User talk:DGG/Archive 94 Nov. 2014

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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

deletion of page Institut Villa Pierrefeu

Dear DGG, You deleted the page I created for "Institut Villa Pierrefeu" which is linked to your page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finishing_school stating that this page is advertisement! As the page carries the name of our school, I completed it in the same way (using their template) of what was done by previous school on your website see: Le Rosey, Beau Soleil college Alpin. These three schools belongs to the same associations, have often had the same alumni and are as well known globally each in their field so I don't understand why my page is "Advertising" while their is not? The last version of the page i created provided clear but concise information about the school with links to external references such as press and media. It is in no case more advertisement than the other thousands of the pages you have about companies so I do not understand why such a DISCRIMINATION is applied to us ! It as however the advantage of providing you with clear facts! This information provides more trafic to you as people would see valuable content (which answers their questions). Having in your website the content about our school makes sense as it completes the previous article were we are defined as the last true finishing school (this is also endorse by article of Time Magazine, Reuters, ...). So I hope that we can reverse the process and that you will put my page back in place and give me the rights to keep updating it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivpworld (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. Pierrefeu offers program of a few weeks only, while the other two schools you mention are at present degree-granting secondary schools, which we consider presumptively notable. I did a little editing at both--we do have many school articles that are somewhat promotional, and that should be removed or rewritten--doing this is a slow process. But if you can actually find an article quite so absurdly promotional as this, written in the first person, and full of flowery adjectives, please let me know, so I can delete it. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to see what the page looked like before it was deleted? Sorry, I am new to this conversation, but interested in Glion, so I may want to take a look if possible.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sol Biderman Collection

It looks like it was an "edit-athon" meant to promote/advertise a university library collection (probably to get more funding from donors?). See Wikipedia:Meetup/Nashville/Vanderbilt Edit-A-Thon 2014. But sure, I have added merge tags and contacted the page creator. Probably a good idea to expand Jean and Alexander Heard Library with it, though it really ought to be referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It was an editathon, which, as most library or university based editathons do, worked on topics for which the library has special collections to support. That's just what we've done at the ones I've been involved in at Princeton and NYPL and Columbia. The trickiest part of these sessions is finding topics that are sure to be considered satisfactory and that can be completed at the session. This particular topic was not wisely chosen--they should either have done it on the individual or on the Special Collections in general. Your suggest for how to proceed is exactly what I was going to suggest. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What happens if no one responds to the merge request?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of OEConnection

DDG - I am part of the technology organization at OEConnection and I have a team member who was going to add our company history and product line to Wikipedia. I see that you deleted the initial information which was not completed by a previous team. We have our content and product details completed now and would like to post the full article related to our company information. Can we re-create the article for your review or would like like to review the content prior to our re-creation? I assume we were deleted before because the content was not completed. Also you marked that we violated copyright infringement for the content on the page, how can we provide validation that it is OEC creating the content? Thanks MFTech36 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The only acceptable way to do this is to use WP: Articles for Creation. There you can have your text evaluated and worked on by other editors to ensure it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion.

Please note that Wikipedia is not a business or web directory. For more information, see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTDIR> and our notability requirements at WP:CORP.

You should also be aware that the Wikipedia community strongly discourages articles written by individuals close to a subject because of the difficulty in writing objectively about your organization, yourself, your family, or your work, in line with Wikipedia's conflict of interest [[WP:COI]

If you do try to write the page, please note that you must show the notability of the company by substantial published articles about it in reliable source that are not press releases or based on press releases, and you must describe the company, not say how good it is, nor give information primarily of use to prospective customers. If you do not have adequate sources for the sort of article that one might expect to find in an encyclopedia, please do not try, as it will surely not be accepted.

It is very rare that material written by the company for its web site will be satisfactory. It is almost always oriented to be promotional. If you do want to use it, you must follow the procedure for donating copyright material at WP:DCM. Be aware that this gives everyone in the world an irrevocable license to use and modify it for any purpose, even commercial. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

23:49:06, 3 November 2014 review of submission by AltanaFCU

• AltanaFCU (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Altana Federal Credit Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello - I am curious to know why this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Country_Federal_Credit_Union is a valid page and Altana's is not. The references on the mentioned page are not even valid hyperlinks.

I guess I do not understand what needs to be included to make this a viable article. Thanks! AltanaFCU (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

you are absolutely right. I just nominated the other for speedy deletion as having no indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

for a viable article o you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. In practice, this turns out to be a difficult requirement to meet for credit unions and banks, except for the very largest. I personally might possibly be wiling to be more inclusive, but the community continues to go by WP:GNG as explained in WP:CORP. My responsibility is to give advice according to the community consensus. DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing - over 20 accounts

There's over 20 accounts (plus some IPs) at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez, some of which are unblocked. There may be more as I haven't followed all the links. May be worth escalating/ widening the cleanup effort. Widefox; talk 00:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

there seems to be adequate work on this already. , but I'll keep in touch DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

20 50. Widefox; talk 22:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

May I borrow your eyes?

I just created Johnny's Theme after a bit of research uncovered a history of which I wasn't aware. It's short, but I believe it notable and too peripheral to merge with The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. (In fact, because of its history as a "cover of a cover of a cover", and its release by the Tonight Show Band on its first album, I think it's a legitimate song as opposed to just a theme.) Still, I'd like input: do I make its case; do you see any obvious shortcomings; et cetera, et cetera. TIA. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

this isn;t really my field, but this theme is so well known --even to me-- that I think the article might be supportable. WP is unpredictable, so I can only advise you to go ahead and see what happens. DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

About your contribution to the Monmouth College article

Hi DGG,

Thanks for the many edits you have posted to the Monmouth College article. You’re pretty much the first person who has given so much help. I am learning from your comments how to be more neutral in tone. I was unclear from your comments whether you intend to further edit (from where you left off) on the article. Do you plan to do more? If so, would the tag at the top of the article then be removed or is still more editing going to be necessary to remove that tag?

I also have a question about your edits to the sentence regarding U.S. News (near the top of the article). The problem with simply saying that the college is ranked as 165 out of 248 national liberal arts colleges is that the average reader doesn't know that there is a lower group called the regional liberal arts colleges which has many hundreds of members. Due to this lack of understanding, the common reader probably thinks that Monmouth College is in the lower half of liberal arts colleges overall when the opposite is true when the regional ones are included. So, I was looking for a way to describe this that isn't too promotional. That’s why “Tier 1” of the national rankings was mentioned previously. Any advice? Rami.shareef (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Rami.shareef; I'm not finished--I usually revise an article over a series of days. Ratings are a problem--you are to degree correct that both factors need to be considered, and I am not yet satisfied with my wording. I think the solution is not to try to discuss ratings in the lede--the need for compact statements makes it hard to express. Those of use checking these articles are starting to move the entire ratings section near the bottom, usually just before the notable people. Why not try that and I will take a look. Once I've got you started, you should be able to continue yourself.

I should mention that these problems are not at all unique to your article--I think somewhere between 95 and 100% of all our university articles need major improvement, sometimes much more than this one. What attracted my attention to Monmouth was the copyright permissions for the multiple other pictures--I think it would be a major mistake to include them. I see from the article that the school is particularly distinguished in chemistry, so having a chem lab picture might be one that does make sense--but you should use a much more eye-catching picture than the present one, showing something really unusual to make any impression. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

DGG;I have tried to finish out the article in a way that I think is more consistent with what I have learned from your more neutral tone. I also moved the rankings later in the article along with putting the US News info at that location. I thought I might put back the original text and see what you thought of it in that place. If too long, the Tier 1 description might be reasonable also. Is this along the lines of what you recommend and if so, has the “megaphone” problem now been resolved sufficiently to remove that tag from the top of the article? Any other recommendations?Rami.shareef (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

DGG;Since I have performed many edits to the article and so have you to move it to a more neutral voice, I intend to remove the megaphone banner and thought I should let you know in case there were other specific areas you wanted worked on.Rami.shareef (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Rami.shareef, I think you've done a pretty good hob of it; I removed the "news release" tag. While the article is still someowhat more promotional than it would be if I were writing it, it's not more promotional than the usual university article here--almost all of them need some improvement. I would suggest you try to see if the ratings section can be condensed a little further. DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit at Augmented unison

Why did you revert that? I have been on those pages for years now, and I haven't seen you on the talk pages.BassHistory (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

From now on, please consult the talk page, like everyone else, when making major reverts on an article under discussion.BassHistory (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I said why at the RfD [1] at the said time I made the edit. You asked for the removal of a redirect to this page from Diminished unison. The deletion was objected to on the grounds that the material was covered in the target article. You then proceeded to remove the content from the target article. I said at the MfD that this was not a good way to proceed, and it was not--this sort of change during a discussion can be disruptive. I reverted it to preserve a fair discussion.

You then proceeded to remove the section heading for the material, and another editor reverted you then also. They were right to do so--this too was not helpful. You seem to have then removed a source referring to the term on the basis it was unreliable, even tho it would seem necessary to understand the quotation. I have restored this also.

I am unable to understand the way you are going about this. There is no substantive issue. The article text and the quote and everybody at the RfD discussion are in agreement that "diminished unison" is a downright error. The question is whether we should link from the term or not to an explanation of that it is an error, and the consensus is apparently against you, though there has been further discussion about just where it should link. But I'm certainly no expert at all on this and have no opinion on that. What I am an expert in, at least in some people's opinion , is how to go about deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I can understand how it may have looked to you. Please understand that I wasn't just making those edits to win the argument, I firmly believe that those edits needed to be made. If I reacted strongly, it was because I know that nothing was done in bad faith.

A few things you should know:

1) The source that I removed does not use the term "diminished unison". Further, there is no single source that has been presented (besides self-published websites) that uses this term.

2) There is an ongoing problem in the music theory pages for years now, that is rooted in editors using self-published web-pages, and also very sub-par published sources (for example whatever they can read for free in Google Books, etc.)

3) Although most of those who posted in the RfD discussion agreed that "there is in fact no such thing as a diminished unison", for the last 4 years, various editors keep introducing the notion that this interval is up for debate. This is why I have been acting assertively. I have tried being courteous to a fault for years on this topic, and have hit a wall.

4) What most professors will say, is that "music theory" is really a misnomer. These pages aren't about "theories", they are about practice. Some editors don't get this, and push for including any rogue idea that they find in print. However, these concepts don't have a place on Wikipedia, because they have never been in practice. I'm not sure how to approach this, whether they constitute "fringe theories", I simply am to busy to become an expert on all of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Any advice you might have would be appreciated. Thanks.BassHistory (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of David Lenhardt

I appreciate your feedback about CEOs of companies, but I would really have appreciated the ability to improve upon the article on David Lenhardt rather than having it speedily deleted. Why was it set for speedy deletion, rather than allowing me or others to improve upon it? Certainly, it's possible that the CEO of PetSmart could have enough material about him to create a legitimate Wiki page. Thanks for your help. ReachingtheStars (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

ReachingtheStars, There's no bar to trying again, if you have the necessary references? what are they? I have taken a look at some of your other articles, and many of them seem to be somewhat promotional, and often use press releases and unreliable web sites for sources, and sometimes the sort of interview where the interviewer just lets the person say whatever they want to about themselves. In this instance the refs to Forbes and Businessweek were to biographical profiles he supplied them, which are no more authoritative than his own web page, and in any case not the independent reporting that shows notability. Remember that the point of an encyclopedia article is to provide neutral information , not praise.

What I've done is undeleted the article and moved it to our draft namespace, at Draft:David Lenhardt. When you have improved it, mark it as submitted, or let me know and I will look at it.

The standard that notability must be chown by the subject being important enough to be covered by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements is a community standard that has very wide consensus. Personally, I might prefer that we have a more flexible --and often more inclusive -- way of doing things, but I must follow the community standard. To make sure of that, I never delete articles for lack of evidence of significance on my own say-so, but just list them for consideration by another admin. DGG ( talk ) 10:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Start of Phyillis Wise page

I see that you started the page for Phyllis Wise Oct 15, 2014. What happened to her original page? I can't find anything about it in the deletion history. Want to know why her page was deleted and how you came to start her current page.[2] JKIDM (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I work very frequently on academic subjects, and frequently work on university articles. I started this page because I saw her mentioned in news reports, and in the article on the University, but found there was no existing article (nor had there ever been). Heads of universities should have articles on wikipedia, and so should all members of national academies such as the Institute of Medicine. There's a section that to be added, and I intend to add it. I am indeed aware of controversy that should be covered there, and it is tricky to do this properly, so I postponed it. I do know how to do it right, with proportionate neutral coverage, and I meant to get back to this sooner; thanks for reminding me. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Charleston Conference

David, I'm currently attending my first Charleston Conference. Nearly everyone I talk to here about Wikipedia mentions you. Chuck Hamaker sends his regards. Best, The Interior (Talk) 23:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

02:49:42, 6 November 2014 review of submission by Csoul23

• Csoul23 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Preston Corbell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to submit a news article from Impact news Austin Texas about Preston Corbell and a film he filmed at the Pfluger Haus location. The information about Preston Corbell can be found at the bottom of the article.

http://impactnews.com/austin-metro/round-rock-pflugerville-hutto/local-foundation-hopes-to-restore-historic-pfluger-house/

(Csoul23 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC))

Csoul23 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added this to the article draft, I do not seethat it add to notability--it's just a mention. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Age of Learning

I appreciate your review of the page: Age_of_Learning. And I appreciate that it came across as spam and/or promotional. I would like to take a crack at rewriting it, adding better citations and really starting from scratch. Would that be possible? Train1234 (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You can go right ahead--the title is not protected against re-creation. However, I do not think it is a good idea , because essentially all the content is in the article on their product ABCmouse.com Early Learning Academy. You could more easily add a paragraph about the company there. While you;re at it, you should check that article for promotional tone, duplication, and unsourced content or content sourced only to their website. The notability of their board of advisors does not carry over to the company--and not allof them are likely to be actually notable by our standards I'm also a little concerned with the paragraph on the topic in the article on the founderDoug Dohring DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Veselin Vukotić (economist)

This stub hasn't been fixed since I tried to delete it months ago, and you removed my prod. Can you please find some sources? Bearian (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The references are sufficient to show he's head of a university. This meets WP:PROF. I agree more would be desirable, but there are difficulties with the language. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Charleston Conference

David, I'm currently attending my first Charleston Conference. Nearly everyone I talk to here about Wikipedia mentions you. Chuck Hamaker sends his regards. Best, The Interior (Talk) 23:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi DGG - edited the page on the Nutrition Science Initiative to include a lot of references to the group from major publications like the WSJ, New York Times, etc

I've never used Wikipedia before, so regrets for any issues! But can you please approve the NuSI page or provide guidance about what it needs? The organization has been getting lots of legitimate press. Please see here: http://nusi.org/in-the-news/#.VF3Vj4fDHtg

Thanks!

Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemintine590 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

the article needs to be primarily about the organization, not about the dietary theory that the organization advocates. Most of the present and proposed references are about the medical hypothesis, not about the organization. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Motivated edits in Happy New Year (2014 film)

Hi DGG - I have noticed that a user User talk:Armaan.haider repeatedly removing content critical of movie Happy New Year (2014 film) without providing any reasons. I have checked the users talk page and it seems user has a habit of doing so repeatedly and there are couple of warnings on his talk page where fellow editors have advised him to restrain from such practice. I would urge to have a look into the issue. I had added the criticism and controversy part of the movie citing verifiable reference. I think since the user is repeatedly engaging in such activities his/her's edit access should be revoked. Vinod (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

agood deal of the material in the article seems a little repetitive. That editor's latest edit in any case was constructive. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaan.haider. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

04:24:52, 9 November 2014 review of submission by Csoul23

• Csoul23 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Preston Corbell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to submit an article from the Los Angeles Times about Preston Corbell. The piece can be found under the Saddleback Valley title. Thank you for your time. [3] Csoul23 (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a mere mention of him among many other players. it doesn't show any notability whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Klaus F. Riegel

Dear DGG: This person seems to be an active researcher. Is this page worth keeping? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

yes; I'll clean up the referencing and accept. DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Shemford

Just wanted to check if you still intend to restore the page (as you mentioned on my talk page) czar ♔ 01:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unless someone else decides to do it. in the next few days DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Churches

Hi DGG, What is the notability guideline regarding churches? WP:LOCAL comes to mind. Could you take a look at St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York ? - NQ (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hiya. Butting in here. To me, it looks like the article might in a sense primarily exist because of the former attached school. Nothing I can see in the article demonstrates really significant independent coverage, which would raise questions of deletability in my eyes. Whether the school is separately notable would be a separate thing, and I don't know the guidelines for notability for schools very well, but I am not really sure it is demonstrably notable in that regard either. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Local churches have not been considered presumably notable. I challenged that about 6 years ago, on the grounds that a church was sufficiently central to a community to be significant enough for an article, but there was insufficient support for this. I at that time also made some efforts towards supporting notability for elementary schools. There was much more support for high schools than for either of these, and I let the church issue drop. I would be willing to try again. As for schools, a sufficiently diligent local historian should always be able to find sources. Of course, if one doesn't think something notable,, one argues that the sources are insufficiently substantial or insufficiently independent or insufficiently discriminating.

The article in question illustrates the problems. It's a well done article, and I think that in this case the sources are sufficient, and sufficiently substantial. Unfortunately many of them are not independent, and the local newspaper can of course be objected to on the grounds that it will cover everything within the community. And many of the online sources do not seem to be accessible, at least at the urls specified.

As for the school, it took a while to find a relevant accessible reference, but ref 34 shows that it's a K-8 school not a high school. Were it a high school, it would be considered notable . That's the current schools compromise. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

John, DGG, thank you for weighing in. My main issue with the article is the undue promotion of the Gernatt family (some background here and here) by the article creator that she persists in adding back [4] one way or the other. The sources are thin and it I do not see anything that demonstrates any notability, at least according to the current guidelines. The school only had 50-60 students and does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. I am not particularly inclined to take it to AfD, but also wondering whether the overly detailed information about the school be removed. Also, does the fact that the church was built/founded in the 1800's have any significance? - NQ (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The age of the church tends to be important enough to mention, as it at least suggests that the church has been in operation for that long. I think the most likely place to find independent sources to establish notability of this topic might be HeritageQuest, which I don't have access to today. For a lot of older churches here in the US, particularly of the major denominations like Catholicism, the often-attached monasteries or convents or schools are one of the major functions of the parish or local church, and at least some information on them in the articles is to be expected. Give me a few days so I can check HeritageQuest and other sites and sources I can think of, and maybe if I don't say anything by the weekend drop me a note politely asking what the hell is taking me so long? ;) John Carter (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It seems that the applicable guidelines here are GNG and ORG. The school is not the same thing as the parish and notability is not inherited. Beyond which I am not going to get into the topic of schools as I respectfully disagree with the blank check notability. Barring some architectural claim to significance there doesn't seem to be much that supports any claim to encyclopedic notability for the parish. If nothing turns up I'd say an AfD nom might be justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: this page at archive.org contains some material, admittedly not a lot and not such as to help establish notability, but it might be useful for some information. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Chiming in: My concern is that this church is in a village of only 2000 residents. At the least the article seems blown way out of proportion. The article creator has created numerous articles on this tiny area and all of them are extremely bloated and of dubious notability and verifiability. Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• A not unreasonable concern, but given that it is in New York and has a rather long history of settlement there may well be reasonable coverage in the local historical society journals to verify them and help establish notability. Like I said, HeritageQuest is probably the best place to check to see if there are indicators of notability, although, unfortunately, it doesn't itself store all the content it indexes. But we'll deal with that, and maybe beg someone from Columbus, OH, which seems to hold most of such journals, to see if they can produce any indexed articles we might find. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• HeritageQuest comes up as pretty much a blank for both the parish and Gowanda in general, although there are two articles referring to a lunatic asylum there, which I hope isn't being used as a misdirection code-word for the local churches or something like that. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

(1)How old a church must be to establish notability obviously depends on the area. Pioneer churches for a religion in an area can be notable on that grounds alone--and will usually be discussed in appropriate histories of the regions, not just local newspapers. But a RC church in upper NYS founded in 1896 is not a pioneer church by any standards.

(2)I did not catch the Gernatt connection. I see now the currently deleted section "Parish support by the Gernatt Family=" -- one of the more outrageous pieces of promotionalism to be hidden within a WP article -- and the edit summaries in the history leave no doubt about the motive of including this in WP, both here and in several other articles on the family. I've read the article more carefully than I did last night. The article, while competently done, is in excessive detail for the subject. The long paragraph on a particular (non-Gernett, I think) individual whose funeral mass happened to be celebrated at the church is particularly odd. But the boxed quote for a perfectly routine statement is also excessive, as is the photo of the bishop who visited in 1988. I can understand mention of the successive pastors, but including their various assistants also is a considerable stretch. Listing the principal of the school is appropriate; listed the various individual teachers is content we do not includes in school articles. All of these seem to be used included because they provided additional references and material, regardless of relevance. I have seen this technique before in other Gernett-related articles.

(3) There are 3 different ways ways to proceed here. We have no really good ways of coping with such over-detailed articles. One is to try to question notability at AfD, even if might not question a more modest article. Another is to painstakingly cut the excess material, and watch carefully to see if it is added back. A third is to simply redirect to the town. For anything more than redirect, the WP:Proposed Merger guideline applies. I find this hopelessly cumbersome. Disputed mergers need a central place for discussion,and this should be WP:AFD renamed as Articles for Discussion (I've proposed this three times--once it got consensus but I regret to have to say that I did not do the work of changing the many policy pages--and nobody else did either.) And merging a small amount, as would be appropriate in a case like this, has the problem that material can simply be added back by any really determined editor. What I usually do is indicate my willingness to try to get an article with excessive content deleted -- unless it gets fixed. This is not technically a proper use for AfD, but it often works. WP is not a Bureaucracy--the most important use of IAR is to get articles improved when they need to be if none of the formal processes are sufficient.

There's a more general consideration: the justification for restricting the use of local sources. I could write an article on every church in Brooklyn at the same level of detail as the present article, with the length depending on how long its been established. It would be perfectly possible for me to write articles based on secondary sources for at least half the business establishments in my neighborhood. If we were to permit this, those articles would cover those particular places and institutions that someone wanted to write about, which would primarily be the ones that either were prepared to pay for it or where some WPedian happened to have some personal connection. This would gave an extremely erratic coverage which would match neither peoples expectations for an encyclopedia on the one hand or a directory in the other. An additional factor is the difficulty experienced in writing objective articles based on close COI. But there is now another consideration. Such articles could be very appropriate for educational assignments, which could be reasonable free from POV, and this might in the future be a factor that would affect the balance.

It is not really possible to judge articles completely objectively, without knowing or guessing or assuming anything about who wrote them. It is not irrelevant to be that this is part of a series of articles about one particular family. But it also would have made quite a difference had the same editor wrote the same articles about the same people and organizations, at a more reasonable length and with much less duplication--I regard gross duplication as a very good indication of excessive COI. I'm aware that the editor in question has strenuously denied claims of paid editing. I think the denial is correct: I can imagine few paid editors who would be so persistent. I have no idea where the COI comes from. But it does not matter. My own reaction when faced with such a strong push is to resist it; it is perhaps the only way of achieving balance. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that the article creator's M.O. is to deliver such a mind-numbingly huge article, filled with such elaborate and overwhelming and unviewable and irrelevant and innumerable citations, that few people can take a close enough look to realize the entire article is a house of cards. Case in point (one that you have recently trimmed somewhat yourself) is Flavia C. Gernatt, which in its original hyper-bloated state was voted Keep at AfD, but now that it's been trimmed of most of its falsehoods, irrelevancies, and unnecessary and non-substantiating citations, would not. Same with all of these related articles -- they really need to be trimmed down with an expert eye, and every single citation and claim checked, before an AfD can even be fairly judged. I agree on the local and non-viewable and primary and non-independent sources, especially since they cannot be checked, and especially since this editor has a track record of making false, inflated, or irrelevant claims and backing them up with scads of non-viewable citations. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

One needs to be careful. People have sometimes removed the good content to get an article unfairly deleted. In addition, a reference not being viewable on line does not necessarily mean its a bad reference. In this particular case, I see no reason to doubt the material is correct; the qy is whether its appropriate for an article. And what I'm doing with Flavia g. is removing duplication. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"In this particular case, I see no reason to doubt the material is correct" -- I had that attitude also, till I started checking the citations on the Gernatt articles; then the whole scheme fell apart. My aim on those articles I have edited is to clean them up and get them to WP standard so they are not unsightly messes and so we can actually see if they can stay; to quote you: "I have strong doubts that all the articles will remain in Wikipedia, at least in their present form". I do see that there's less reason to misrepresent on a church article, but that said it is very overly detailed and needs to be trimmed per the tags at the top. Softlavender (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been looking at this off and on today, and I have to say that at the moment I remain profoundly skeptical as to the actual notability of the subject. There is no urgent rush, but unless something pops up in the near future that shouts "NOTABLE!" that I haven't seen so far, I am leaning towards sending this to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's relevant, the diocese has 166 parishes, and no other except this minuscule parish has a wiki article: Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Buffalo. Softlavender (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to iterate some points hinted at by John and DGG: There are really three subjects here: (1) Parish, which is the article title; (2) Church; (3) School. So there are perhaps three notability questions, and then also perhaps whether a combined notability might add up to something greater than its parts; and conversely, whether lack of notability of any of the three elements would merit removing or greatly trimming that portion, and/or even renaming the article itself. Softlavender (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Based on John Carter's most recent post (see above) I'd say we are looking at three strikes. I will give it a day or two in case someone wants to reply to, or act on my post on the talk page. Otherwise I think this is going to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears someone else pulled the trigger first. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Shemford

Just wanted to check if you still intend to restore the page (as you mentioned on my talk page) czar ♔ 01:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unless someone else decides to do it. in the next few days DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The American Woman's Home has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Over Tagging

Thanks for the help.Will take care of it in future. But I think that movie articles need more content rather than just the fact that they are notable. Its Wikipedia policy that no article is notable unless it has multiple references in different news releases. The movie articles i had tagged had one or no references at all. Moreover if it is notable then it wont be a stub. Wikipedia is just not a place for few lines definitions. The user who created these pages created a slew of articles at one go rendering all articles as stub. Taking into account that new users will not be comfortable with Wikipedia terminologies(STUB in this context), i tagged them as Insufficient context so that newcomers to WP can add some more context to it to make it more informative.Lakun.patra (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Lakun.patra

I agree that most of our film articles are inadequate. But "context" does not mean what you think it does. It means the general background of a subject important for understanding the meaning and significance of an article. The basic context for a film though is self-evident if we are given the key people involved in the writing and production--readers know what films are. You are talking about content. We used to have a tag saying "expand" saying that the article needed additional content; the use of the tag was rejected a few years ago, on the basis that all WP articles would need it. See Template:Expand for links to the discussion. For the proper contents of a film article , see WP:FILM. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay Got it. Thanks. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove advertisement tag on Nixie (drone) article

Hello DGG,

I did my best to rewrite the Nixie (drone) article in a more neutral tone and added a few more references (there are quite a bit more articles on this topic now). Would you consider taking a look at it? If you think the tone is now acceptable, would you be able to remove the advertisement tag? If not, please suggest the necessary changes. Thanks in advance for your time! ~Zina~ (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Zina I made some more changes, chiefly to avoid mentioning the name of the product at every sentence. Even so, I personally continue to regard the entire structure of the article as promotional, but I am not going to re-add the tag if if it gets removed. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking a look and for all your improvements! I won't remove the advertisement tag just yet and will try to think of some more improvements first. ~Zina~ (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this consensus discussion? I know you did this last month, but it wasn't a formal consensus discussion, but now it is. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

the point is a little different now. I gave a response. I really appreciate being notified about this one, because I otherwise would have missed it. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Adding a page on a lesser known O'Brien novel

Thanks very much for approving the article on A Report from Group 17, and for other helpful info for Wikipedia contributions. Seoulseeker (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Seoulseeker,you did a good job with a difficult type of article, but perhaps the plot can be condensed a little further. I don't want to do it myself because I have not read the book, and I might make an error. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try condensing it as soon as I can. Seoulseeker (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

05:56:14, 15 November 2014 review of submission by Ynsomnyak

• Ynsomnyak (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Marisa Matarazzo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hi I can't find any notes as to why this was declined please let me know what I need to do to get this into the correct shape Ynsomnyak (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

replied on your user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Race Of Rememberance

Hi DGG, you recently declined an article I created and the reason you gave was "Submission is about a film that does not meet notability guidelines" This would be exceptable if my article was actually about a film! It's not... This leads me to believe you never actually read it? I also noticed that in the advice part where I can check rules and so on linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOVIE Can you please advice as I cannot make it meet you're film notability criteria, because it isn't one. Just to help it's about a charity motor race, how it made history. Jimmy b 1984 (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's not a film, but an event. I reverted the review. My error seems to have been a slip of the mouse to wrong line in the drop down list, before I realized there is no prebuilt line for an event. Why the script was not programmed with buttons like Twinkle I do not understand, but then I do not understand most of the design decisions for the AfC scripts, such as why the material placed on the user talk page is not previewed.

As for the article, I have my doubts that it is notable, but it might be. A reasonable chance is all it takes to pass AfC, so I'm going to accept it, and anyone who wants to challenge it can do so. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Cobb (director/cinematographer/editor/compositor)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

another article on the exact same subject. Written by the exact same editor and within minutes of one another....William 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

WilliamJE, There were two versions. I kept the longer. I don't know why you think that was the wrong thing to do. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You kept both. The other article was deleted[5] over eight hours after you removed the CSD tags and by a totally different administrator....William 11:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

For taking the speedy deletion tags down on this article. It was A10d because, and it was clearly stated and linked, that there is

I just added a citation (from the Washington Post) to a Thomas Cobb (cinematographer, &, &...) article. Evidently picked the wrong version, which has now been deleted, along with my article talk page message. I hope to get copies from the deleting admin to avoid having to recreate the edits. At any rate, an article on the production company may be a better fit for WP:NOTEABLE. - Neonorange (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right about where the article should be. In any case, the existing material will need expansion and referencing. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

St. Joseph Parish

I just checked the online archives of Western New York Catholic, the newspaper of the diocese of Buffalo, and don't find any sources in it to establish the notability of the topic either. I'm not sure how far back the online archives go however. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks John for your diligent searching. Could you repost your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York? As there is an AfD in progress that is probably where further discussion of the merits of this article belongs for the time being. Thanks again! -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

DRAGA design

Thank you for your comments. The fact that I am being paid to create this article has nothing to do with its content. If that fact is the only reason to reject the article, then could it be submitted by someone else? JB, DRAGA design, Oakland, CA USA 20:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and accepting the Jon Mills (psychologist) article as a stub

I would be grateful if you could provide some specific tip(s) about how to improve the quality of this article or indicate which features of it make it a bit weak. I find just reading the generic explanations of the quality criteria, it is hard to know which issues relate to my particular article. PhilPsych (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently deleted article on 27 year Jail sentence of Sholom Rubashkin

I will repeat what I discussed in the talk page - The article by far passes the WP:GNG guidelines since there is "Significant coverage" that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" and the "secondary sources" are all highly "reliable" and ""Independent of the subject".

I was just asking for a few days to complete this article. but you deleted it around 2 hours after I put it up.

This specific topic is well covered by 10's or 100's of reliable sources. Much of what is in the sources have nothing to do with Sholom Rubashkin. It does not belong on his article. I could discuss many examples with you.

I brought 5 sources that are all titled on the jail sentencing of Rubashkin but there are so much more.

2010 New York Times --Sentence for Plant Manager

2013 Huffington Post -- Rubashkin Case: A Mockery of Justice - This discusses general problems with the justice system.

2012 Huffington Post -- Sentencing of Sholom Rubashkin - which discusses and relates the general sentencing guidelines in the justice system.

2010 Wall Street Journal Rubashkin Gets Stiff Sentence - which also speaks about Jewish community response.

2014 Jerusalem Post -- holds barred: Why Pollard and Rubashkin are rotting in jail

Why is this topic not notable despite the sources on this sentencing and that relate this case to the general justice system? I still want to build the article and show you how it will look but I don't want to waist time if you will anyways remove it as soon as I post it.Caseeart (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If they are not in the article on him, you should add them there. Complaints that the sentence he received represented anti-Jewish views can be reasonable content there in a section on the sentencing. I would think If you post it again I shall delete it and protect it against recreation. BLP splits like this are unacceptable. If you want to discuss this, I suggest the BLP noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is not about Rubashkin. It is about the Jail Sentence which some of the sources point out that they have nothing to do with Mr. Rubashkin rather with the Justice system or with his religion. There are many such splits in wikipedia here are the first few examples that came to my mind Barack Obama, Speeches of Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 since these topics were well covered.etc. etc. I was thinking of renaming the article something similar to Response to 27 year sentencing of Sholomm RubashkinCaseeart (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• What do you say about the attack style BLP article Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community which is about the Haredi Judaism. I was going to propose deletion but I see that it survived deletion twice (primarily because of one experienced user)? Caseeart (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I don't want to get off topic but you mentioned editing Sholom Rubashkin. I am not sure how to do that since the article is a big mess. It was widely edited during his trial with major POV pushing primarily by negative editors (one main editor John Nagle is now facing a defamation lawsuit [6], 2 other heavy editors have a track history of placing poorly sourced negative material on any article that covers Religious Jews. It is a big mess and difficult to work on.Caseeart (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we've made exceptions for major historical figures, and presidential campaigns, because of the huge amount of material. It's a practical necessity. He isn't one of them. (even so, personally I think the BO endorsement by OW somewhat questionable). I think the better analogy is Leopold and Loeb, where we do not have a separate article about the trial. And we only have one article about Jonathan Pollard, or Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

the deletion I did has no relation to more general matters, which should be discussed elsewhere. POV editing is, unfortunately, an inevitable curse of a open content encyclopedia. Normally in such cases people on each side of the issue accuse each other of undue POV editing; I suspect both sides may often be correct. I would have done what I did regardless of any background considerations.,

My advice remains to ask for other opinions at BLPN. It the most even-handed thing I could possibly say. The thing to do if you disagree with me is to ask me to reconsider, as you are reasonably doing; if I maintain my position, discuss it elsewhere. I think I'm unquestionably right in this, but I'm hardly the best judge of that. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess when I will be able to get around to it. It is spending a lot of time which I don't really have now. (it's not like I am being given a choice in the matter). But I do want another opinion about the attack style BLP Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community which is on Haredi Judaism? Caseeart (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

that is a different issue. Since it mentions individuals, perhaps the BLP noticeboard would be the place also. You can just present it for discussion, and let the discussion follow its own course to see what people say. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello DGG. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

My experience is that many of these indications are at most merely cause for checking further or even usually innocuous: many editors routinely use the plural, or an incorrect tone, because they do not understand the requirements of Wikipedia. We're a unique type of communication, and what seems natural to us will seem very artificial to others. Some editors with a degree of skill are capable of writing error-free drafts, even in their initial edits. Many writers on commercial subjects use copyright and trademark symbols here because they are accustomed to use them in other writing, and do not realize our style is different. Many people, especially those preparing the drafts in a word-processor, use smart quotes either as a learned routine or as the default setting of the software; some programs automatically correct to this if not set otherwise. Use of vague terms of quantity and weasel-word expressions is common in all forms of writing and permeates the encyclopedia; the need for exactness is not obvious. Promotionalism should be rejected, but promotionalism is not always copyvio. The world is full of promotional writing, and people simply imitate it. Indeed, Wikipedia is full of promotional writing, and well-intentioned people may not realize it is not wanted. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hal Furman

Hello DGG, I've added a lot more news articles from more reputable sources (NYT, Washington Post)) that are more focused on Hal Furman. I believe that the article should now meet the standard of notability. Please let me know if there's anything further I can do. thanks! (User:Eafurman)

I'm going to approve it, on the basis that the level for approval is a likelihood of passing afd. In this case, the likelihood is probably a little better than even. You could improve the article by using a fuller format for references: see WP:REFBEGIN, but that would include the author and title of each item, the printed source if any, and the online link--even if the online link is behind a paywall. If it is, it will help to give some indication of the extent of coverage--the objections is likely to be that the NYT refs gave him a mere mention. There are two places where specific references are definitely needed--I marked them. The claim for his role in the creation of Build America Bonds seems quite indirect; unless he specifically is given credit in a source, it might amount to Original Research, which we do not do. I'd fix these quickly--it is usual for articles on candidates who do not win elections to be nominated for an afd discussion. And be aware that we have feeling of skepticism against articles with an obvious conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC

As you participated in a previous related discussion you are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Rami Rahim

New CEO of a $4.6 billion tech company, Juniper Networks. There are quite a few sources that include some information about him, however he is not the subject of most of the articles, which are generally about the resignation of the prior CEO.(example) There are also a few trade press articles from before his CEO appointment[7][8].

He doesn't quite technically meet notability requirements, because he is not the subject of multiple in-depth works and I therefore advised them to wait, however I am now doubting my advice because I started just throwing together a page on him and found I could write a decent short piece using only one primary source and I have a hard time reconciling with the CEO of a company that big not qualifying (many prior Juniper CEOs have pages).

I come seeking your input. I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My personal view is that the GNG is culture-bound, both in the sense of being much easier to meet for developed nations, much easier to meet for most WPedians if relating to US & other English speaking countries , and very much easier to meet in certain fields than others. We have partially corrected for it by making additional requirements or using a very strict interpretation of Reliable Sources for some areas where it's absurdly easy to meet, such as popular entertainment, or major sports.We have more controversially adopted the concept of "presumed notability" for some areas where it is particularly hard to meet, such as early Olympic athletes, and high schools, and dealt with other areas by using a very lax interpretation. The only area where we use a completely independent standard that I am aware of is WP:PROF, and even here an argument for implied GNG can be constructed (and in my opinion what helped establish WP:PROF was when I & some others began using the concept of RSs being references in other papers--an extraordinarily lax standard for even Assistant Professors in science).

We do have a presumed standard for public companies: NYSE or equivalent. We could perfectly well adopt a presumed standard that the heads of such companies are presumed notable also.

We can & do adopt by various means whatever standard matches the material we collectively want to include, and rejects the others. The problem in this area is the general suspicion that almost all WP articles on organizations are promotional and edited --edited very poorly-- mostly by those with a coi. Since it is extremely likely that the smaller the organizations we accept, the more prone to promotionalism, I doubt very much in the present situation that there would be support for a looser standard for any aspect of this subject area.

What makes it more difficult in this case is that there happens to be coverage for executives at the company for who we would ordinarily not have articles. I have just nominated some of them for AfD-- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bauhaus]] and the adjacent nominations , and I am considering the others. I also plan to nominate the template Jupiter leadership Team for deletion after at least these first articles have been removed.

As for other executives, it is not unreasonable that there be more information for those who have served longer, than for those just appointed. My own view is that in this situation, combination articles can be effective solutions. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup, they mentioned there were some other executive pages, but I haven't looked them up yet. I agree that in most cases only the CEO page is warranted, if even that. They mentioned some of their execs were famous in their field, but I was skeptical and haven't looked it up yet. I'm left with a rather unclear answer about the Rami question though, as I was basically just going to abstain or contribute based on whatever you suggest. At first it sounded like you were suggesting common sense criterion that we would want a page on any CEO of a multi-billion dollar public company, but then you also mentioned such non-GNG-types of notability criterion were unlikely to be accepted for business topics, or was this referring just to company pages? CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark Friedman

If this above gets deleted, I think you should move Mark Friedman (author) over to its name. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the alert! DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

You refused a speedy deletion for Marc Lore, and removed my tag, on the grounds that the article "does have a reference". I still can't see it. Please reconsider; this is a totally unreferenced BLP. RolandR (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"In 2000, he was named one of Britain's top ten "new high-tech entrepreneurs and whiz kids" by The Sunday Times Magazine of London." This is not exact, but it is a reference. The best thing to do at this point is to try to find the exact citation. DGG ( talk ) 11:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? You think that a claim that a newspaper behind a paywall made a statement on an unspecified date in 2000 counts as a reference? How is anyone meant to locate this? And by the way, I have done a Google search, which finds no evidence of such an article; searching for "Marc Lore" and "Sunday Times" turns up just 13 results, all of them either clones of our article or Lore's own PR. I repeat, I don't see how you can regard this as any sort of reference, since it seems impossible for anyone to confirm this. RolandR (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

take it to afd. That 's what it's there for. Someone with a subscription will find the ref., & then we can discuss if its sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

University of Minnesota Food Industry Center

Your A7 speedy was challenged on the talk page on the grounds that this is an educational institution. I don't know how widely that A7 exemption is generally considered to spread, but since there is a doubt here I have replaced the speedy with a PROD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

A Department of a school is not an educational institution. Nor is a research center. And this particular one does not award degrees. I usually see no point in converting a challenged speedy to a prod, because it is inevitable that this too will be challenged, if the editor understands our procedures. But if it is, I'll watch for it, and use afd. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes (I admit, not often) if the PROD reason is explained clearly enough, the article author gets the point and does not challenge it. We'll see. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Sometimes they even ask for it to be deleted. That's even been known to happen after just a notability tag. Any way of getting the original editor to do the work properly is worth trying. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Years in Monaco, Iceland, etc.

I am surprised by the fact that you feel there is "no reason not to keep potentially useful structure" when it comes to the articles I flagged for deletion last week. While I agree that the frameworks are indeed "potentially useful", as it stands now, there is no content nor any usable links within the articles I flagged. As I see it, I could create an article tonight about Films in the year 2066, and while it will no doubt prove to be useful several decades from now, that doesn't mean that the page is necessary, or even useful, now. I feel these empty frameworks are similarly useless, at least as things stand right now.

Anyway, I have no intention of flagging the pages again, but if you could shed any additional light on why you feel these pages are worthwhile, I would definitely be interested in reading. Cheers. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You couldn't construct an article structure about films in 2066 because there is not yet possible for there to be any content. But there is probable content for the material here. It is in my opinion not ideal to make a structure in so much detail initially, because at least for some of these, there is unlikely to be content for most of the years, and longer time spans are appropriate. (the standard rule for when a year in .... list is appropriate is when there are at least two items for the time period.) DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I definitely think instead of years, the contents should be combined into decades, scores, or in some cases, centuries, for countries with a lack of historical content on Wikipedia. But more than anything, I was curious about your mindset, and I appreciate the response. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brooklyn Melodies Music Centre

Hi Mate, saw you proposal for deletion of Brooklyn Melodies Music Centre. While the school is the only one in the region teaching classical western music and dance, I see it as an error on my part to create it without properly looking into the notability part. I am not contesting the deletion as I feel Wikipedia is not a loser by losing the article. Thanks for brining the subject up for discussion. Cheers!!--jojo@nthony (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

RfA question

Hi DGG, I think you're missing a wikilink in your second question asked at my RfA. I'm confident I know which draft you're referring to but I thought you might want to fix the link before I answered. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

done. My apologies. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Zach Williamson

Hey DGG! I've noticed you sometimes tag articles for speedy deletion even though you are yourself an administrator. I think this is an excellent practice, at least when you're at all unsure, as it then takes a second set of eyes to make the judgement call. As you've probably noticed I do the same from time to time :) However, I have to wonder why with something more serious as a negative unsourced BLP you didn't take it upon yourself to perform the deletion? — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I clicked the wrong line of Huggle. I'm so used to tagging, that I did it automatically. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 13:17:49, 24 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Vicechairmanoffice

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

Dear DGG,

This is in reference to the article submitted for Mr. Raaja Kanwar, Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Apollo International Limited, it is noted that you have declined the article. For your kind information Mr Raaja Kanwar has been recognized by Honrable Prime Minister of India for his contribution in Digital India apart from other achievements and contribution in his career. Hence I am unable to understand rejection of the article unless recognition from Prime Minister is not a notable achievement.

Could you be kind enough to guide me to improve the draft so that it can be published at the earliest.

Regards Ashu

Vicechairmanoffice (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether the article will be kept in WP does not depend on me, but if I move it to mainspace at this point, it would probably end up getting deleting after a community discussion. I think it likely that he is notable, but it needs to be shown by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. There is at present only one usable source, which is the Hollywood Reporter profile. It is one of a group of profiles, and is mainly letting him talk and say whatever he wants to, but it does contain a statement from their writer about his importance. We do not give much weight to testimonials from government officials, but in any case it needs to be shown by a newspaper or magazine article, not just stated. This is true of the other awards also--they cannot be proven from the company website, but from 3rd party sources.

Furthermore, you may have partially copied some of the material from your company website. This not permitted. You could donate the material to use under a free license , according to WP:DCM, but it will be much easier to rewrite, because the manner of writing is that of a press release praising him, not a neutral encyclopedia article. You cannot use such phrases as "Testimony to its success and promising future," in an encyclopedia--this is advertising.

When you resubmit, it will be looked at again. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

18:49:53, 24 November 2014 review of submission by Xnicholasf

• Xnicholasf (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:International Systems Engineering Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Xnicholasf (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your feedback. I do appreciate it. I've certainly learnt a lot about Wikipedia article writing over the past few months. I am a little confused about the review and decline to publish. The past few attempts to submit were only met with the comments on "notability". I did not have enough references to from objective sources. Days of The Year has since made reference to it, and as such I have included tis reference in here. I have not previously been told the article is written like an advertisement. In fact, I largely used the same format and writing style as System Administrator Appreciation Day, which has been accepted and published. I am happy to re-write the article, I just want to make sure I am indeed doing the write thing to avoid another decline. Thanks again.

It's written to advertise the program, and even gives the facebook & linkedin pages. But quite apart from that, it must have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements , to show its notability. "independent" means unassociated with the organization. If you have them, try to rewrite the article so it describes the event, not describes what a systems engineer does. We already have that information. I have checked the other page you mention to see if it has similar problems, but i notice it is less promotional, and it does have references. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

19:07:38, 24 November 2014 review of submission by Blsolbjor

• Blsolbjor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Arthur Obermayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Blsolbjor (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Obermayer already has a Wikipedia page in German (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_S._Obermayer). The English language submission was intended to expand on that which is contained in the German version. Would we be better off having our submission translated into German and then added to the German version?

I apologize for the confusion. I was lazy, and I used the default template for the response, and it does not meet the situation.

The English language version is in fact the better--the German one talks too much about the accomplishments of his relatives, However, there is material there that should be aded: The Federal Cross of Merit is relevant; but I can not figure out why he would be given the prize by the ACS unless he has in fact written a book--but that does not appear in either article.

There are two actual problems. First, the English language WP is very strict about references for biographies of living people. Every statement in the article needs a reliable source. The bare facts of his life can be taken from his web site, but everything else needs a third-party independent published reliable source, not press releases or mere announcements. German or English, print or online are all OK. Ideally they should reference every sentence or significant group of facts in a paragraph.

A related problem is that we do not include praise, or claim a significant role in something unless there is actual evidence from a 3rd party Reliable source--this includes phrases like "a leading role in..." unless there's a source for the phrase. You can't really call something "novel" unless a third party has said so. You can;t say " been working closely with Sen. Ted Kenned" unless there's a published source.

The material on the Rubrik's Cube does not belong in this article. He didn't invent it. He was the President of a company where someone on the staff invented it, and that's quite different.

As matters of style, we do not write [http://www.wbur.org WBUR]. If WBUR has a p. in WP, and it does. we link to it [[WBUR-FM]]. If an organization does not, you still cannot use the external link format in text, but much either list in external links, or give it as a full reference. Otherwise it looks as if we had an article.

Let me know here when youre ready, and I will re-review it. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

AFC FYI

FYI: Your runaway { was breaking the AFC gadget when I was trying to clean the page [9]. Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

yes, an extra { would certainly do that. sorry. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of my page Elly Barnes (educator)

Dear DGG, I am clearly not the only one on this page who is slightly frustrated, trying to learn to use Wikipedia and trying to listen and apply feedback provided only to find my page has been deleted. I had already re-worked some sections of it and did not receive a warning it had not been amended enough. I added new content and am prepared to re-work as necessary. It is not my intention to violate copyright! I understand the need to be factual and cite sources, you are right I applied some promotional aspect (although this was written by me, no one else) so I am requesting that you restore my draft page and I will amend before resubmitting. Thank you. Julie JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

We cannot leave copyvio in until you rework it; it must be removed. When you have a new version, resubmit it.If you let me know , I will look at it immediately DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear DGG, I have indicated I am happy to rework it, it is not in the public domain yet but in draft form. However my whole draft page has been removed, including picture and other information not in violation of copyright. Are you saying I have to re-write the whole page from scratch? I already had feedback from another admin that indicated some of the amends I had made were satisfactory hence continuing to make similar amends and resubmitting. Or do I need to re-write the main aspects and then you re-load the draft page? I do want to get this right but I will not be happy if I have to start all over when I have been responding to feedback, marking my edited changes and making amendments in line with wiki protocol. JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is still present in the page history for use as reference.. My advice is to start a new draft article as Draft:Elly Barnes (the education qualification is not needed as she's the only one of that name in the encyclopedia), and work on it there. Various people have various ways of handling copyvio: some admins would have already deleted the entire page. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear DGG, OK, thanks, although I can't say that I am happy. Another user added the word (educator) after Elly Barnes to my original draft and I thought (in my new wiki-naivety) that this was necessary and they were being helpful. I guess I am on a steep learning curve and not all admins give the same advice as you also indicate. So I will re-work and re-submit! JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear DGG, I have completely rewritten the article 'Elly Barnes' and resubmitted it. You did say you would look at it immediately once resubmitted. That would be much appreciated. Please note permissions for the image have been sent by Elly Barnes and I have marked it 'OTRS pending'so that should be in order. JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of pet games articles

I am certain this is not the first time I have seen these pages (or variants thereof) created in the past few weeks, each time by a throwaway account. For example, this one was created two days ago [10]. Is there any way this can be investigated further? Altamel (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

We could proceed to a WP:SPI Sockpuppet investigation, but I have already blocked the accounts, and also the ip addresses used. That's usually enough. I'd wait for a third one, and then you should post it there--it might be possible to block an entire range, but I don;t know whether we save that for even worse abuse. I don't usually work on these. To determine the right range, it takes a Checkuser, which I am not. I'll keep an eye on new pages for the next day. But if you see it first, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do the same. I'm not experienced with SPI either, though the connection between the accounts is pretty clear cut. The only thing is that these articles are being created very sporadically, the earliest one I could find was this one from a week ago. Altamel (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A fresh page created today, FreeRangeFrog deleted it. Altamel (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing my article (Bevendale )

Hey DGG,

Thanks for reviewing my article.

I have noticed their is a severe backlog in the new pages waiting review special page. I have reviewed articles from all the way back to February 2014 until September 17 2014 a few weeks ago. Coming back to reviewing articles today, I saw that the number of unreviewed articles was the same. I have reviewed up to the 20th September. It is too much for me to review starting at the back, especially with no-one helping. Can you also help from the oldest articles awaiting review and maybe "recruit" other editors as well.

PS. I voted to support you in the ArbCom vote.

Appreciated, Luxure Σ 00:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There is likely to always be a backlog, because the number of articles being dealt with is at least matched by the number of articles being submitted. The only real solution to this is for there to be more qualified reviewers. You are getting the experience that permits you to join in , and I urge you to refine it by trying to write a few more articles of your own: it is the most valuable way of learning.

There are things that would help. At least half the requested reviews are re-reviews of declined articles, and much of the time, the article can be seen to have been hopeless from the start. We need more effective ways of discouraging people from wasting their efforts when they will not be successful. It would certainly help to have some rough way of separating articles by subject. It would certainly help if there were fewer reviers who did a poor hob of it, and gave bad advice, or rejected articles for trivial reasons. We also need to guide them more exactly toi make the necessary improvements--the templates do not work very well for this,--the only thing that is effective is a specifically written message explaining exactly what changes to make, and this will never be easy or quick.

The strategy for dealing with this varies between different reviewers. I have usually worked at the end of the unreviewed backlog looking for articles in one of the fields I specially work on, but in the last few weeks I have started to work with the newest articles, not reviewing them all, but hoping to very quickly sort out the 10 or 15% that are obvious keeps that will need only minor revision that can be done after they are in mainspace, and the at least equal number of hopeless submissions. In particular I have been watching for copyright violations and advertising, because these can and should be immediately nominated for speedy deletion. Clearing at least those out of the stream immediately makes everything easier.

This is endless frustrating work, as you clearly realize. One reason I ran for arb com is that I want to do something else. DGG ( talk )

22:35:57, 25 November 2014 review of submission by DCNITE

• DCNITE (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rentals Gone Wild (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Here is another mention in a major news outlet about the company. It actually has more details about what it does. Feel free to give me suggestions, since I am new to submitting content to wikipedia. I do know this is a notable company and it simply needs to be submitted correctly.

http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/all-series/50-on-fire-finalists-real-estate-architecture/

Thanks so much! DCNITE (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

as you say, that's a mention. One short paragraph in a general article about a list of 50. It's the sort of mention that does not really show notability. You can add it, but it won't help much.The main thing you need to do is rewrite the article so it says everything once. You've got too versions there, and it doesn't make a short article look better to say everything over twice in the summary and then again in the main section.

The purpose of the Drafts process is for you to get advice about whether the article is likely to stay in Wikipedia if it is submitted. It's not a ecision on whether it actually would be deleted, which can be unpredictable. DGG ( talk ) 13:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

YourMoneyHub 26/11/14

Hello, hope you are well, I was just wondering if you could take a look at the page I created once again and offer any pointers? I have attempted to be minimalistic with my approach. Many thanks for your help. James

As the notice said, you need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Notability here is judged almost entirely by the references. DGG ( talk ) 13:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

15:53:27, 26 November 2014 review of submission by Panamaorchids

• Panamaorchids (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Abel A. Hunter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I researched ways to improve my draft and attempted to edit my declined draft to meet Wikipedia's objectives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abel_A._Hunter. I believe it is ready for re-review. Thank you for your time and suggestions. Panamaorchids (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Panamaorchids (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comment on your talk p. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

UEsaga 26.11.2014 Tigers in the Mud

Good day DGG, I was just wondering why a page I had made last month was deleted. I had written a short one for the novel Tigers in the Mud (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tigers_in_the_Mud&action=historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tigers_in_the_Mud&action=history) I understand it was certainly not perfect, though I couldn't find any comments as to what was wrong with it. Any help as to what I could do to improve on any further articles addition would be appreciated. Thank you, UEsaga.

I did not reject it; rather I merged the key material into the article on Otto Carius the notable subject of that biography, leaving a cross reference from the name of the book. . For a book to justify a separate article, it needs to meet WP:NBOOK, which requires that there be substantial critical comment. Wikipedia is written for the reader, and any reader who comes across the name of the book and looks for it in Wikipedia will be automatically redirected to a page with the information. If you are able to find references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements nor material from amazon or the publisher or a blog of comments submitted by readers, it might be possible to expand this back to an article. Even so, it would probably be much better to simply add references to the reviews to the current article on Carius. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

05:32:00, 27 November 2014 review of submission by Panamaorchids

• Panamaorchids (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Abel A. Hunter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not requesting a re-review of this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abel_A._Hunter. If there is a better way to communicate with you, please help me with that. I understand my draft has too much detail and I will work to cut out more. If you could give me a few examples of what needs to be cited, I will do my best to make improvements in that regard. While I was researching the history of the orchids of Panama (and Costa Rica), I could not find an article/bio on Hunter. I thought his contribution deserved to be recognized and summed up. Wikipedia was the only place I could think of to host the information. I looked for everything I could find on him and put together a timeline of his life because that's what makes the most sense to me. I put this together myself, there is no article from which I adapted my draft with the exception of the Hunter and Pring section which I greatly reduced from the original and tried to put into my own words (even more so after the first decline) and I thought I cited it properly (but maybe not). I'm glad you think Hunter deserves an article. Thanks for helping me and I look forward to your response to make the necessary improvements. Panamaorchids (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Panamaorchids (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

letting me know here will do fine, Examples of problems:

1. "He earned his reputation for superior field work as an outgrowth of his friendship with Charles Powell." on what basis do you say superior?
2. "Aside from the Panama hat he wore on collecting trips, figuratively he donned many other hats over the years: son and brother, student, collector, husband and father, postmaster, fraternal brother, friend, guide, manager and possibly one of adopted son. His kinship with Powell may have extended beyond what appears, on the surface, to have been a great friendship: Powell filling-in as the father Hunter never had and Hunter substituting as the son Powell never had." on what basis do you say this? If you derived it from the sources given, its WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH
3. The details of his travels with Pring & Powellare not encyclopedic material. (But we do certainly need an article on Pring)
4. The Brooklyn Eagle quotes are too long, and should be abbreviated. (And they need to be footnotes also along with the other references.

Give it a try and let me know. I accept your word it's original writing. But read that page on WP:Original Research for an explanation of our policies. As I wrote, I certainly intend to accept the article & am prepared to defend it if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

05:58:15, 27 November 2014 review of submission by Ynsomnyak

• Ynsomnyak (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Marisa Matarazzo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apologies for hitting "thank you" you prematurely. I made the change you suggested, cleaned up additional citations and added an additional work in the bibliography section. Hoping I did it correctly, ready for review. Thank you. Ynsomnyak (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop in Manhattan's Greenwich Village. Thursday December 4 NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share (RSVP). 6:30pm–8pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Afterwards at 8pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided). We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Wrong namespace

HEY DGG, a few day ago you moved my article about Franz Patay, the new rector of our university, into the wrong Namespace... can you change that? Thank you and best from Austria! KONSuni — Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had the title of the article mis-spelled; I corrected it. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!! KONSuni — Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Global Supply Chain Finance Ltd.

Hi,DGG, a few weeks ago you tagged my article for deletion. I have removed any material that could be considered self promotion and would like to repost. Article is Global Supply Chain Finance Ltd. Please add any comments on my talk page. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewRedd30 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll reply this evening DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Intensive Care Medicine (journal)

Greetings DGG. I just created the article Intensive Care Medicine (journal). If you would be so kind as to take a look, I'd appreciate it. I listed SCImago as the only ref I have access to. If you can improve the referencing that would be great. Thanks in advance and Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It should hold up, as its in Science Citation index, which is the practical working criterion.. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Education RS

Hey DGG, did you have any specific AfD (or set of AfDs, e.g., schools, academics) in mind when you said I don't understand the details of RS in education? I thought I had a fairly good grasp on the subject area, having relevant field and reference experience, but always looking for ways to improve, especially given your expertise. czar ⨹ 15:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Decline: Shut Up, Weirdo comments

Hi, thank you for your review of my article. You left the comment: 'non notable local show'. Because of the radio broadcast format most radio programing is local, but because of WFMU's (the radio station) format, many people listen worldwide through internet streams. Listeners call into Shut Up, Weirdo from other parts of the country and occasionally there are international callers. As for notability, I do understand that it is hard to gauge. There not very many print sources which cover radio broadcasting anymore. In this respect, I am finding very hard to harvest sources.

Could you help me get a better understanding of the notability requirement? I have read through it, but the topic of this particular article has me puzzled as to how it works.

Thank you, TedF13 TedF13 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

the existence of intent streams does give everything a world0wide exposure, but does not make everything notable. However, I'll take another look at the specific information for this one tomorow DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Health in Norway

Following the MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Health in Norway, the article was moved to Health in Norway. Please review the article when you get a chance and see if anything further should be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

08:19:47, 29 November 2014 review of submission by Steve Lovelace

• Steve Lovelace (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Susannah Hays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Added a ref to the Collections section. Hope this satisfies, as documenting each entry results in some pretty awkward refs, as the collections I have tried so far use a search tool for locating works. Using a web address with a god-awful search/results string attached just doesn't seem right.

Steve Lovelace (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It would help to know which work is in each collection. See also my response at [11]. A search string with a particular term where the string can be hidden from view within the [ and ] is an acceptable ref. A search page where one must then oneself put in the term and search is not liked here, though other Wikipedias see no problem with it. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

About the speedy deletion decline of Maria Yellow Horse Brave Heart

David, I must admit that I am rather puzzled about why you tagged that article for speedy deletion. While she may not pass WP:ACADEMIC, the article as it was certainly asserted some Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. Your thoughts about this? Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong. The article is at afd now, & I see I have a different impression of it than some other editors. A7 and G11 should never be deleted by a single person. In addition to the usual borderline judgments, sometimes I like most of us do something a little weird, usually from impatience.

More generally, I'm getting increasingly impatient about articles for less important individuals with inflated contents and extensive PR. We have no really good way of dealing definitively with that sort of material. I've never liked our practice of accepting extensive content on relatively minor topics as long as there is a ref to support it. To me , an encyclopedia has articles corresponding to the significance of the particular subject within the subject category. DGG ( talk )

I now understand your rationale for the CSD tag. While it may be breaking a butterfly on a wheel "about articles for less important individuals with inflated contents and extensive PR", and a clumsy and blunt instrument, I agree that it appears to be the least worst option in many cases. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

fyi discussion on public HIV testing article

At Talk:Public HIV testing in the United States#Broader topic of screening, there is ongoing discussion of re-focusing that article. You commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public HIV testing in the United States (which closed "no consensus"), and might be interested in commenting at the new discussion. All AFD commenters are being contacted now. --doncram 22:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Several ongoing discussions could use your input:journals

Hi David, please see Talk:Academic journal#"Usually" peer-reviewed? (triggered by Template talk:Infobox journal#"peer reviewed"), Talk:Predatory open access publishing, and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#List of scammy academic journals. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)