User talk:DGG/Archive 88 May 2014

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

Paradigm shift from transformative to informative learning[edit]

I have some misgivings about this, but since you appear to accept that it's neither WP:OR (my deletion) nor a G12 copyright violation (1 May deletion by a different admin), I have, of course, restored. Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thank you for your closing of the capitalisation debate. It's not the outcome I would have wanted, and the fifth pillar is looking increasingly irrelevant, but I think you handled the closure very well. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Input on a list article[edit]

Hi David. If you have the time, I'd be interested in your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional literature featuring opera. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so I have. I am quite surprised to see the objections; perhaps some of the contributors to the discussion are being too demanding about incomplete articles capable of improvement. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for you input. It got me off the fence, so to speak. On another subject, just a heads up re Carlos Cordon-Cardo, which you had originally deleted (and quite rightly) per G11. A new version, which I presume was almost as bad (from what I could see) was submitted to AfC. A bit of research told me he was notable. So I completely re-wrote and re-referenced it and moved it back into article space. Hope that's OK. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page "Clint Stanaway"[edit]

Hi DGG, I would like to recreate the page for "Clint Stanaway" who is an Australian TV sports journalist. I believe the page was deleted because the information did not met the notability requirements. Are you able to provide some feedback/advise on this? Thanks. Sarahbell82 (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)sarahbell82[reply]

looking at the deleted article, I see several problems.

First, and most serious, though the article is not a direct copy of his web page, most of it is a very Close paraphrase. We treat this as a copyright violation: You must , rewrite the source material from scratch, changing not just the words, but the arrangement into sentences and the sequence of ideas.
Second, notability is proven here by references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Of the references in the article, most were from his own television station,. TThe only additional ones was a photograph in "Perth Bachelor of the Year", and a writeup on a blog, "Taking Flight in the Media. Profiles the careers of inspirational people in the media and entertainment industry." which is apparently a publisher of press releases, simply reporting what he says about himself.
It is relatively uncommon for journalists without a national reputation as shown by significant national-level prizes to meet our notability standards--the importance shown is usually the importance of the events they cover, not the importance of their coverage. Third, as is customary for articles which are copies or paraphrases of individual's web sites, the material is written in a promotional style, full of adjectives of praise., with a quote from himself on what he considers his influences.
If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity, and for the presence of sources that show notability. If you cannot find the sources, there is no real chance of an article. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the effort you put into the close at WT:MOS#Bird common name capitalisation. There were a lot of words to read and to write. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 03:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It was a sprawling debate that'd been going on in multiple forums for so long it's hard to get a complete sense of it without a lot of reading. Thanks for putting in the time and thinking it through. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! A very generous donation of time to get your mind round a long-long-long meandering debate with loads of distractions, and very brave to tackle one where people feel so strongly. I think you did an excellent job. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Right, you're off my Xmas card li-~~ As much as I hate the result, I appreciate with the time and effort put in to possibly one of the most detailed closing rationales I have read. Despite apparent appearances to the contrary, I do support the idea of a global Manual of Style and conformity and am content to abide by the decision. Agree with the idea of some sort of bot to enact this. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred a different outcome, but your arguments were really well-done and respectful to all positions. Kudos for you. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DGG. You've put a very contentious issue to rest, and probably for good. As ever, I'm flattered when people think I'm you. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very most excellent example of gentle mop-wielding, though I am sure that some members of the species Gallus domesticus minoris will consider that the end of the Wikipedia is nigh. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, I just wanted to thank you as well although I followed the discussion from a distance (I think it had more than enough active participants). Admins can get a lot of flack but when one takes on settling such a sprawling debate, knowing that no matter what one decides, there will be some very unhappy editors, I can only say thanks. And providing such a thoughtful rationale (rather than a sentence-long decision), is admirable and helps the decision "stick"...ambiguity would have only resulted in further challenges to your decision. Instead, if individuals do want to overturn this decision, they know that the burden of providing evidence resides with those wishing to change the status quo, and there has to be a substantial case to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that you won't need to clarify that the consensus finding doesn't only apply to birds, but you might; there's a (smaller and quieter) camp who want to always capitalize moths/butterflies and dragonflies, and another in favor of doing the same with common names of British (and I think Australian) plants. The debate may have focused on birds, but that focus should be scene as license to capitalize non-bird species common names. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm shift from transformative to informative learning[edit]

I have some misgivings about this, but since you appear to accept that it's neither WP:OR (my deletion) nor a G12 copyright violation (1 May deletion by a different admin), I have, of course, restored. Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thank you for your closing of the capitalisation debate. It's not the outcome I would have wanted, and the fifth pillar is looking increasingly irrelevant, but I think you handled the closure very well. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing Administration of "Mark A. Thomsen" Article[edit]

DGG,

I'm wondering if I can have some feedback regarding the "Mark A. Thomsen" article that you are the reviewing administrator for. It was initially marked for quick deletion and, after I challenged that deletion, to the questionable notability category. At that point there were no citations, which I suspect added to the "questionable" nature of the article. Since then, I've managed to find around 30 or so citations both online and at the US Library of Congress (there were many more there, but I ran out of time--more can be done on a subsequent trip if necessary). Based on these citations, which include articles in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and numerous other state papers and magazines, I must ask: does it seem to you that notability has been established? If not, what sort of citations might help to tip the balance?

Matt.thomsen (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Matt.Thomsen[reply]

I continue to consider this of uncertain notability. But the only way of actually determining this for our purposes is by at discussion at WP:AFD, where the community decides--though the decisions there sometimes are a little erratic, that is inevitable at the borderline. What might help a little is focusing on the most important performances, the ones that make somebody's reputation--these are usually those at the major companies, and reviewed by major national national media--the fact that a performance was given a major review sometimes says more than the text of the review itself,. Voceditenore, could you give me an opinion? And I will take a look at some of the reviews myself later in the week. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG and Matt, in my opinion and long experience with AfDs for opera singers, this would pass. He has sung leading roles in with several notable American and European opera companies and sung in at least one world premiere. This can be verified online via reviews in newspapers and books.

However, there is a much more serious problem. The article is a copyright infringement, pasted verbatim from the biography on Thomsen's website. See Duplication detector. The copyvio is foundational, i.e. in the article from the outset and in every revision. In such cases, the article is normally speedily deleted. Even if Thomsen were to release the text on his website under a free license, it would have to be completely re-written for encyclopedic style and tone and neutral point of view. I suggest that this be speedily deleted either as G7. Author requests deletion (if you and Matt are in agreement) or otherwise as G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement. Matt can then work on a new draft at User:Matt.thomsen/Mark Thomsen—shorter, neutral, properly referenced, and free of copypaste. I will be happy to take a look at it and move it into article space when it's ready. I strongly suggest that Matt not move the new version himself. When you are closely affiliated to the subject, it's virtually impossible to take an objective, dispassionate view of the suitability of an article's text and referencing. In the meantime, I'm going to copy the references (but not the text) from Mark A. Thomsen to User:Matt.thomsen/Mark Thomsen. Voceditenore (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I have permission from the author to use the text from the www.markthomsen.com website on wikipedia or wherever else, though I do agree that it should be rewritten for encyclopedic style, tone, and neutrality. My first priority was to gather citations to prevent deletion. A re-write is the next fire to put out, which I will likely do over the course of this coming week. Matt.thomsen (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that it's simply not enough to say you have permission. An exact procedure is required to verify it and is outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Until verification is received, the article cannot appear anywhere on Wikipedia in its current state. Since there is a plausible claim of permission, the only other alternative in the interim is for me to blank the article (apart from the lead and the references with this template until permission has been verified. That will give you about a week to either verify the permission or to completely re-write the article on a temporary page which an administrator will use to completely replace the copyvio version. If neither is forthcoming, the current article will simply be deleted, usually in one to two weeks. Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, as an open source project designed to create an altogether different publishing system than the current model, thinks it necessary for our own integrity and as a demonstration of good faith, to follow the current formalities of copyright law strictly and literally, regardless of what many of us here may think of them. We therefore require a formal copyright release under a free license, by which the owner of the material must give us permission according to WP:DCM (permission that irrevocably gives everyone in the world the right to copy, reuse, and modify the material). We normally do not advise it, because just as is the case here, the tone will generally not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable here. Thus, it is much better to rewrite-- as Vocedieditore suggested; and the simplest course of deleting it and then recreating a new version is preferable. . I hope & expect you will be successful with the new article version. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on UFO sightings in outer space[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space (3rd nomination)

As an editor whose opinion I value, I was looking for some advice on this AfD and how to proceed. Despite snowing through DRV it turns out the reverse is happening at the AfD. The community seems to have an issue with this article which I am not following. The article has been accused of WP:SYNTH and OR, all claims are cited, I am unable to see any OR, and the article jumps to no conclusions. None of the opponents have specified any specify OR or synth. The information was juxtaposed which as far as I can tell is what SYNTH is not. The sources despite what I am seeing as mainstream have been denied. My goal was to document the reports of sightings of unidentified objects in space not suggesting they are extraterrestrial in origin.

Per WP:NFRINGE,

A fringe subject is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents

Regardless of a hoax or not I am see significant coverage including two prominent skeptical analysts James Oberg and the Condon Report, as well as coverage from numerous reliable sources. Are there any serious issues with this article I am missing, or is the AfD based on IDONTLIKEIT votes? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, I will take a look. But i find it helpful if when someone asks me to look at an ongoing discussion they do not tell me what to look for. I try as best I can to just look as if I came upon it from scratch and ignore the suggestions, but I can't help being influenced by them subliminally. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having made my comment, I think your evaluation of the reason for deletion is perfectly correct, but motives are not a helpful argument. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you so very much for your opinion. I always trust your judgment for or against my position. I will never have any issues if you disagree with me in the future as I find whatever you say insightful and educational :). Sorry to take more of your time, but I noticed that user LuckyLouie has essentially gutted most of the article. Correct me if I am wrong, but while we cannot use primary sources to establish notability, we can use them to expand the article, is his removal of sources policy? I also believe the tone of this article has changed and is no longer NPOV. He claims that these sightings are completely disproved when sources state otherwise. He has removed some cited first hand interviews with astronauts and I feel this version should be restored. I feel the same about this separate issue. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issues have been resolved and consensus has been reached! Once again thanks for all your help. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

I have made some comments on the talk p. of an editor who did some reviews of your articles. I urge you not to reply to them there; it will not be helpful. If you get angry at anyone, no matter how well deserved, you will not come out ahead. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your rather cryptic comment (given without diffs or links). I am on a long break and so am not up for hunting for someone who doesn't like work I have done. If they are able to help improve the article, then great. I have made tonal changes to the two articles you tagged. I think it improves them. The articles were originally angled towards demonstrating the notability of the subject. Btw, I didn't last as a regular editor for five years on WP by getting angry at every turn. Best wishes Anna (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Targ[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering about including an article subject's papers? I thought that we generally do not include a list of papers published except in the article body when a particular paper is specifically discussed as per coverage in a reliable independent source? There is also some discussion about COI issues on the talk page. Anyway, hopefully I won't drag you into any conflict or morass (what is the plural of morass?) but I saw it on my watch list and was wondering about the policy on published papers. You seemed a good person to ask. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In dealing with an academic, we usually list all their books, and, if in a field where notability depends on published papers, (optionally) their most important papers. generally judging by citations. This is a special case, where it is necessary to show that he has credibility as a scientist, regardless of the quality of his work in parapsychology. I'd add citation data, and leave them in. I would especially leave in the papers relating to parapsychology that were published in mainstream journals. More important, we should be presenting his work, including what other people think of it, but not with a POV of trying to debunk it. I think the manner of inclusion of his views on Geller prejudicial. The opinions of others about Geller belongs in the article on Geller, not here. Please copy to the talk p. if you think it helpful DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks. Leaving in "most important papers" certainly creates a large gray area. There was some discussion of citations on the talk page, so I will leave those already involved to resolve the issues. The citation numbers also seems a potential problem, because doesn't it depend a lot on how popular a particular subject is? I realize popularity is a measure of influence, but I'm not sure it's the only one? And it would vary on the subject field wouldn't it? For example the more esoteric or specialized a subject area the lower the citation numbers one would expect to find.

Anyway, I appreciate your insights and thank you for taking the time to share them with me. I'm going to think on it and stay out of that discussion.

As far as presenting a subject's work and including criticisms of it without trying to debunk a person's views and work seems to be a rocky road when it comes to "fringe" subjects on Wikipedia. I can see both sides of the argument. I think at the very least that subject's views should be explained straightforwardly from his or her perspecitve first. Often things are picked out (cherrypicked) to make them look silly or text is larded up with pejoratives to smear people with unpopular views. Anyway, more to think about. Thanks again. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An example of my last point would be the use of the term denialist and denialism. I think it's fine to note that someone is viewed as a denialist if it's well sourced. But just saying someone "is" a denialist seems clearly wrong and biased. It passes a judgment and presents a subject in a way that's clearly non-neutral. Someone who believes in God may well think that atheists are denialist. I understand the word has a particular meaning and application, but my point is that just because someone has an unpopular view does not mean they are in denial. They may just believe in the minority view and evidence supporting it. Certainly there are semantic games used to win arguments. I don't think we should be a party to them although we can certainly present them. Was Galileo a denialist for being convinced that the sun was the center of the ppsolar system]]? His views were not popular at the time. Or at least that's the legend. I know there were others before him.. Anyway, have a nice eve. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this can be a narrow line to walk. Personally, I agree with what you say: I prefer to avoid characterizing people in single terms if the meaning or implication is negative. I think it's fairer just to state the facts of what they write or say, and leave it at that. There are usually nuances and qualifications involved. If the the term is widely used, the fairest thing is to use a quotation, and make clear the qualifications & bias of the person being quoted I would like to say, only quote from a neutral source, but for some topics there is no neutral source. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Targ[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering about including an article subject's papers? I thought that we generally do not include a list of papers published except in the article body when a particular paper is specifically discussed as per coverage in a reliable independent source? There is also some discussion about COI issues on the talk page. Anyway, hopefully I won't drag you into any conflict or morass (what is the plural of morass?) but I saw it on my watch list and was wondering about the policy on published papers. You seemed a good person to ask. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In dealing with an academic, we usually list all their books, and, if in a field where notability depends on published papers, (optionally) their most important papers. generally judging by citations. This is a special case, where it is necessary to show that he has credibility as a scientist, regardless of the quality of his work in parapsychology. I'd add citation data, and leave them in. I would especially leave in the papers relating to parapsychology that were published in mainstream journals. More important, we should be presenting his work, including what other people think of it, but not with a POV of trying to debunk it. I think the manner of inclusion of his views on Geller prejudicial. The opinions of others about Geller belongs in the article on Geller, not here. Please copy to the talk p. if you think it helpful DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks. Leaving in "most important papers" certainly creates a large gray area. There was some discussion of citations on the talk page, so I will leave those already involved to resolve the issues. The citation numbers also seems a potential problem, because doesn't it depend a lot on how popular a particular subject is? I realize popularity is a measure of influence, but I'm not sure it's the only one? And it would vary on the subject field wouldn't it? For example the more esoteric or specialized a subject area the lower the citation numbers one would expect to find.

Anyway, I appreciate your insights and thank you for taking the time to share them with me. I'm going to think on it and stay out of that discussion.

As far as presenting a subject's work and including criticisms of it without trying to debunk a person's views and work seems to be a rocky road when it comes to "fringe" subjects on Wikipedia. I can see both sides of the argument. I think at the very least that subject's views should be explained straightforwardly from his or her perspecitve first. Often things are picked out (cherrypicked) to make them look silly or text is larded up with pejoratives to smear people with unpopular views. Anyway, more to think about. Thanks again. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An example of my last point would be the use of the term denialist and denialism. I think it's fine to note that someone is viewed as a denialist if it's well sourced. But just saying someone "is" a denialist seems clearly wrong and biased. It passes a judgment and presents a subject in a way that's clearly non-neutral. Someone who believes in God may well think that atheists are denialist. I understand the word has a particular meaning and application, but my point is that just because someone has an unpopular view does not mean they are in denial. They may just believe in the minority view and evidence supporting it. Certainly there are semantic games used to win arguments. I don't think we should be a party to them although we can certainly present them. Was Galileo a denialist for being convinced that the sun was the center of the ppsolar system]]? His views were not popular at the time. Or at least that's the legend. I know there were others before him.. Anyway, have a nice eve. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this can be a narrow line to walk. Personally, I agree with what you say: I prefer to avoid characterizing people in single terms if the meaning or implication is negative. I think it's fairer just to state the facts of what they write or say, and leave it at that. There are usually nuances and qualifications involved. If the the term is widely used, the fairest thing is to use a quotation, and make clear the qualifications & bias of the person being quoted I would like to say, only quote from a neutral source, but for some topics there is no neutral source. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions[edit]

Thanks for your comments. I am aware that I don't always get it right, and in any case it's a matter of degree. I tend to class business articles that only write about the products and not, say, the company finances, as promotional in intent, especially when they are posted, as in the two cases you mentioned, with spam usernames. I admit that I resent businesses being allowed to post promotional material here, and repost after a soft block.

I wasn't aware that there was any policy against deleting untagged articles, but I take the point, and I'll do what you suggest in all but the more blatant examples of spamming (and copyright, although that's usually clear-cut anyway). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

right, these are often difficult decisions. I sometimes class business articles just the same way you do, if they do into over-detailed description with the kind of detail that would be in a product catalog or web site. And I know I often don't get it right either--I've never really been more accurate than 95%, and 5% error is too often to satisfy me. So I just do it singlehanded when I fell outraged, (In fact, I'm more willing to do AfCs as G11 than most people, and I wish the reviewers thought of it more often so we got rid of them more definitively as early as possible.) We don;t really disagree. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Steinberg[edit]

Would you or one of your talk page watchers mind assessing the notability of this article subject and taking the appropriate course of action if any is needed? I believe it has been deleted before. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have an very strong dislike for any article that even contains the phrase "thought leader", and especially one that starts off in the lede sentence by saying: "X. Y. is a thought leader...". His actual notability is as the author of one single book, but it has 544 library copies which is pretty good for a technical book. The others books he listed don;'t actually hold up. Otherwise, it's promotional fluff; I listed it as G11, and will take it to AfD if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your help. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Masha Allen thing[edit]

I have a really bad feeling about an obviously-not-new editor arriving to try to resurrect a long-deleted pedophile-related article, that's my initial take on opposing this restoration. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and share the feeling, but the original discussion was 6 years ago. Perhaps it's time to reconsider. Continuing interest is after all one of the criterion for news events. I wouldn't suggest restoring the original article without some editing. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topera Medical[edit]

Hello DGG,

I came across the Topera Medical page, and noticed you added a neutrality and news release flag to the page. I want to work on fixing the article and removing these flags -- could you fill me in as to what about the article prompted you to add them? That way I can know what to look for and remove. Thanks! Adamh4 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

adjectives of quality and anecdotal accounts of the inventor's background are considered promotional. Don't write this as a narrative, but a descriptive article. Articles on medicine and medical claims are subject to sourcing requirements--see WP:MEDRES. Scientific presentations at meetings & newsletters are not peer-reviewed, and not RS for medical claims, nor are press releases saying a particular hospital has adopted it (I do however see some genuine references). I have not examined these references in detail, and I think I would have to do so to write a clear article. The numbers reported are not consistent: section 3.1 para 1 says 29% for the products single procedure success rate over an unspecified "long term"; para 2 of the section reports 82%. I suspect it is the article which is unclear. (but maybe it is that inconsistent--see Catheter ablation ). I note ref 22 which seems rather skeptical, but is reported as positive. It isn't clear if the firm is the only producer of a workstation for the procedure, or for the electrode. Most of this material belong in a separate article on the procedure, or integrated as a paragrapher into the main article on the technique.

I think a more expert opinion may help, so I ask Randykitty. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the direction, I'll definitely try and work on this page to clean it up. I can post any edits/proposals on the talk page before I make them, that way everyone can clearly see what kind of action I'm taking. Thanks for the help -- I appreciate it. Adamh4 (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adamh4 (talk · contribs), If you want to write a complete replacement, which is what I would advise, it might be clearer if you do it as a user subpage. Let me know in either case when I should look again DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied and pasted the original article into my sandbox, and am working on edits there -- if you'd like to look over them and let me know if I'm going in the right direction, I would appreciate it. Most of the edits will involve cutting unsourced information as well as promotional sentences; I'm anticipating the finished revision to end with a much shorter version. Adamh4 (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some progress on the sandbox. If you get the chance to read over my version of the page, we can figure out whether or not it's neutral enough to remove the flags. If not, I can continue to fix the page up until it does. Thanks again! Adamh4 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the page in my sandbox, and posted my edits into the article itself -- if it's good enough to remove the flags, let me know. If not, I'd like to hear what else I could do to help fix the page; thanks again. Adamh4 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Wheaton photo discussion[edit]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion requested[edit]

I've been looking at Manhattan Rental Market Report and, aside from it being clearly spammy as all get-out, I have the impression this is not a particularly notable "report". I don't, however, have the benefit of knowing the Manhattan real estate market. What I do know is that it seems there are several similar "reports" put out by various real estate groups; if this one is notable, then a whole stack of other ones are too. Perhaps you might have some insight as to its notability? Risker (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

only way to find out is at AfD ; I've listed it. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Education Act 1962[edit]

You rescued Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Education Act 1962 from speedy deletion in February; its creator has stopped editing. For some reason Hafspajen dropped a link to it on Drmies' talk page. So I, ahem, added some sources. I think it's probably ready for prime time - and for editing by experts. If you agree, could you move it? Do you have the AfC widget to cross the ts and dot the is, in particular to give the creator the box on their talk page in case they will see it? If you don't agree, let me know and I'll probably leave it for others to improve; Google Books is being bolshy and I don't think I can find much more, although I admit I haven't plugged it into JSTOR or Google Scholar. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up to date on AfC gadgets, though the new one does not solve any of the major problems with the old. The basic problerm remains, that leaving people form notices does not encourage them to edit better, while we have insufficient people willing and able to do anything more helpful. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating it :-) They deserve the credit, anyway. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the opposition to this and the other parallel "Jews in .." articles that were deleted is so opposite to everything I hold important in the world, including the idea of a NPOV encyclopedia, that I can only with difficulty participate in these discussions. I have elsewhere ascribed it to the desire to hide the significance of Jews in the world to avoid arousing the anti-Semites. It is not possible to logically argue against fear and irrationality. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note[edit]

I don't think I did justice to your very acute wake-up comments at the AfD, particularly striking because, in the drift towards uniformity, you took a stand marked by complete independence of judgement. Deeply appreciated. When I read, particularly,

There is no reason why anyone--in particular any Jew --should find anything shameful about the association of Jews and Communism in Russia, except the inability to foresee the future.

I thought of Vasily Grossman's outstanding Life and Fate, which manages, other than the direct horror of the context, to write astonishing vignettes that embrace all the complexities of identities, Kalmuck/Tartar Jewish swept up in the Communist cause, with, among comrades, the various prejudices, ethnic/antisemitic, coming to the surface, only to be talked out. 2% of the officer class of the Soviet forces that effectively won WW2, despite our films and lore, were Jewish. The great vice of superficial eyes is to judge with the facile wisdom of hindsight while ignoring the hard and sometimes tragic options fronting real people in earlier generations (it's true, for me, also of 1948). After the trench warfare attritions and military command's quasi genocidal military tactics in WW1, choosing to be Communist was one of the few ostensibly rational or ethical options left, something events in Italy and Germany in the succeeding decade could only reinforce. Thanks, anyway, and sorry for this soapy intrusion.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may appreciate in connection with the novel the edition of his wartime notebooks,A Writer at War : a Soviet Journalist with the Red Army, 1941-1945 edited and translated by Antony Beevor and Luba Vinogradova. For another account of the appeal & disappointment of Communism, see the final volume of Victor Klemperer's diary, The Lesser Evil DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grin Report / Grin's Report / Francois Grin[edit]

Hello, DGG. Thanks for reviewing Grin's Report. You declined speedy deletion and suggested content could be merged. I went to Talk:François Grin to comment on the merge discussion. I didn't find a discussion, but what I did find is what appears to be the entire content of 'Grin's Report', added there in February, two full month's before the article was created. I don't know what's going on with that. If both pages were copied from some third source, I guess we'll just have to hope that source is the old Wikipedia article Grin Report and not somebody's blog or other source subject to copyright protection. I honestly don't know what to make of this. Cnilep (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know. I will check. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's identical. I'm going to delete it and refer the creator, Alekso92, to deletion review. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Guiliano[edit]

As you do it a lot, any thought on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Guiliano.--77788er (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

kept at afd; G5 was considered irrelevant if the notability is as clear as it is here for this college president. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do it?[edit]

I was about to AfD Network World but since you deprodded it, it probably would be everyone's waste of time. Can you add some refs to show notability is satisfied? (I am also restoring notability tag because nothing in the article suggests it is not warranted...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Network World is one of the most prestigious tech trade publications. It should be kept. CorporateM (Talk) 13:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{I agree with Corporate M on this. We should be able to get their circulation, and with luck we'll find a quote DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their current media kit does not provide a circulation, but as of 2000 they had a circulation of 164,000. PR people typically pay for access to a database that maintains updated circulation numbers for all the major publications, so I could probably ask someone I know for an updated number, though it wouldn't be citable. CorporateM (Talk) 08:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity R&D[edit]

A second opinion on Gravity R&D would be good (I'd deprodded it). Same problem as Wevorce? Or a different one? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

same fundamental problem, with the additional questions of whether runner up for a prize is significant information, and whether a prize for "best startup" or any similar wording has any significance beyond "not yet notable." I have often brought up these two factors in dealing with an article on a firm that might appear to meet the GNG if looked at without considering what information is being reported by the source; they have sometimes been accepted as reasons for deletion. My AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wevorce is an attempt to open the general question of the applicability of the GNG to small companies. Soon after I came here I once made the naïve keep argument: "it meets the GNG. Why do we have the rule if we're not going to use it?" and the article whatever it was got kept. I've learned better since then; the question is whether WP has learned also. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity can be deleted under regular GNG rules, because all the sources are primary, including the awards (see my views on awards as primary sources here) Wevorce is clearly notable in my opinion. DGG, I think this is more in-line with your set of arguments. In this case the PR agency that wrote the Wikipedia page and secured the corresponding media coverage specializes in hiring journalists that write feature stories and shop them around to someone who will publish them as-is under their own byline. So it is impossible to confirm if the sources are truly independent as required by GNG, because there is legitimate reason to speculate that they are actually written by the PR agency, despite the byline. In this case, since there is actual evidence of this practice, my instinct is to delete all the corresponding articles as a matter of erring on the side of safety. CorporateM (Talk) 15:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McKinsey Quarterly[edit]

This article is on the type of topic I think is of interest to you. I've proposed a draft on Talk. It is only one paragraph and most of the improvements are janitorial (better cites, an infobox, copyediting, formatting, etc.), but to be extra cautious I'm using Request Edit and thought you might be interested in taking a look. CorporateM (Talk) 23:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM, please add back the information on indexing. It is one of the key factors. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done I guess I just didn't know what it meant or why the info was important (you don't need to explain, as I'll take your word on it). CorporateM (Talk) 04:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

for academic journals, being indexed in a selective major indexing service is the basic criterion of notability . This is not exactly an academic journal in the usual sense,; while we have no clear standards for such journals, the analogy is helpful I'll move the submitted material. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnard Women Poets Prize‎[edit]

I recommended for deletion based on the lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and the relatively small size of the monetary award, but I am having second thoughts based on the prize's fairly well established history and suggestions that is a significant honor. What do you think? Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

consensus seems to be clear for keeping it. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on User talk:CorporateM/Extant Organizations[edit]

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

Second Opinion Sought[edit]

Morris Pleasure looks promotional and I have serious doubts about the notability of the subject. But I wanted to check before going any further. There are some sources but I'm not sure they are enough to ring the notability bell. Anyway thought I'd ask for a 2nd opinion since I'm on the fence with this one. As always thanks for your time... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with almost all genres of popular music, and I am consequently reluctant to give an opinion in that area for fear of making a fool of myself by possibly not spotting the importance of the subject of an inadequately written article. That said, "appeared with" does not strike me as likely notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I avoid the endless stream of soccer related articles for much the same reason. While I have doubts, at the moment I don't have a strong enough conviction to send this to AfD. If someone else wants to go there, they can. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purposefully disingenuous?[edit]

How sad to say "the mainstream press has barely noticed its existence" when the simplest of searches find numerous sources quote and cite the website's expert authors ad-infinitum? Wow. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is the very frequent problem that news and similar organizations are rarely written about in the sort of things we consider reliable sources, and therefore the use of the GNG produces absurd results. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Andrew Derbyshire[edit]

Hello DGG, just so you are aware, I've sent Articles for creation/Sir Andrew Derbyshire to MfD as I don't think there are enough reliable sources available to prove notability. I hope this is OK. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi JMHamo. Shortly after you nominated it, User:Barney the barney barney moved it to mainspace at Sir Andrew Derbyshire and removed the AfD notice. [1]. He then put a PROD notice on an entirely different article: Andrew Derbyshire. Bit of mess. Voceditenore (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update Voceditenore. I have withdrawn my MfD nomination, if someone would please close it now. I'm glad it's now out on the Mainspace. Thanks Barney the barney barney! JMHamo (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanban[edit]

I came across the Kanban (development) afd shortly after posting to the COIN about Kanban Tool. From there I, too, noticed a huge number of related articles and a great number of SPAs working on them.

While Kanban and Kanban (development) seem notable to my unknowledgeable eye, Kanban board, CONWIP, SwiftKanban, Kanbanery, and Electronic kanban (for examples) seem much less so.

Tangential are CodeBeamer (previously [weakly, it seems] kept at afd), Trello, Rally Software, Avnet Abacus, PUFT, and Continuous-flow manufacturing. (I came across this bunch by looking at what few, if any, other articles the active SPAs worked on).

Anyway, don't know if you have any interest in following up on this; I'm just on my way out and read that you noticed there were a lot of these. There are a couple that are obvious deletes to me, and I'll probably tackle those later if you don't.

Thanks. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's relatively simple to decide on the notability of individual products or companies., but much harder when dealing with general concepts. As one difference, products & companies are discrete subjects, but concepts usually flow into each other. As another, it does not take subject expertise to decide if a product has sufficient RS reviews, or a company sufficient non-PR-based sources; but it does take expertise to judge when two related subjects are distinct enough to need separate articles. That's my problem in dealing with the pair of articles Kanban / Kanban (development): as a non-expert, I do not see the difference--they look to me like two closely related applications of the same basic concept. If you understand the field any better than I--which seems very possible despite your comment about your own lack of knowledgeability---perhaps you can clarify more sharply the differences between the two-- or else find someone to do it. I'd be very glad to have someone knowledgable and with a NPOV do it. It would be especially nice to have an actual authoritative source for the distinction.

As for the others, I think the best tactic is to work first on the least likely among them, rather than simultaneously nominate a group of subjects with different degrees of possible notability. so I'm very glad to get your view on this. In nominating for deletion, sometimes prod is best to see if the articles will be defended, (and, in a case like this, who it is that might show up to defend them) so I sometimes try it first. On the other hand, AfD gives some degree of assistance against immediate re-creation. I will follow them up if necessary, but, frankly, I have so many other things to follow up that I would be very grateful if you'd do the nominations. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The clarity of the article(s) are indeed problematic. Just starting off with the kanban article, it cites dictionary.com in the first sentence, then explicitly contradicts the dictionary.com definition in the very next sentence. NPOV/TONE issues seem pretty common starting off with an unsourced 'Kanban became an effective tool in support of running a production system as a whole, and it proved to be an excellent way for promoting improvement.' Ultimately I'm not actually of any use to you in explaining it, though, as I had never heard of it before stumbling upon Kanban Tool. I prodded Avnet Abacus and PUFT (but they were tangents) and see that you did the same for Kanbanery. I will say this: there are an awful lot of sources for kanban when I search for it, even with added search terms like "software development." I just don't see the need for articles for all the components and variations (e.g. Kanban board/Electronic kanban). It's pretty far outside my knowledge and interest areas, though. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of roads in Swords[edit]

Hi DGG, about 3 months ago you nominated the article "List of roads in Swords" for deletion. The article was deleted, however as a resident of Swords, I found this quite useful. I understand that it is not suitable for a wikipedia article, however I would like to get a copy of it for my personal use. As I am not an administrator I cannot view the deleted article myself. Could you please send me a copy of the list in the article over wikipedia or by email. Thanks, Roy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royboymaps (talk • contribs) 11:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

emailed. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism[edit]

It seems that contributions of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Catladyface are suspicious. The user has created 4 pages in a span of 32 minutes, seems to be promoting organizations indirectly. Can you please check activities of this user. Itsalleasy (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given the editor some advice. I think they're likely to be an enthusiastic librarian or library school student, who can be a real asset here once they learn what's expected (the material seems to have the flavour of library school term papers, and I should know, having taught in one for several years) DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeroen van den Hoven[edit]

Dear DGG: Here's a submission about a professor. Here's the Google Scholar report: http://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=cC3UUzMAAAAJ&hl=en . Should this one be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

editor of major journal, which is sufficient. Not obvious, because they didn't know to italicize it. I've accepted. GS doesn't help much in fields like this. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Kohler[edit]

So I have a historical website stating facts from a Sacramento Metro Fire Dept report about the destruction of Camp Kohler can I use the website as a reference or should I get an official report from the fire dept and like scan it and upload it which would cost like $5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattystolz (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

neither will do. You need a published newspaper article about it, or similar secondary source. See WP:RS. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James T. Butts, Jr.[edit]

My concerns that using op-eds and primary sources for contentious material about a BLP seem unpopular on this page so far. I have pinged BLPN, but my experience has been that posting on any noticeboard tends to go archived without discussion unless there is a contentious argument that attracts more attention. Maybe you can advise if I am really so crazy to think that the article is out-of-step. CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's wildly disproportionate, but some of these do seem to be newspaper articles. Try adding some more material, such as his basic biography, DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I have shared this draft on the Talk page. I wasn't really planning on actually writing the article, but I'll see if that moves things forward. Editors seem to be focusing on the few sources that are reliable and therefore unwilling to remove those that are not. CorporateM (Talk) 03:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

DGG, since you recently participated in the deletion discussion for NOS Marine Forensics Program, you might be interested in the merger proposal. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devaka Fernando[edit]

Thank you for your comments about the style of this page. It is the first page I wrote on wikipedia and English is not my first language. I would appreciate some assistance about how I can respond to your comments. The subject has emigrated from Sri Lanka and the page was intended to record his services to Sri Lanka and information was taken from newspapers and medical journals etc. Thank you for your assistance. Fattutor (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the page again I see why it seems like a news release. your comment was very helpful. I have done some editing and would like some feedback if you have time to do so. Hope you find it sufficient to justify removing the tags. The high school stuff is pretty important in Sri Lanka ( in the country sometimes more than the academic notability!!!!)

I would be grateful if you could give some feedback on some of the other pages I created. Fattutor (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like your view on where the balance between 'name dropping' and linking to other wikipages should be drawn? Fattutor (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get there tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fattutor,sorry for the delay. As I think I said before, the details of his high school career are irrelevant, and probably the details of his college career also. That some of his teachers or coaches or coworkers are notable does not by itself justify naming them, especially if they are not related to the major part of his notability. We only list the top 3 or 4 papers, as judging by citations. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

Thats most helpful. I take your point about colleagues and relevance to notability in terms of an encyclopaedia as opposed to a news paper article. I guess thats what lists and categories should do without clogging up the main page. I have written pages on several such academics and logically your advice requires that similar changes need to be made in all of them. I will try try the Sri Lanka group for further advice.

Looking through the article and supporting references as well as the linked in profile closely again it appears that the university posts are honorary and he's a clinical doctor. I appear to be wrtiting about someone who is not an academic in the Anglo-American sense by being a full time Faculty member but a professional with an academic affiliation to Faculties of Medicine, Health care management, Health informatics and Health policy etc Should I list the most cited paper in each area to a maximum of 4 or 4 in each? The links to researchgate and googlescholar give the full list anyway so listing too many is probably unnecessary.

Thank you for giving up time to give advice and guidance as I have found reading your Talk page very useful. Fattutor (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Academic Questions[edit]

Hi David, could you perhaps have a look here and see whether you can solve their problem? --Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inre: User:Robkall/OpEdNews[edit]

Due to the COI considerations of Kall's contributions, and the unlikeliness that he would publish something negative about himself, I have chosen to instead improve the article in mainspace, rather than one in his userspace. That said, THIS bears little resemblance to the one in his userspace. And, I have also been working on this BLP, Would you look in and advise? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather puzzled by the material that now comprises section 2.1 in the mainspace version. I was particularly puzzled that it was you who inserted it. Has it been mentioned elsewhere than in the single source cited, which is a unreliable source if there ever was one--see the now deleted article on it, (Btw, I intend to challenge that deletion, which I have just become aware of) As for the BLP. at the very least, the material does not belong in both places. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now removed, and I will not argue for it back. Kall's personal differences with Fetzer have not been noticed outside the two sites. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now has it's own section, as I will be looking for a published critic to Kall's editorial decision to delete content because he apparently became miffed with an otherwise respected author. As for reliability, We can be less blinded by where and consider who to determine if it falls under WP:RS#Definition of a source consideration as WP:RSOPINION and WP:SELFPUB by an accepted expert and notable author Jim Fetzer . If Roger Ebert were to post something in even a crappy blog, we consider the author's expertise for its reliability and not the site's. Where do you think it best belongs?

In other news, THIS was enlightening as it was not about an article, but about a redirect. THIS shows something with potential that was poorly edited by its author. I might even have ago at neutralizing the thing, if research shows the blog as notable enough. Would seem a target for vandalism, though. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems that despite the issues with the deleted article, Veterans Today does have a staff and editorial oversite at home and internationally. A returned article will have to have enough sourcing outside of Veterans Today and maintain complete neutrality through-out. Hmmm? (MQS)

The only fair way of handling the material is in context of OEN's attitude towards conspiracy theories, see Kall's statement at the end of this oped. I'm not going to work further on this: conspiracy theories are one of the things that I feel so strongly about that it is an emotional burden on me to write NPOV. The only part of this I intend to work on is getting the article on VT restored. I consider the deletion our prejudiced response to what we do not like. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going through some changes. Interesting fellow. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York Public Library infobox[edit]

Hi. I'd welcome your comments here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix the problem. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adam Ireland[edit]

Maybe you'd be interested in this one? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the books are self published & not in worldcat, "British American School" is a tutoring establishment, so chancellor of it is not notability. Dean of Western University wouldn't be necessarily notable--we could probably justify an article, but the current information I could find (their web site) indicates a secondary school that may only hope to be a university. I deleted the AfC DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avital Leibovich[edit]

You deleted the CSD nomination saying "head of major national organization". I agree that this is a major organization however this is not the head. This is the head of one of their offices. The HQ is in New York. They have major offices in Europe as well. There is no indication that this regional director is notable. I will not relist at AfD in deference to your evident belief that she is notable, but I did want to clarify her position FWIW. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

more exactly, he's head of the national branch of an international organization. If sufficiently important, we often keep them. At the very least, it's sufficient evidence of possible importance to put it beyond the range of speedy, which is much less than actual notability . For a Jewish organization, the branch in Israel would be expected to be rather important. In fact, I see from the article on the AJC that " It was the first American Jewish organization to open a permanent office in Israel." But the real point is not the specific instance, but that any indication of significance is enough to prevent speedy. Had it been about the head of a state branch, whom we rarely consider as notable, if there were sources that looked like they might meet GNG --as here--tho not adequately indicated as major newspapers rather that web sites--I still would have used PROD. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the guidance! Capitalismojo (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Pantin 1762 -1820 has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Had a look at this out of curiosity: http://www.thomaspantin.co.uk/history is worth a look because (a) text is virtually identical (except for spelling of Pinder/ar), and (b) Matthew Charles Wallis is shown as the MD - though I suppose that's reasonable, he may be writing about his ancestor in two places at once. If the article moves to article space it needs to be at plain Thomas Pantin: no disambiguation is needed. PamD 13:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prem Raj Pushpakaran[edit]

Just in case you are interested. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I commented DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD[edit]

An article you PRODed, was contested post deletion and restored as "objected PROD" - Sageworks Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burghardt Wittig[edit]

A professor for you. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

right. on my list. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And another: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clionadh Raleigh - no refs, though... —Anne Delong (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A third. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ernest A. Hakanen. Do you want me to keep sending you these? There may be an unending supply... —Anne Delong (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Delong, yes, if I haven;t already commented, to make sure I don't miss any. As you say, it's a long list, but some will be acceptable as is. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]