User talk:DGG/Archive 100 May 2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                       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


Project Continua Edit-a-Thon today - Writing and Righting History![edit]

Hey DGG!

I hope you can make it to the Writing and Righting History: Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon, A May Day Celebration. Sponsored by the Humanities Action Lab and Project Continua TODAY (May 1st) from 4-7pm at the Cafeteria, Eugene Lang College, 65 W 11th St, New York, NY 10011.

Hopefully see you there! -Deckdeckdeck (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Beepi[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Beepi. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd[edit]

I thought since you were involved with a currently blocked editor, you'd want to know about this Brianhe (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but
Yes. But I somehow feel I may be seeing it eventually in another venue, so I won't comment further here. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article I written is deleted, Where as I requested to Answer about where it fails.[edit]

Hello DGG,

I found my article About a Company Hashivalayan (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Acquire learningHashivalayan (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC) is deleted under speedy deletion. Where as I believe. The Content was modified to non promotional and was true based on the facts over internet. I like to know more where that article has failed. As I am unable to understand. Because I found some similar article on Wikipedia. Which use the same template style and language. According to me the article was just information about the company and there business I collected from there websites, news articles, Partner stories and other social or govt sources. Please answer my question so that If I try again I will not repeat the mistake.[reply]

I want to have the last article copy as there was much information I had collected. If it is possible ? Also If it is posible to get that article back with correct information and improved. As I tried to make it. But looks failed.

Looking for your reply

Thanks & Regards, Hashivalayan.


Hello DGG,

I had talk with the person who requested my article Hashivalayan (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Acquire LearningHashivalayan (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC) for deletion. He said he found my article fine after edits I had done on it. Please have a look at my talk page. And let me know if I can get that back.[reply]

Thanks & Regards. Hashivalayan

  • I shall get there, but probably on Monday or Tuesday. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine DGG, Take your Time. Regards, Hashivalayan (talk)

  • Hello DGG,
   Any update for me. I am looking for your review and update on my article. Please have a look on it and let me know the poor points in it or the information that if it can be restored or modified Or I need to write it again. Provide me some guidelines as well. So that I will not repeat mistakes.     

 Thanks & Regards,

Hashivalayan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Status and Advice[edit]

Hashivalayan, there are the following problems:

  1. Most important, there need to be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements.
  2. "is Developing a network of alliances" indicates that the company is not yet notable, but hopes to be some day. And indeed, the table of associated institutions shows that many of them do not show a date of association, which I think means there is yet no affiliation. The various possible types of affiliation means there needs to be a link for every one of them, preferably to a 3rd party source.
  3. Much of the content is promotional: the terms used are nonspecific e.g. "Company help students through studies and finding right employment", the full address is given in capitals, the titles of the managers are given in capitals and too many of them are listed, emphasis is placed on the certificate numbers of the licenses, nothing is said about actual accomplishments, there is extensive overuse of the company name.
  4. There seems to be great exaggeration: Not a single one of the affiliates listed can be reasonably described as an "international universities" , e.g. Sussex Coast College is a secondary school, "Australian Institute of Management" is a professional associate, and most of the others are trade schools.
  5. There is in fact no indication a single class has ever been held.
  6. In the see alsos, there is no apparent reason why most of them should be listed. If there's a link in the text, that is normally sufficient.
  7. The writing is such poor English, that I find it difficult to believe it actually represents the work of an institution of higher education: capital letters are used incorrectly, there are sentence fragments, quotation marks are not used when needed.

I call you attention to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. The only acceptable way to write an article if you have a COI is to declare on the user page that you have a conflict of interest with the company, and then use WP:Articles for Creation. You should 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 WP:Conflict of interest policy. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


So If I can write it again with following these things and correcting dates and other factors you have discusses above.

Disambiguation link notification for May 3[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tennant Co[edit]

Hey DGG, thanks for your message. Could you please move the article to Tennant Company? Thanks in advance, --Jaskan (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaskan, Done, but please be aware that this is a very minimal article. We need information about the company growth and its products. Additional awards would help, and there should be new metions . As a NYSE company , there should certainly be some financial data. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC) ,[reply]

What should you do if you find a actual convo going on a page talk page[edit]

I was looking at the back log of the new pages and decided to check the talk page of this (which was odd given I don't usually do this), and saw this Talk:Alexander Pingol an entire convo about checking out sandbox pages! Wgolf (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's unusual--perhaps they are from a class. Theactual problem of course is the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The convo was carried over from the move from userspace to mainspace. I would just delete or archive it. However, note that that same editor is also similarly canvassing opinions on Talk pages of her other drafts. I think s/he needs to be told to keep such conversations on her own Talk page or on the Talk pages of the Draft-space articles that are actually being referred to, rather than [advertising them] on talk pages of different articles/drafts. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
so tell her about our usual customs. You can do it every bit as well as I can. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let Wgolf do that, since he brought it up and wanted to know what to do about it. I really have insufficient interest, and was simply intrigued by the mystery of the question and looked up the history. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 11[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ReGlobe[edit]

Hello, you recently placed a CSD tag on ReGlobe, which was removed by WilyD. I reverted the edit, placing a warning on his talk page, and he then accused me of doing wrong. I am curious: is it permissible to remove a CSD template, or should the editor go to the article's talk page? And do I need to do anything about this user or is he within his rights? Thanks in advance. JZCL 15:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD was correct; any editor except the originator of the article may remove a CSD tag, according to WP:Deletion policy section 3.2. If the person who wants the article deleted still thinks it should be deleted, they can go to WP:PROD, or, more usually in such cases, WP:AFD (as I just did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReGlobe. The original editor must use the article talk page, but generally nobody else does--others just remove the tag. Some editors notify the person who placed the tag, but it is not required or even usual, because most people follow their CSD nominations, using such pages as their CSD log(one of the options under Twinkle), or their Watchlist. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. I've just commented at the ReGlobe AfD and suggest you also take a look at Sunkalp Energy created by the same editor. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I listed it for G11 & A7. I should have listed the other as both also. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shahid U. H. Qureshi[edit]

The article Shahid U. H. Qureshi has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.

Informing since you accepted this submission and the original author is unreachable.  sami  talk 20:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The one ref that was there did verify the IEEE fellow claim,. and that by itself is WP:N by WP:PROF. I added another for another IEEE award, and a ref to a key paper. The bio details still need sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was proposed by another editor and I was also in the favor of keeping the article per WP:PROF. Thank you for your edits on Shahid U. H. Qureshi.  sami  talk 10:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ale Resnik[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ale Resnik. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of academics[edit]

Hi, I'm back again to ask the expert on such matters what you think of Paul Martin Lester? A lot of academic books, but not much in the way of coverage - does he pass WP:PROF? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He passes WP:AUTHOR at least. The books are sufficient. I've added publisher and holdings--which are quite high. There are undoubtedly reviews , which should be added. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wasn't sure about the books, other than they exist. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunkalp Energy[edit]

Well, no worries. I think it's awfully close to A7 (though Your Story looks like it has some editorial control, so probably a discussion is preferable). I've failed to check histories on multiple occasions. WilyD 08:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this scientist notable?[edit]

Since you've provided good advice on notability of academics before, could you take a quick look at David Joseph Singh? Thanks in advance. — Brianhe (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for science is based on being an authority in the subject, which is basically shown by the citation record. The only reason we don't have a fixed cutoff is that the necessary level varies with field, to the extentthat eachcase must be evaluated separately. According to Google Scholar [1] which is reliable enough for the purpose, His most cited article ohn P Perdew, JA Chevary, SH Vosko, Koblar A Jackson, Mark R Pederson, DJ Singh, Carlos Fiolhais "Atoms, molecules, solids, and surfaces: Applications of the generalized gradient approximation for exchange and correlation" in Physical Review B, 1992 v. 46, Issue 11 Pages 6671– has an incredible `2m 999 citations. True, he was not senior author. But then he has a paper with 2006, 1597, 1411, 1057, 957 ,,,, 59 papers with over 100 citations. For most fields, including his, even one paper over 100 citations is notability. I added this information to the article. The article is not written exactly in our usual format, but it shows notability clearly enough. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Reiner Grundmann‎[edit]

The article Reiner Grundmann‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. prokaryotes (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now in AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reiner_Grundmann prokaryotes (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience[edit]

I have read that entry and got some of the flavour. Thnx Serten 16:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Article review - Randy Gage[edit]

Dear DGG,

Can you please review the article for Randy Gage again? I have added multiple third-party sources to support notability. Thank you very much for your assistance. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Randy_Gage_Author&redirect=no TriJenn (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New message - May 11. Thank you for reviewing the article again. With respect, I'd like to ask you to reconsider. The viewpoints section was added to support notability as the articles in third party reliable sources talk about his ideas and concepts. He has been featured in other major media outlets. However, I only mentioned a few of them.

Have you seen his media page from the website, http://www.randygage.com/in-the-media/. He has been covered by many third party sources. In his industries, network marketing and professional speaker, he has been written about extensively.

His books have been translated into 25 languages with rights sold to 20 countries. Two of his books have been published by a major publisher, Wiley and Sons (not one). Although the others are self published, he has sold tens of thousands all over the world.

Also, I don't understand why the National Speakers Association Hall of Fame recognition is not notable. It is the premier organization for professional speakers around the world.

I appreciate your consideration.

Thanks! TriJenn (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New message - May 11 - 4:17 pm: Thanks for your input. I have resubmitted it for review. I hope you will allow it to be published. TriJenn (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New message - May 14 - 4:14 pm: It occurred to me that whoever reviews it is just going to send it to you again since you have a block on the page. What is the best way to make this a live article? Can you please remove the block? Thanks for your assistance. TriJenn (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying again - may 16 4:39 pm: It occurred to me that whoever reviews it is just going to send it to you again since you have a block on the page. What is the best way to make this a live article? Can you please remove the block? Thanks for your assistance. (Is this the best place/way to communicate with you?) TriJenn (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Brown rice[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brown rice. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book articles[edit]

Have you read WP:NBOOK before mass nominating book articles I created for deletion? At WP:NBOOK: 'The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.' Can I ask why you are mass-nominating for no apparent reason? AusLondonder (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether these reviews are non-trivial. They're not mass-nominations, but test nominations. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial and non-trivial are very clearly defined at WP:BKCRIT as 'Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable.' Reviews published in the media are not trivial. AusLondonder (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Day[edit]

Dear DGG,

Your reason for deleting the Ace Day page was A11: Obviously invented. When on the article "Criteria for speedy deletion", A11: Obviously invented says that it "does not apply to any article that makes a credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not quality under Wikipedia's notability guidelines." On the "WP:CCOS" article, point 5 states that "Any statement which, if reliably sourced, would be likely to persuade some of the commentators at a typical AFD discussion to keep the article is a claim of significance." If the Ace Day wikipedia page were to be recreated, and had sources to different posts by people unknown to the article's creator that showed people's lives had changed in some way because of Ace Day, would the page be allowed to stay up? Thank you so much. Acephobia now (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no credible claims of significance or importance either, so I could just as well have deleted it by A7, planned event with no indication of significance. Actually, I probably should have used both rationales. The existence of something is not an indication that it is significant. In any case , there is no possibility at all that the article would be kept at AfD unless there were actually references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Such posts as you mention above are not RSs for anything. I do not see why you would want to go to the trouble of trying to write an article that might just barely pass speedy unless there's some reasonable chance it would pass AfD and stay in WP. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but in addition to the A11 criteria, someone else deleted it by A7 and I found a news article that covers Ace Day. If links to the tumblr posts and the news article were added, would the article pass AfD and stay in WP? Thank you Acephobia now (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That reference is marginal--it reads to me very much like n article based on a press release. Tumblr is not an acceptable source for anything. If you want to try another version try it. But I think you might be more successful with adding a paragraph to the Community section of the article on Asexuality. DGG ( talk ) 15:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restiveness?[edit]

I think your computer left a typo in your review of Draft:First Fidelity Bank. What is the "the restiveness of the material"? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thanks for deleting it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Götz Schulze[edit]

With your experience in biogs of academics, please would you take a look at this draft and consider whether it passes. I have a feeling it does, but I have a blind spot with academics at times. Fiddle Faddle 10:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The need has passed. Thanks. Fiddle Faddle 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Seth Goldman (Businessman)[edit]

Mr. Goldman is a NY Times Bestselling author (http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/hardcover-business-books/list.html), board member of the American Beverage Association (https://www.google.com/search?q=Beyond+Meat+Board+Members&oq=Beyond+Meat+Board+Members&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.4460j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#q=Beyond+Meat+Board+Members%2C+Seth+Goldman&safe=active&ssui=on), an a leader within the natural foods channel (http://www.beverageworld.com/articles/full/17057/the-disruptors-part-one). Because of these accomplishments it is my recommendation that his original bio be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReviewingEditor (talk • contribs) 14:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) There's never been an article called Seth Goldman (Businessman), so it can't be reinstated. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably meant Seth Goldman (businessman). It was deleted after an AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Goldman (businessman). -- GB fan 14:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GB fan. @ReviewingEditor:, to overturn an AfD decision, you'll need to visit Wikipedia:Deletion review. Read the instructions carefully. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

In regards to the latest number of undisclosed paid editing issues, I was wondering if the creation of a new WP:CSD criteria is in order. The general idea is that if someone is found to be partaking in undisclosed paid editing, than the articles they have written can be deleted more efficiently. On the grounds that undisclosed paid editors COI prevent the content of the article from being written in a balanced manner. Sort of a Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over speedy for undisclosed paid editing. This would serve to more strongly discourage undisclosed paid editing and reduce the ability of businesses to profit off of the practice.

A rough draft of the deletion criteria could read:

A12: Articles created by an undisclosed paid editor while taking part in undisclosed paid editing where the only substantial content to the page was added by its author.

Is this good, bad, awful, would it destroy Wikipedia? You are a very experienced editor within the deletion process so I'm interested in your thoughts on this idea. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with "undisclosed paid editor" is we have no means of proving someone is unless they confess to it subsequently. And if they do so confess, doesn't this to some extent turn them into a disclosed paid editor? Even confession isn't absolutely reliable because there have been a few verified examples of joe jobss where an upe pretended to be a well known wikipedian. As you know, the prevailing view here is that outing is more important than coi. Personally, I would be prepared to see that be reversed, but I unfortunately don't think it would get consensus, considering the defeat of the recent AfC on a very mild exception to the outing policy. Officially (i.e., in my role as an admin and arb), I will as I have always done apply existing policy, not policy as I would like it to be.
To the best of my knowledge, and as confirmed by opinions of some people with experience in this, there has never been an upe making worthwhile contributions, so they can all be gotten rid of otherwise. Of course, this means if there has been one consistently doing so, we obviously do not know about it. I doubt it, because the amount of junk being submitted now and in the past is so great that it is reasonable to assume any new entry on an organization is very likely to be coi at least, and in most cases also violation of the our Terms of Use; I would also say this about to individuals in some fields. This then raises the question of if they are making consistently good contribution why should we want to get rid of the articles--the same as undetected sockpuppets.
I would go a little further: imo, even for the best declared paid editors, the quality of their paid work is not as high as the volunteer work most of them also do.
The best course of action within existing policy is to have stricter requirements on articles in susceptible subjects, and for more people to participate in the afds. I would certainly propose a formal deletion reason , that borderline notability AND a mainly promotional article is a reason for deletion. (It is now, if we choose to do so, but a formal statement would make it easier to explain). I am saying this with great reluctance--for my first 5 or 6 years here, I devoted as much of my effort as possible into rescuing just those sort of article. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts DGG. I don't like the situation either, but the quantity of COI violations that are done on a daily basis is so large (if the quantity of G11s and adv declines at AfC are of any indication) that something needs to be done. I'm just grasping at straws for a solution. Can't we just get Congress to grant the WMF subpoena power or at least file FTC complaints against some of these people. /rant Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a very few extreme cases, where people or firms have been identified, the WMF has taken some legal or regulatory action. I have some knowledge of whom to speak to and approximately what their parameters are. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello,

I am writing to ask your opinion, I am sorry this is so long. Basically, I wrote my entry almost 2 years ago. Worked with editors at the time. And everything was fine until yesterday and I got a notice it was being speedy deleted and it has been so ugly and contentious ever since. I was trying to focus on redoing the references the way they wanted them and kept being accused of having multiple accounts which even after I answered they kept asking the same questions over and over.

Anyway is there some way this could or should be written better?

This is what the academia page says

Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work. However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article.

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.

I think Miss Clark meets these 3 criteria.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

She has several hundred articles inprint. Both peer review and editorial. There are also articles about her. There are several instances where her work is included as the foundation for clinical guidelines and national protocols. In France: http://theses.ulaval.ca/archimede/fichiers/29912/29912.pdf Across the EU: http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/23/2917?rss%253D1= She is widely used in Spain as well. Which is why she is going to be lecturing and advising there in a few weeks. http://repositorio.ul.pt/handle/10451/10822

and

http://cesearchengine.com/ce_details.php?ce_id=22769

So she is the person that is regularly invited to other countries and they use her books and writings to develop their national asthma programs. She has won 2 major national awards for this.

The other thing is and it is hard to document, she was the Special Studies Coordinator that ran the collaborative for Medicare in CKD, for the Georgia QIO. The National Quality standards that are currently mandated by CMS, she ran the program that developed and tested them. Here is the Medicare funding table that shows the money going to Georgia.

https://books.google.com/books?id=W3GdAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT425&lpg=PT425&dq=chronic+kidney+disease+georgia+QIO&source=bl&ots=A4QA1CHslc&sig=fimJVHyQAkTF_PmeY5s6xG-oQts&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Bb1TVd3yCcu5ogSIhICABA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=chronic%20kidney%20disease%20georgia%20QIO&f=false


I think she is more than a regular editor, but, I don’t know how to write that and not make it sound promotional.

She is also a guideline reviewer for the AHRQ here in the US. But If I say that, it sounds promotional. In Indonesia the government translated her text book and it is their National Guideline used across the country. That is why she was invited to lecture there last year. The Japanese have translated her book as well, but I can't read what they are doing with it.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

She was the Editorial Director for Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Medscape/WebMD, and the Pulmonary Medicine Editor of the peer review journal MedGenMed.

Medscape/WebMd is the largest provider of Medical Education today, whether people like it or not.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g. writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

She has 4 books, one text book that she is the sole author of and has been translated into several languages. Please see the Indonesian link above. It is by one of the leading textbook publishers in the country. In addition, multiple peer review articles, posters, etc. Then there is the Shakespeare stuff. That would qualify her by itself. Over 40 peer reviewed articles that she has written, and some 70 books that cite and discuss them as well as 3 pages of graduate level theseis that cite her work. Here is an example.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cS2WPLOyB9QC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=margaret+varnell+shakespeare+&ots=rYqFd3fwHn&sig=AqwRiYaodgp0_c576SNC5jwu43Q#v=onepage&q=varnell%20&f=false

She is referenced and quoted twice in the Introduction of the Oxford Shakespeare. There aren't a lot of English professors that can say that, much less a nurse.

Anyway, is there some way this could or should be written better? I welcome any comments.

Thanks for your time. DMRRT (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already read your statement at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Varnell Clark, and again at your talk page; there was no point in repeating it here. I gave my opinion at the AfD. I'll just add that nobody becomes a notable literature scholar by publishing articles: the consensus in the academic world is that it takes books from scholarly publishers. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you. I guess what I can't understand is if that is the criteria. She has that, it is published by Jones and Bartlett http://www.jblearning.com/catalog/9780763778545/ and now in 4 languages. And then she has all the other articles, citations, awards, and other books, etc. DMRRT (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1 book is not usually notability. Not being an authority in one subject field plus not being an authority in another does not add up to being an authority. More generally, the true Wikipedia guidelines are not just the written text of the guidelines, but rather the way the text is interpreted. There's no real way of knowing that without experience, but some idea can be gained by looking at the articles on academic and writers we have accepted, bearing in mind the problem that many inadequate articles were unwisely accepted in past years, when standards were more erratic, and there are still thousands of them in the encycopedia that need to be identified and deleted. There's nothing wrong with not knowing all this at first, which is one of the reasons why you should never get too attached to any one particular article. Many people whose first article is deleted stop there and never come back, which is unfortunate, because one shouldn't let one single experience discourage you.
In addition to our standards for articles, the other thing you will learn from experience is our customs for argumentation. It's not wise to push here as hard as you have been pushing. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]



People don't come back because they are attacked. Look at the very first interaction with me, I had made no comment or spoken to them in any way and they threatened to block me. Then look at this MO3 person. Not sure who that is. But he made a comment adn immediately someone labeled him and questioned his credibility. Is that Wikipedia's policy? And now they have deleted everything to cover their tracks. Also, someone said we would have about a week to sort through this, This started on Tuesday, and it is early Friday morning and it is deleted.DMRRT (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This accusation may not stand. You are required to assume good faith, yet you make false and foolish accusations about people covering their tracks. This is not only wholly inappropriate, this is entirely inaccurate. There are very few and very special cases on Wikipedia where complete deletion to an unrecoverable state is sanctioned. This was not one of those. A complete record is kept of every edit by every editor in every article. That is even retained in deleted articles.
If it is your desire to see an article on Clark you would be better served to research fully our criteria for notability and verification, and to prove that she is notable before drafting in your sandbox, not as a main namespace article, a draft where that notability is both asserted and verified.
No-one attacked you. Read the material with care. No-one attacked you. You have simply failed to understand, or been unwilling to understand, the greater part of everything that was said to you in order to assist you to improve the article, assuming it had been possible to improve it.
As for the week, that is usual. But look at the rationale for early closure. If you invited folk to come and join in to support you, then you are, in part, to blame. However, if you feel the closure was improper you may first ask the closing admin to review their closure. If that does not meet your needs you may put in a request at WP:DRV to have that closure examined. Read that page carefully. It is an appeal about the closure, not a rerun of the deletion discussion.
This advice is given to you against my better judgement. I ought to be ignoring you as I said on your talk page that I would be. I simply found this on DGG's talk page where they and I converse for time to time because DGG, though we often disagree, is an editor whose opinion I respect. This time actually take the advice you are given. Fiddle Faddle 12:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Varnell Clark is, pretty much, "out of control", except that, of course, it is not. There is an inevitability about the verdict at closure time. But the general behaviours exhibited by many in it, the experienced editors I mean, are not always wholesome. I can forgive the raft or socks, meats and invited vote stackers. They don't; understand how to behave here. It's the ones who know how to behave but do not, those I find, well, not upsetting, but regrettable

This happens with a different cast of thousands every time we get a poor article with a claque behind it. The claque does what it does, and hair trigger idiots on 'our side' (not my side, please not!) snipe at them, and it all goes to hell in a handbasket.

So, what is my wonder?

How we, assuming we are part of the sane folk, can influence the others (not the claque) to behave well without being overbearing and patronising ourselves. I know why I am not an admin! I'm tempted to block them all! Fiddle Faddle 22:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being tempted to block them all would not disqualify you as admin; I have been tempted many times to take similar actions. Only that you might actually do it would disqualify you. I have once closed a similar afd early with a technical non-consenus in order to have it restarted. This attracted some unfavorable notice along the lines of excessive boldness, but the decision stood. I forget what eventually happened to the article.
You gave some very appropriate advice to the principal difficult experienced editor, and I followed by a much shorter one. They immediately afterwards said they were stepping back from the discussion. Knowing how to give such messages can deal with many such cases, possibly most of them. It's more difficult when a ideological commitment is involved, which fortunately does not seem to have been the case here. It is visible in some other recent afds, but is part of the well-known weakness of WP consensus-making, that it is helpless in the face of pressure groups where none of the opponents feel an equal commitment. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our difficult experienced editor is, I think, ready to learn. I shall offer them hep from time to time if I think they are in trouble. Regarding adminship, I am sure I will never even apply. This discussion is, in part, why. I relish the greater perceived freedom to act without the extra responsibility, but I try to act as though I have it anyway. Fiddle Faddle 12:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs[edit]

Hello DGG. I would like to ask you to reconsider your deletion nominations of Growing Up Straight (1982 book) and Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity. In both cases I believe I have provided sources that establish notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good work; I can't withdraw, because others have also said delete. But I think the best course might be to merge. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...[edit]

Just wanted you to know that the lesson did not go to waste. yes --Atsme☎️📧 04:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Hi. Question, as I know you deal with issues parallel to this. When it comes to cats, if there is a disagreement among sources as to whether to put something in cat X or cat Y, in your view are we to be inclusive, and reflect both in their respective cats? Or do we weigh which we think is more supported (by government statement and/or RSs)? I have in mind the current discussions here and here. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is no rule corresponding to notability involved here. The question is the dispute whether or not the attack was a terrorist attack,and the difficulty is that there are good sources saying yes, and also good sources saying no. If it were a blp there would be no question--with such a conflict of authorities it would not be included. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Google Play Movies & TV[edit]

Were you aware of the previous RM when you renamed the article? --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my error--it just seemed plausible. I moved too fast. I've moved it back., It should of course wait until someone closed the RM, & I do not wish to do that. Thanks for corrected my carelessness. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Monticelli[edit]

Thanks for the others. Monticelli was a slightly different case. He was deleted because the deleting admin looked at my user page and clicked right rather than down, making it a completely random picking off of articles. There was a clear claim to notability there too in being one of the key negotiators in the Greek debt crisis. There's this. It was very brief, I admit, as I rather thought he was going to get a lot of press coverage and would quickly be expanded by others. Could you add that one? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add it separately, as the argument is a little different. The way to deal with situations of this sort is to go slowly and carefully, one step at a time. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You've got email too. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hall (molecular biologist)[edit]

Although the Alan Hall (molecular biologist) article has over 20 sources, none of them are formatted as inline citations. I am not going to do copyediting at this time, and I am not going to replace the no references tag. If you could format some sources as inline citations at the proper spots, that would be helpful.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are formatted as inline citations. They use manual reference numbers rather than our usual ref tags, a perfectly acceptable style of referencing, though a little harder to maintain. The meaning of "inline" references is that references are associated with specific statements in the article, and the manually added nubers do this perfectly well. The guideline at WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITECONSENSUS is not to change consistently used formatting from one style to another. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam DeVine[edit]

Please watch this article. It has been the frequent object of hoaxes and misinformation. Bearian (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, I wouldn't be able to tell what's a hoax in this field, let alone misinformation. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke de Lench[edit]

Hi DGG, I just noticed your suggestion about the article "Brooke de Lench" after finding it in the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfD_debates_%28Biographical%29 . I agree with you that the style and tone are clearly inappropriate. I am sure the original creator has written this article by confusing Wikipedia with social media. I am interested in improving it substantially ("from scratch" as you said) if this can help. Let me know what you think. Thank. Valenciatist (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there, I think the best course is to delete it and start over. anyone can do that rewriting, once the community decides to delete it. (I'm not planning to do it myself) If , as an alternative, the community decides to keep it and improve it, you can do that also. (If nobody does, I will do some of that myself) As you are new here, I'm not sure you realize there is no way of assigning the writing to any particular person--everyone interested simply joins in. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Alamo[edit]

Heya, for whatever reason I found myself looking at Tony Alamo, and I'm puzzled -- why did the article that used to be there get completely eliminated? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Tony_Alamo; shouldn't it have been moved rather than zapped? --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my error. It needs to be moved with a qualifier, as there are some others by that name. What do you suggest? DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Alamo (evangelist) is currently just a redirect to Alamo Christian Foundation; it should contain the old contents of Tony Alamo. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"""Since You can seethe article., what do you think we should use as the qualifier ? Minister? (sincet here are others of the name) DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Evangelist" probably suffices, no? --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guthy-Renker[edit]

You tagged it as "reads like a news release". The page has been GA rated by @Edge3: (one of our more exceptional GA reviewers) and is one of the better company pages on Wikipedia by far. Whatever faults you may find in the writing style, if such a high standard were set for tagging articles, certainly almost all of our pages would have more tags than actual article-text ;-)

In any case, I thought maybe you could tell me which areas you feel read like a news release, so it can be fixed rather than tagged? CorporateM (Talk) 23:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1)try changing some of the repeats of the firm name to "the firm" or "they". Obvious when it is buying another company etc the name will sometimes be need to avoid ambiguity, but even here it's usually possible to reword.
(2)I regard including product endorsements as advertising.
(3) The caption on the figure does not describe the figure., It just shows some of the versions of one product line, and should simply say so. That htis is half their sales belongs in the text only, not repeated in the caption. (It is btw avery poor picture for the purpose, because unless enlarged the product name is unreadable--all it really shows a a thumbnail is 4 long tubes of something--at that size it's not even clear it's a cosmetic.)
(4)"products like" is vague. The list of those chosen needs some criterion. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the product image, I have replaced the caption with an appropriate description (I think someone else added that). Regarding calling the company by name, I find it very odd that referring to the subject of the article by name would be considered "reads like a news release". Taking a look at a couple FA-rated company pages at random, both Panavision and BAE Systems mention the article-subject by name more than 100 times. Other words like "it" and "the company" are already used throughout. It is good editorial practice to use a mix of terms. Regarding celebrity endorsements, this is a marketing company best known for using celebrity endorsements. It is not promotional to write how a marketing firm does marketing, especially when it is their primary claim to notability. CorporateM (Talk) 07:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Please check your email. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 04:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs[edit]

Would you care to comment at any of the following? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab-West Foundation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chittagong Madar Bari, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecorates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Superstore Festival of Lights. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

done as needed. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Lise Williamson[edit]

Would you mind taking a look? An editor has expressed a referencing concern on the talk page there. The lady feels notable, but your expertise is far better than mine in this field. Fiddle Faddle 09:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your impression was correct. I checked and commented, thanks. I may not have the chance to do the necessary rewriting, but I left enough comments to guide whoever does iit. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:45, 21 May 2015 review of submission by TriJenn[edit]


TriJenn (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David,

I have added citations to "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - Inc, Forbes, Success, Huffington Post, Chicago Tribune. I have also added the multiple languages that his books have been translated into.

Can you please release the block on this person?

I have resubmitted for review. However, as I understand it, you will still be the final reviewer.

Thanks so much for your assistance and consideration.

TriJenn TriJenn (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

working on it,. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted a modified version as Randy Gage. Please don't add back uncited or promotional material. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for all of your assistance and guidance! TriJenn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robbins, Geller[edit]

Are you open to this? [2]. Frankly, after looking at them, some of those judgements are pretty amazing. An article exists on at least one of the cases and I'm considering taking a weed-whacker to this one, then spinning off articles about 2 of the other bigger cases. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36, I withdrew the AFD. I was wondering about it the same as you. This is why I do not delete singlehanded and why I refer cases where someone else has nominated for speedy but I have some residual doubts to AfD, as I did here. ``

Paradiso LMS[edit]

Hi DGG. I am pretty sure that the subject article was speedy deleted in the course of dealing with this COIN case about paid editing and I can find no AfD (e.g. there is nothing here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paradiso_LMS. The current article was just created today. How can I tell if an article with the same title was speedied? (also I take it G4 is not available but (if I am right and it was speedied before) G11 would be... ) right? Thanks. 20:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find it under the full title. But it was speedy deleted under the same title as now at 21:28 on March 15 by FreeRangeFrog, and you can see that on his deletion log. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a few minutes ago listed by another editor under A7, & I have deleted it accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, the answer is "search the deletion log" and yep there it is. Thanks! that was a dumb question - i just should have thought for a bit longer) Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax-mongering on Eucleian Society[edit]

Eucleian Society was a literary society that existed at NYU in the olden days -- it ceased to exist by 1943. The article has been a magnet for hoax-mongering and for spurious unreliable claims that a "secret society" by that name still exists and/or that "members" have recently pulled this or that prank or flown their flag (as supposedly evidenced by meaningless or sometimes doctored photos). I tried to give the article somewhat of a cleanup six weeks ago, but now there's a new hoax-mongerer editor here messing things up again and posting meaningless non-verifying bogus citations, adding unnecessary verbiage, and edit-warring. Could you and your good talk-page watchers please put this article on your Watch lists, revert that editor (and block him if need be), and so on? I don't want to do this alone. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC) Hi, why did you delete the Karin Horen page? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaggityswag08 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About: your eloquent summary of what does and does not improves this project[edit]

Questions re: notability and publisher[edit]

Thanks again for your help on Randy Gage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Gage. I have two questions:

1. Removing the "viewpoints" section removed much of his third party notable articles - Entrepreneur, Forbes, Success Magazine, and Chicago Tribune. Will it be okay without specific references to those? 2. Prime Concepts group is also a third party publisher. Randy Gage does not have ownership in that company, nor has he ever had (according to him). Is there another title to these sections that might be better?

Thanks! TriJenn (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the articles, Put them in as a section of publications.
Prime Concepts Group is not a publisher at all. It's a Marketing Service. The publications are not books, but pamphlets under 100 pages in length. I changed the headings accordingly. The only two books in the usual sense are the ones by Wiley.
Who has published the translations? DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me an example of putting the articles in as a section of publications? What would the title of that section be? And, I can't access the text that was there before. Is there any way to access that?
I have the publisher information. Would it be good to add them? TriJenn (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kee Song Brothers Poultry[edit]

Please examine this draft and my comment on it re the deletion of a prior article. Fiddle Faddle 18:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, same problems--primarily notability. And in almost all such cases the external website came first. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13. 

*Draft:D. B. Keele, Jr.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want to delete Sustainable Enterprise Excellence, why?[edit]

Hi.

You write yesterday that you have deleted the article because of "pure jargon". That's it. Can you explain to me what this means? And what I have done wrong apparently?

Also, you have deleted "honors" under Rick L. Edgeman because of "unreliable sources". Why is that? I have a link to Who's Who website profile with most of the content, and also a link to an article from ASQ (American Sosiety for Quality) mentioning the last honor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glubskeegern (talk • contribs) 05:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Review by, and input from experienced editors is kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urger everyone to read the discussion & to look at the article before it gets deleted. Once more WP shows itdelf more responsible than well-reputed professional news sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up for deletion St Francis Court[edit]

Following the tag on this article I feel I have justified my reasoning. Pleas visit the talk page. thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:St_Francis_Court Wrightie99 (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas P. McKenna article[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from [[{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! He is not notable for the book, but he is notable under WP:soldier criteria "5. Played an important role in a significant military event". I've added the appropriate project tags to the article's talk page so his bio gets fleshed out. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs[edit]

Thanks for taking care of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samieh Rizk. I considered doing something similar myself. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klaus Solberg Søilen and comment on the importance of the journal? It's more paid editing and while I'm 99 % sure PROF isn't met, the editor is seemingly convinced otherwise. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

working on it--it's a little tricky. DGG ( talk ) 01
28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Katerina Pospisilova[edit]

You deleted Katerina Pospisilova under CSD A7 "No credible claim of significance or importance. Did you not consider that saying that the subject was "first runner-up of Miss Czech Republic 2006" was a credible clam of significance? I understand that the article creator had improperly removed the A7 speedy tag several times. However, shortly before deletion, I again removed it, citing the runner-up claim in both the edit summery and on the talk page.

I understand that there was another version of this article with diacritics in the title. Obviously we should not have both, and if the redundant creation was an attempt to escape scrutiny it was wrong. If this is to be undeleted, any useful content from either version should be used in one page.

I don't know that this person is notable. But I do know that worse starts have led to reasonable articles about notable subjects. I ask that you reconsider this deletion. Thank you. DES (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, I;ve restored it. I trust your judgment in this area, and I leave it to you whether to work on it in mainspace or move it to draft space. In fact, since you have the necessary button, if you think I've made a mistake in a deletion, please feel free to undelete, and then just let me know. If in such a case I still think I'm right, I'll use afd. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Actually when I first noticed this, i didn't have the button, I was inactive for a year, and just had my admin bit restored today. I think I'll move it to draft, as it clearly isn't a valid article as it stands. Again, thanks. DES (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Vivint[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vivint. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing systems[edit]

Hi David. I created Category:Referencing systems and rearranged or redirected some articles to fit the category. But it strikes me a category like this must already exist, and I thought you would be the best person to ask. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

working on it. See,for example the standard system for the Talmud and system for Chapters and verses of the Bible. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It's actually quite a large subject. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not forgetting Surah Peter Damian (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see that anyone has ever written a general WP article on this. I'm not immediately aware of any general discussions in the librarianship literature, but there are many further places to check--I think I recall there are discussions of its use in particular subjects in books on how to do research in history, etc. , DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_100_May_2015&oldid=1151040746"