speedy closure, and he did. Three discussants had said, keep due to improvement in the article. If you agree that it is now a keep, what would you think about withdrawing the nomination - which would make it eligible for speedy closure - and letting Davey know so he can close it? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, & I closed it myself. I know only 4 effective ways of getting a really promotional article rewritten: 1/do it myself 2/ask someone who specializes in the topic 3/ask someone like me who likes to fix articles generally 4/list for afd. Among the ways that do not usually work is putting on tags or asking the original contributor. So, expect me to ask you once in a while-- any particular specialty? DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sounds like you are in the school of thought it should be called "Articles for discussion" rather than "Articles for deletion". AfD does have that kind of effect on an article - up or out (usually out). I do like to rescue articles when they deserve it. Special interests? I'd say academics, scientists, that kind of biography. Schools. California-related stuff. And an occasional nonprofit organization, if you think there's a real chance they might be notable (but we sure do get an awful lot of well-meaning nonprofit spam). Things I never touch: sports, musicians, entertainers - basically, popular culture is my blind spot. Ritchie is a very good rescuer - better than me - and I think he does know that area. Also, I am available when you have a newbie on your talk page, asking "why was my article deleted?" and seeming to want to make a sincere attempt to improve it. You can just ping me into the discussion. If possible I help them improve it; otherwise I gently explain to them why it doesn't qualify for an article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I helped propose calling it Articles for Discussion some years ago--the RfC actually passed, but nobody took the trouble of implementing all the guideline changes, and when it was next suggested, it did not pass. It remains a good idea. I generally think it desirable to consolidate as many processes possible, so they do not escape attention. Our interests (and disinterests) seem fairly similar, but they are so broad there's more than enough to go around. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Amy Pascal

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Amy Pascal. 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) 00:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re Max Leopold Wagner in Fenix down's RfA

Hi DGG -- There was actually only the link to de in the version I restored; I think the others must have got filled in by the bot overnight. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that's odd behavior for earlier versions, though I can see how it might come about. I'm going to check some other titles. I consider it a bug, not a feature. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Focus Technologies (PFT) - Page Deletion

Dear DGG

The reason why I am writing to You is that it was you who deleted a page Prime Focus Technologies (PFT) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Focus_Technologies_(PFT)

018:09, 3 February 2015 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Prime Focus Technologies (PFT) (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) I would like you to help me restoring the page as the deletion process happened very fast and I did not have the chance to reply or contest the deletion.

Could you explain me the reason why the page was deleted, and furthermore, using these issues I would like to rewrite the page and correct the mistakes that led to its deletion.

But first, I need the page to be restored in order to do that.

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richa101091 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three admins--not just me-- have marked this for deletion. It's a division of a larger concern Prime Focus Limited, which is certainly a notable company, but we would not normally make articles for its divisions. And that article, and the bios of its founders, need considerable work to remove promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 13:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your revert. Prime Focus Technologies is subsidiary company of Prime Focus Limited, but both of them are separate companies. They provide separate services and function from separate offices. Even the management is separate. Following are the links to their website for your reference. 1) Prime Focus Limited (http://www.primefocusltd.com/) 2)Prime Focus Technologies (http://www.primefocustechnologies.com/). There were relevant links to support the article. I will work on the content if it needs changes. Kindly reconsider this and help me with a solution. Richa101091 13:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have drafted the article as a quick news search indicates notability is likely. I have also strongly advised Richa to use AfC and not attempt to put the article in mainspace himself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kdzrules --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hardly surprising. I assume that in most case where someone is working substantially on an article on a firm and also articles on its executives, that they are likely to be a COI editor at least... DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your advice. DGG as mentioned by you I have edited the Prime Focus Limited article and the bios of its founders. Can you review them and let me know if they are as per Wikipedia standards. Kindly guide me in areas where changes would be required. Richa101091 (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive speedy deletion noms by user Wgolf

Hello BDD,

Does this not seem excessive as regards the use of speedy deletions, or am I wrong? It's alarming to me, anyway... Note the summaries marked 'Notification: proposed deletion of...'

Your clarification and/or help would be appreciated,

Hamamelis (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are nominations of some quite dubious articles mostly or entirely by a sockpuppet group. About half will end up deleted. Normally I would say to attempt to source the blp prods before listing them, but when a group of such minimal articles is written, people understandably get impatient. If you want to rescue some of them, add references. DGG ( talk ) 12:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation, and for taking a look. Hamamelis (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Book is Overdue!

Hey David. I have just accepted Marilyn Johnson (author)... and trimmed it so that it's hopefully not excessively promotional now!... and I thought you might find the mention of one of her books interesting. This Book is Overdue! is apparently about how librarians can save the world. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Gondal edits

Hi DGG,

You placed a notice about promotional tone on the this article a month ago. I've been contracted by Vishal Gondal as a freelance writer to help correct any issues in the article. I've been editing in my sandbox here. Would you please consider reviewing my work and potentially applying my edits to the actual article? I have removed any content that I couldn't find a source for, and I tried my best to remove anything that sounded like a news release. I also removed a suspect link from the infobox as well as most of the external links. Please feel free to edit my sandbox directly if you'd like. Thanks, and looking forward to your comments. Ed0Strasse (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the disclosure, which is, as you clearly know, necessary under our Terms of Use. It's very good to see people doing it--but you will need to say this on the talk p of the article as well, or in the edit summary. I can say I like what you did, but it still you who take the responsibility.

Yes, I do like what you did--it addresses the issues, and is a much more sensible article overall. I've three major comments, and perhaps you could make the necessary edits; I'll look in a day or two and merge the content. a/Try to combine the one-sentence paragraphs in to logical groups. b/I see we have no article on INK talks, and on the firms he invested in. INK talks needs an article--if you don't want to do even a stub article, it needs an explanation in a few words. The others just need a quick explanation in a few words. It adds context to give an idea of the size of the investment if it's in the sources. c/ When there are multiple refs for a point, pick the best & most accessible. And 2 specific points: i/as his sport record isn't significant in terms of an encyclopedia, take it out of the infobox. ii/I'm not sure the Audi stuff is encyclopedic either: Event of no lasting significance. Materials about his business career would be more to the point. And some of his education should be added back. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in-depth review. I've done another round of edits to my sandbox, so please take a look at your convenience. I couldn't find any reliable sources that support his education. Is there something in the Early life section about his education background you think I should do some more digging for? The current article (live, not my sandbox) has no references support his education. Also, I will definitely post a disclosure on the article's talk page. Is there any particular process I should follow, or just a similar declaration to what I left on your page?Ed0Strasse (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Niranjan Pati

Hello, DGG. Here's a professor. There seems to be a lot of superfluous detail in the draft. If this is a notable subject, maybe you could delete what's not needed? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i'll take care of it, DGG ( talk ) 05

33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

how to achieve wp:balance in Six-Day War

I would like to have your advice concerning how to achieve wp:balance in Six-Day War. I added the sentence "Nasser took 3 successive steps that made the war virtually inevitable:" but it was removed, although it is supported by a lot of wp:rs. Other editors are against this sentence, and especially the word "inevitable".(see talk page here] and here).

The opponents claims that:

-1. this sentence is a wp:pov.

-- my response: It should be added to the article according to wp:balance : "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance."' BTW The opponents have hardly supported an opposite view.

-2. "this article is not about the causes of the war, it's about the war itself"

-- my response: The article should follow Wikipedia:Featured articles like Byzantine civil war of 1341–47, Boshin War, Anglo-Zanzibar War, Nagorno-Karabakh War, and include the war reasons, or at least a summary of the war eruption reasons.

user:IZAK mentioned that you have lots of experience in this area, if I understood well. Ykantor (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on topics relating to Judaism. I have not worked with topics relating to modern Israel or Palestine. I do have a general opinion that on all topics it is very difficult to achieve balance in a summary or other short statement, and that arguing over it is not as important as improving the article contents. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually those editors are falsifying history by keeping out the view of a lot of wp:rs (while they do not bother to present wp:rs who oppose to this view. (Sorry for the blunt words) Anyway, thank you for the prompt response. Ykantor (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on AfC

Hi DGG, what do you think we can best do moving forward with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Relationship of the Tamils with the Chinese? The subject matter seems almost certainly notable, but I'm not confident to move into main space a subject that's been so plagued by POV interpretations of the importance and influence of groups if I don't sufficiently know the actual history and background. I would feel terrible letting this drop down the G13 memory hole if it's fine, but I'd feel equally bad if I move this to main, and it turns out I'm assisting in historical revisionism. What are your thoughts? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in this field, but based on the article on the Chola Empire it seems perfectly reasonable, tho perhaps it should be merged there--there does not seem to be enough additional to justify breakout article. Just going by general probability , this does not seem like a particularly controversial aspect. I suppose there could be dispute whether the Chola or the Chinese were the dominant party, but the article avoids the potential issue. I moved it into mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clara Amfo

Hi DGG. You commented extensively on this submission. I've found more news reports, and tried to avoid the "she said" ones, and also removed some of the fanpage stuff. Is it acceptable yet? She still hasn't won an award, but appears to be hosting high profile shows.—Anne Delong (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion is not whether I think she should have an article but whether it will likely to be kept at AfD. I don't follow the AfDs in this area, so I don't know what's likely. The question is whether the coverage is pure PR. Maybe, maybe not. If all the articles say the same thing, thy are--that's the only way I could tell,but I haven't checked. If you thought it was worth working on, I trust your judgment. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess there's one way to find out. I added some more news reports and bumped in into mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance

Hello DGG. Do you think this edit needs oversighting? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

done. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jonathan Westphal

Got there after viewing talk page of a user who made it. You think that there is a fair amount of notability now? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really tell. one very popular introductory textbook might do it.Otherwise not. I accepted it, and AfD will decide if someone wants to list it there. Borderline decisions should;t be made by one person. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

Wikia licensing

Whoa. Surprised I haven't run into a copy/paste from Wikia before (re: Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc.). It's really ok for Wikipedia purposes, though? Their licensing default looks to require attribution, which seems a problem unless we're going to put the whole article in quotes and cite Wikia as a source. I understand that's a different issue from a copyvio, but still seems problematic, no? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the {{Wikia content}} should work and the docs include some suggestion on how to use the template. Ravensfire (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the source is PD there is an attribution problem. In principle everything can be attributed properly by keeping the edit history, but in practice it will soon be unclear to the reader what part comes from where. This confuses the page history of all the EB and Catholic Encyclopedia and similar entries, and confuses it in a worse way, because the original source is out of date almost completely, and it is not easy to tell what may have been added by uptodate sources. (In my opinion adding that material was a serious mistake made in the early days of WP, when the expected level of accuracy for articles was much lower) There needs to be serious work done in rewriting every one of those articles, for there is no topic whatsoever where additional material is not known since then and anything implying a judgement has to be rewritten, Back in the first years of the twentieth century, it was seen as ... or it could be summarized as .....We also have scientific material from 10 or 15 year old US Dept of Agriculture publications, which now has a similar problem.

I personally do not add such material without using quotes. (They should normally have a beginning and quote on each paragraph, with an ending quote on the final one.) But I am not about to take on personally the correction of widespread sloppy practice. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lab Snacks.
Message added 17:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Note: the Thorlabs article has been restored (by another user). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the company just might be notable -- the article need expansion to properly show it. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Jumbe and Friday Anderson Jumbe

Hi DGG - I had this draft on my list, but noticed that the topic was already in mainspace. Maybe a merger is in order? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:|Anne Delong}} Yes.could you pls do it--it will have to be a selective merge. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, tomorrow (yawn) —Anne Delong (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although I couldn't find any sources about his education. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lou Harkness

Dear DGG,

On 2/23/2014 you tagged the article "Mary Lou Harkness" for speedy deletion, due to content in the article - two sentences - that was the same as the original source, and it was deleted shortly thereafter. I have rewritten content in the article to correct this situation, and I would like to recreate it. If, after I have possibly re-posted it, there are any other issues that I need to be made aware of, please let me know.

Thank you,

James E. Scholz (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

Did you mean to block this IP indefinitely back in 2011?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not that I can remember; I unblocked. I suppose I selected the wrong time from the list as a slip of the mouse; but how did you find it--are you reviewing the list of indef blocks, which would be a very helpful thing to do. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It came up at WP:UTRS. Indef blocked IPs aren't very common, so I thought it best to check. I could review the list of indef blocks, however I am very very lazy. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and for things like this, so is everyone else. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improper AfD nomination for Jewish atheism

Hi DGG. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish atheism, and please take a look at the way that article was nominated and the current AfD page, there is something very wrong with the way the process was carried out on a technical level and the vote should be disqualified and cancelled just on those grounds. I don't want to tamper, but as an Admin you can surely see the problem there. Thanks and take care, IZAK (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be going OK. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus is no longer an RS?

After seeing your comment that Kirkus is no longer RS, I took a look at the noticeboard and saw this discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_180#Kirkus_Reviews. It's saying that "Kirkus Indie" is paid, but regular Kirkus reviews are not paid. Are you referring to this discussion or something different? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes. as a result of that decision, I no longer trust it for anything at all. I think that's the general view of most librarians I know. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Obviously any "Kirkus Indie" review is non-RS. Do you think they are secretly paying for reviews on the "non-Indie" side? If so, how should the community handle this? Does it need to get any substantiation/proof that something untoward is going on? Have librarians written about the issue? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no it's more that any publication that takes paid reviews is ipso facto non-reliable on any part of the site. this is similar to the way a newspaper that publishes advertorials tends to forfeit some of its reputation. There are indeed a few well-documetned exceptions: the NYT, WSJ, & Forbes all publish directory information on companies as well as genuine news. (I wonder how many of our articles use their directory information as evidence towards notability , btw.) So I agree this may be too harsh a judgement, but it is none the less the usual impression, which I share. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a good way to deal with it is to consider Kirkus post-2009 a "less reliable" source. It can still be used, but if a particular book has a lot of different reviews and editors are trying to figure which ones make the cut, then perhaps Kirkus would not be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's one reasonable way to look at it. Another is that it adds to notability if there are some there borderline sources also. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! That works well :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sageworks discussion

I have responded to your comments on the talk page of the Sageworks article. In particular, I think you are missing the key issues with their business model that need to be disclosed in the article. Please respond, preferably on Sageworks talk page so we can close the discussion. --Physitsky (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied. We can indeed close the discussion. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have replied, but I disagree with your position. So the discussion will continue.--Physitsky (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone seeing this will take a look and close as they think best. I don't see the point of further discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Public Policy Institute article and Vladimir Beba Popovic

Dear DGG, the articles Public Policy Institute and Vladimir Beba Popovic are still as a draft article. I removed some things that you suggested me, but they're still as a draft. Could you please tell me what to do next, so that this articles could be visible again? Best regards, Milicevic Aleksandra (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Popovic: The guidelines here are that you need to meet WP:GNG. The article on Popovic does not--the only ref is to his own institute, plus links to two of his you-tube shows, and a paper he wrote. What is needed are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The article would be deleted if restored to mainspace, unless someone can find something more substantial.

For the Institute, there are no references at all. Further, all it talks about is the project's goals, not its accomplishments. If they have done something notable, there will be references to that effect. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

I have signed your unsigned comment. Hope you don't mind. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

of course it's ok. thanks. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on an AfD discussion about an academic?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Stover is about an article I initiated. Seems to me that Stover meets the criteria, particularly for his role in H. G. Wells scholarship; but it could be argued that I'm mistaken/biased. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of African American women with Doctorates in computer science

Do you think this article is appropriate for Wikipedia? I wanted to get your input before deciding if I should nominate it for deletion or not. It seems like a huge list of un-notable people (a few may meet WP:PROF, but not most), with a bunch of references to primary sources (although in this case the primary sources may be useable). I understand the whole affirmative action thing, but this may be a little overboard. Would we have a list of Caucasian women with doctorates in computer science? Does the fact that the percentage of African American with PhD's in the field is low, mean that they are notable and should have a list to recognize them? Finally, it seems like there is some COI editing going on, as the main contributor is User:Quincykbrown and one of the people on this list is one Quincy Brown. Maybe there's a policy or community consensus on this that I'm just not aware of? Thanks for your feedback. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

since we do not seem to have any precedent for lists of this sort as lists, perhaps it would make more sense as an article on the subject, so I moved the page to African American women in computer science . There would then be content that could be added. The source for the list is apparently the report cited by ref, , and it would seem reliable, tho of course it would be good to find a direct link for it. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good enough to me, not really sure what to make of this so I usually find it's best I just leave things alone if I don't know what to do. Cheers. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Sawyer

Hi David, how are you? I need your help again to keep the article of Errol Sawyer in Wiki as Mbineri wants to delete it again. This is what gives Wikipedia a bad name! Read:http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-top-10-reasons-students-cannot-cite-or-rely-on-wikipedia/5432783

7. Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority. Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve. For example, beginning in 2003, U.K. scientist William Connolley became a Web site administrator and subsequently wrote or rewrote more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles supporting the concept of climate change and global warming. More importantly, he used his authority to ban more than 2,000 contributors with opposing viewpoints from making further contributions.

5. There is little diversity among editors. According to a 2009 survey by the Wikimedia Foundation, 87 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, with an average age of 26.8 years. According to executive director Sue Gardner, they hail mostly from Europe and North America, and many of them are in graduate school.

4. The number of active Wikipedia editors has flatlined. The number of active Wikipedia editors (those who make at least five edits a month) has stopped growing. It remains to be seen whether the current number of active editors can maintain and continue updating Wikipedia.

3. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute. According to the Palo Alto Research Center, the contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago. The result is that a steady group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever.

A group of editors known as “deletionists” are said to “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it harder for Wikipedia—which, again, aspires to provide “the sum of all human knowledge”—to overcome the issue that it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic.

Of course his article can be edited and improved but not deleted. Sawyer is an accomplished artist: Read not only his his last interview on the WSW by Richard Philips, but also read what the ex museum director Julian Spalding writes about him on his own website and read what A. D. Coleman (first photo critic of the New York Times) writes about his work in his book "City" Mosaic and on his own website. Also Sawyer's work is present in several important museum collections around the world which gives already the status of importance that he needs to have an article in Wikipedia. It is very important that Errol Sawyer, considered as having equal value as the African-American photographer Roy Decarava, has an article in WIki as he is a role model for the African-American community. 1027E (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I already warn you about canvassing? Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mbinebri, I've worked on this article before. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have, including people who voted "delete" in previous AfDs. Where are their invites to the party? Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That, of course, is another issue. But it would have been wrong not to notify me; in fact, I have rather frequently said that I think these notifications should be required and automated. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]