User talk:DGG/Archive 105 Oct. 2015

ARCHIVES

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

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

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

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

Nova Science Publishers[edit]

Dear DGG

since you are, it seems, an experienced Wikipedia editor perhaps you could look into this Nova article. It suggest that it is the real object of an editorial war, raging now since many years. You know, in Spain, many people publish with Nova, and recently I came across a pretty serious series of articles and also an interactive website at Granada University, which puts an entirely new light on this it seems contested issue. Whatever the merits of the critique - which may or may not exist - it is important to emphasize that in the name of Wikipedia neutrality and reliance on credible sources, the content of articles ranking Nova in the context of other publishers cannot be overlooked. The articles by Nicolas Robinson Garcia, who relies solely on the results of the Thomson-Reuters Book Citation Index, are easily available and were mentioned by me in the rewriting of the main article on academic publishing. Since the Granada team publishes in leading scientometric journals, the issue is pretty serious, since the Wiki article suggests that Nova is a bottom quality publisher, while the Granada results, based on the Thomson-Reuters Index, suggest that they are among the top 20 global publishers. Also the Geranada interactive website with the Thomson Reuters data, mentioned in the academic publishing article, is a major innovation. Since Wikipedia is at the forefront of neutrality, and quality, please see to it that neutrality is being kept. Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top in what sense? Analyzing the article you rely on, she showed that Nova was the 4th largest in terms of books published, but 5th in terms of book chapters published; for some reason she combined the two into a figure for books+book chapters, which makes no sense to me, and the result is 5th. In terms of raw numbers of citation to the items, she counted 14th out of 20th for the books, 2nd for the chapters, and 10th for the irrational (books+chapters). The much more important figure is citations/item, and Nova is lowest of the 20 for books, next to lowest for chapters, and 16th for the combination. The standard deviation is in all cases low, showing that few books deviate much from the average. She then finds the only field where Nova is significant even in numbers of books is the social sciences. Citation figures do not necessarily show importance for books as a whole from a publisher any more than do they for journals, but they are a rough guide. The detailed figures for citations/book for individual fields are not in this paper; they are likely to e important because the social sciences on the average have a lower citation density than the sciences. Taking this into account in the interpretation, the paper shows what I have always personally thought, that Nova is a low quality book publisher in the sciences, and a medium-to-low quality publisher in the social sciences. My colleagues who look only at the sciences conclude it's low quality overall, while I would say it is a little better than that in the sciences sciences, but not above medium. If you know of any studies to the contrary, I would like to hear of them.

Overall, the WP article is correct in its evaluation. The number of items, which is the figure you are using, is not a useful indicator, but merely the first step in deriving useful indicators. I will copy a version of this to the discussion page.

There's a more important general point: Anyone who uses WP as the definitive view on anything is mis-using it. I would definitely say that relatively little in WP is at the "forefront of neutrality and quality. All that we even hope for is to make it a reasonably reliable initial summary. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think DGG has come with a more balanced and sensible approach to this passionately debated matter than many other contributions on this talk page. Taking the latest Granada study - available on Researchgate in a pre-publication version, Nicolas Robinson Garcia lists hundreds of Thomson Reuters Book Citation data, and also the average citation rates a book publisher achieves. I quote his contribution in my proposal. If you put his data in an afternoon's work into an EXCEL table and rank the publishers - or at least the 150 most prolific ones - via the EXCEL programme, it comes out that

(details copied to Sept. archive p. )

Nova's average citation rate (the indicator best resembling the Impact Factor of scholarly journals) is 0.25; it exactly shares this with Wiley-Blackwell; Chandos; Utah State University Press; InTech. A very famous publisher, like Palgrave Macmillan, achieves 0,29; while Nova's average citation rate is ahead of publishers like University of Chicago Press, Fordham University Press, et cetera. Your contribution, dear DGG, could lead to a more balanced debate here on the pages of Wikipedia talk. Thank you Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to make a valid comparison of the citation rate of books and of journal articles. Looking at the data you give for anomalies, examining the BCI master publications list, I see that only 6 books are listed from Anderson, and they are in fact published not by them, but by a division of Elsevier (Anderson was a regional US law book publisher Elsevier took over in 2002). I also see only 17 from University of Chicago Press. I doubt any useful numbera can be obtained from BCI, unless used within very careful limitations. Neither of my usual libraries (Princeton & NYPL) carry Book Citation Index, but I will find one that does; I am rather curious how it works & what counts as a citation. In the meantime, can you send me send me a link to the report you mention & a link to anything she's published with field-specific data. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JumpLike23's stuff[edit]

David, you have made at least three pretty terrible deletion nominations of JumpLike23's stuff. You need to knock it off, you are right on the borderline of actionable harassment here. Not that AN/I would actually take action against a sitting Arb, in all likelihood — your compass is broken with this user, however, and I am letting you know this in no uncertain terms. Back off. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your judgement, so I rechecked one of them: See my comment today at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Johnson (activist) for an explanation of why I consider some of these articles less than appropriate. I recognize the good faith in making them, and the importance of covering this area, but making articles on the basis of who merely ought to be considered notable is not encyclopedic. The Congressional Record is not a RS for notability. I will look at the others and see if I want to re-evaluate them. DGG ( talk ) 13:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem speedying from User:Josu4u[edit]

Just noticed your "Please stop nominating articles for deletion until you have read and understood WP:Deletion policy, and WP:CSD. If you continue along this line, I can and will block you to prevent further disruption." message on User talk:Josu4u a month ago. From the remainder of their talk page (and having just added a removal notice myself), they are continuing to post erroneous speedy deletion templates. --McGeddon (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will get there today or tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of what he is doing now is OK. He's trying to clean up a difficult field that certainly needs cleanup. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Being Promotional[edit]

Hi, DGG. I left you a couple of messages where you had responded to my post on WalletHub. As I said before, I'm not affiliated with the company and am not being promotional. It's not very inviting to new users to make such accusations and then go dark!Surfjk (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response in progress on your talkpage. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I think it really helped. Just wanted to let you know that I made significant edits to the post to clear up notability and tone. Wasn't sure if you would get a notification when the edits were saved, if I didn't click "Resubmit". Was a bit confused about the process.Surfjk (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have rejected my page[edit]

It is a page about something new and still I am able to produce a link to pdf that represents the soft cover of a Austrian chamber of commerce publication. There is also another hard cover document out by a Educational institution but there are no links online. Neither the chamber of commerce nor the educational institution are the once producing this tool so they are external. I can not produce any other reference at them moment.

It it a page about a new approach to software os it is relevant and it new.

Please revisit you decision Javaflug (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers of commerce have the purpose of promoting exports, not writing objectively about them. They are not reliable source that show notability. If Draft:IXP online service, visual programming were added to mainspace at this point it would most likely be deleted altogether. When you can find better references, then try again. On your user page, you say "'I am learning something new again, I like to share with others, I like to constructively bring worlds to life." The purpose of a WP is to bring notable new things to light, but not until they have been recognized as notable by outside sources. Spreading the word about something not yet notable is the purpose of advertising and blogs, not of an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber of commerce is a third party though and if the company or the tool does not deliver what is stated it will fall back onto the chamber of commerce in the long run.

This visual programming, the work/tool/service, does really bring some meaningful innovation to the "table". The subject is so controversial in a way which has made it impossible. There is offline third party work, but how does one get this work to you for review? It is a book.

How many of those outside sources will do you need before you take this tool to be noteworthy and in what form do they have to be. I understand that you are trying to apply the rules everywhere please do not make it extra hard though. Javaflug (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think[edit]

I think that you wanted noinclude tags on your /Archiveheader, so I have added them. This should remove the "don't post here, on User talk:DGG" line from this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it sems to have removed it from the archive pages it should be on also. The easiest solution might be a custom archive header for this main page. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Magazine Awards[edit]

Another case where a mere nomination for the award is included in some secondary sources, but in this case the sources that include it are the weaker and more promotional ones. The award has its own Wikipedia page and I am told it is one of those few exceptions where a mere nomination is considered significant. The relevant article on Janice Min is currently flooded with awards, but it appears as though 1-2 of them actually warrant inclusion. I thought you may have some subject-matter expertise once more on whether a mere nomination is really significant for this particular award. Pinging @Smartse: in case he's interested, as he did some work cleaning up after the prior, covert paid editor. David King, Ethical Wiki (COI) (Talk) 17:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Reporter is certainly very notable, its editor in chief would be notable, and that seems to be in effect her position. There's a difference between awards that are worth mentioning, and the much more restrictive category of awards that prove notability; and, FWIW, I do not think a nomination for this award shows notability , and I am not sure that a mere nomination is usually worth mentioning--even if a nomination is considered very highly in the profession, it is not that well known to the general public. . The more important the person, the less need to specify anything but the most famous awards--they just distract from clearly showing the notability.

That someone in her position would think it necessary to use a paid editor is the real problem--I can think of a number of WPedians who would have written an article without payment if she had asked for one. Perhaps the problem is that people used to paying writers for material, find it easier to pay than to understand our volunteerism. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the inherited notability argument above, or that notability can be measured by job title or award. Her notability can be established using the traditional method of evaluating sources, which in my view is the only basis from which notability should be measured. However, I don't question her notability, only whether her publication being nominated for this particular award is significant enough to warrant inclusion in her profile. I wasn't sure what you meant to say in this regard. Is the National Magazine Award known to the public? David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 02:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is the correct way to look at inherited notability is that the fact that a person is notable, doesn't mean that everything they do is notable; even a notable person does many less important things. But the way a person becomes notable is by doing important things, so that someone who has done sufficiently important things is notable. The nearest formally recognized analogy here is WP:PROF, where being editor in chief of a major journal is fully sufficient proof of notability. I would extend that to all media. The National Magazine Award certainly wasn't known to me before I looked at this. Based on the information in our article, i would say winning one should certainly be included. For finalist, it needs the recognition of the Nobel or the Booker or the Academy Award. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Undeletion: Grovo[edit]

Hi David,

You deleted Grovo's wikipedia page on 10/2/15 under "Request for Speedy Deletion" for being promotional. I do not think the content contained within the Wikipedia article warranted a "speedy deletion" and am not sure why this wasn't addressed in a "nomination" process instead. Would have gladly edited this to be more neutral and include more sources. The majority of the content was written by third parties unrelated to the company and seemed to be in an objective tone.

The company is a notable VC-backed startup with clients such as Capital One, Major League Baseball, and Pitney Bowes. Publications such as Bloomberg, CNN Money, PC Magazine, TechCrunch, Entrepreneur Magazine, Inc Magazine, CIO Magazine, CLO Magazine, and many more have recognized the company in print.

Can you please grant my request for undeletion so I can recover the deleted information and work on fixing any aspects that are deemed promotional? Thank you kindly for your consideration.

Best, Goodwork84 (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Goodwork84[reply]

preliminary question: Do you have a conflict of interest of any sort with this or any of the subjects you are writing about? If so, is it a financial conflict of interest as defined in our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure ? YYou say "the majhority of the contents was written by parties unrelated to the company" which translates as "some of the content was written by parties related to the company?. Which group are you in? If you do, you are limited to using Articles for creation and article talk pages, not mainspace.

in any case, I am only one of the three separate admins who have deleted various versions of this article.

I will not re-create it--the information is primarily derived notability from people who have invested in it. That's just industry PR. The rest is mostly notices of talks given by the founder, or trivial awards. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a friend of one of the founders and passionate about the social good/social enterprise space. I am not an investor. They asked me if I could help since I have a little knowledge about wikipedia, and helped them correct a few inaccuracies earlier this year. Seems that they had someone with zero Wikipedia experience add some content to the page recently, which I'm sure is why you flagged it. If you can undelete it, I can recreate it with a neutral, fact-based approach based off quoted media sources. Or at the very least, if you can provide me with a copy of the undeleted text, that would be helpful. Goodwork84 (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clarification: that gives you a conflict of interest, but not a paid conflict of interest. you may write in mainspace if you choose, but it would be much better and safer for you to write in Draft space. If nothing else, it will not help the enterprise to have an article on it brought up for discussion and a prominent public discussion rule that it isn't notable. It is so much better to wait until it unquestionably is. I've emailed you a copy of the text, and the wikicode. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much appreciated! Would you mind re-emailing it to me? I had a dormant email account linked to my wikipedia account and didn't realize it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Happy to write in draft space, that's a good suggestion! Goodwork84 (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again... Just seeing if you wouldn't mind re-emailing the copy of the text and wikicode, per my last note. Thanks so much! 38.140.37.218 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, Would you mind re-emailing me the copy of the text and wikicode? Thanks in advance! Goodwork84 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind! Just saw it. Thank you so much! Goodwork84 (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undo delete/Viswant[edit]

DGG Request you to undo the deletion of article of Viswant, As i agree he has done one movie and if you do a web search on the Article Name Kerintha Then you can see that Dil Raju is the producer of the movie and we can relate the article. and regarding web links on the search you can find many links on the web. please consider the request and do the needful. Priya.wom (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priya.wom: It has not yet been deleted. The place to make your case is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viswant. Other people will comment also, and the decision will be made according to consensus. What we need for an article is not "links on the web" but references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. As advice, it would seem there is no plausible notability except from his new film. It is not clear to me whether or not the film has been released. If it has, you should first try to make an article on it. It does not help to remove the afd tag from the article , as you have done; as you see, it was immediately restored. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: I think user Priya.wom has proposed significant link, did you check the article though? have a look at article as there is reliable source for the article based on subject as well as the movie. i dont think it should be flagged for deletion.!! Itsmeesathya (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Waterflame[edit]

Yesterday I started an article on Waterflame, an electronic music/video game composer. While I did not start the article with much info and no references, I placed a note in the talk page that I would get to editing the article more. I don't believe it warranted a deletion, and if you look Waterflame up, you'll see that he's significant because he makes the soundtracks for many video games, among which are Castle Crashers, Oh My Goat, Geometry Dash (a huge success), and others. I don't know if there are any credible references I could find about him, but I did not have a chance to search given the time frame between creation and deletion. Overall, I think it would have been a better decision to mark it as a stub. If you still have the previous content and could restore it, that would be excellent. User:matmatpenguin |leave an orangered 14:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if you cannot find credible references, by which we mean references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements , then there is no possibility of an article in the English WP. If you can find them, try again. When you do, it might be better if you used the WP:Article Wizard. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!)[edit]

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim

You are invited to join us for a full afternoon and evening of social Wikipedia editing at the Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles covering the lives and works of women in architecture.

Saturday October 15 Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com).

noon - 8pm (drop-in anytime!) at Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Garrett Lobby @ 1071 5th Ave by E 88 St

In conjunction with Archtober and New York Archives Week, the Guggenheim will host its third Wikipedia edit-a-thon—or, #guggathon— to enhance articles related to women in architecture on Wikipedia. The Guggenheim aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that, by its nature combines both.

The Guggenheim will work alongside ArchiteXX, the founders of WikiD: Women Wikipedia Design #wikiD, the international education and advocacy program working to increase the number of Wikipedia articles on women in architecture and the built environment. New and experienced editors are welcome.

Can’t join us in New York? Visit our global partnerships page to discover an edit-a-thon in a city near you or simply join remotely.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carol Goodden[edit]

Hi! Thanks for the heads up. I'm OK with merging the content: it was difficult to find sources about her outside of FOOD.I think the most important thing is to keep the information that FOOD was as successful as it was long as it was because of her financial and personal efforts.... do you think the FOOD article will get too long if we merge the content? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It won't get too long if you say it concisely. Since the claim rests on the 3 sources, #23, 24, & 25, plus interviews with her, all of them OK, but not of the highest reliability , (we've never been that happy relying on a MA thesis, & the journal is not well known academically, tho it has been used in several in a variety of articles) the best thing to do is to be brief. I do recognize the difficulties in writing about this sort of contemporary art, and I am prepared to defend the sources if necessary. The edit history will remain behind the redirect if anyone wants to go further with it if she becomes notable otherwise as well. If you were a new editor, rather than one of our most reliable editors in this field, I'd worry about coi, which is the first thing I think of when seeing an articles about a person and their organization with duplicative content. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thanks for the compliment: it's good to be reliable as a editor. ;) What happened was I that picked her name out of a list on WikiProject Women artists and as I started researching her, I learned about FOOD which made me want to write about the place, too, since it was such a cool avant-garde idea. I think I can see where to put things as a merger, but my brain's a little fried and so I'll have to merge tomorrow. I'm only capable of writing lists right now. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, can we hold off on any action? I have a friend who has access to some databases I don't have access to. Let's see what we turn up. Maybe also, now that I think about it (and am much less exhausted--yesterday I was seriously fried. Try setting up several 3D printers and their software on Linux through the terminal for a makerspace that's opening in a few days, it's a killer!) I could rewrite some of the article for Goodden so it's less duplicative. I'd been an editor for awhile, but making an article was new to me at the time, so I might be able to fix that, too. BTW, doesn't she pass a GNG? Thanks for your time and attention. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No deadline. Basic principle from WP:N--passing the GNG does not guarantee an article if it is more appropriate as a section in another article. And there of many other factors for whether an articles should be made: for example, avoiding the appearance of promotionalism or over-emphasis or just plain COI. The way to avoid these for someone notable for a single accomplishment/book/organization is whether to make the article on the accomplishment/book/organization or the person. (I usually see it for books and authors). If an author has written several notable but not famous books, I usually suggest that author, with sections for the books, which can be expanded if they're highly notable. If an author has one, I usuAlly recommend doing it on the person also, because if one books is successful, they are likely to write others. But if the book is much better known, which a first book may well be, then the book. This is a case where the restaurant is the better known. If you wrote one on the author also, it would duplicate much of the material, because you'd have to explain something about the restaurant. Such duplication looks like promotionalism, & can attract negative attention. If one just linked that part, the article would seem too scanty even if technically justifiable, and thus attract unfavorable attention.

Since there are many people here who can make a negative case against anything, and some who have a prejudice against any particular class of article or subject field, the best thing is to not attract them. I deprecate the GNG altogether--for any disputed article I can argue either way whether any reference is substantially about the subject, whether it is truly independent, whether it is based on PR, whether it is in essence a true 3rd party source. I choose which way to argue based on the result I think will help the encyclopedia (by which I of course mean my vision of what will help the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have a look[edit]

...when you have time, at Draft:Cambridge Corporate University? It started life as blatant puffery copied from its website. The author has rewritten it more neutrally, but I moved it to Draft because it lacks any independent references, and he has a clear COI. The website full of happy smiling students makes me suspicious, and 210 students seems a small number for a "university". Accreditation is claimed from the "international ACC accreditation commission" and "Swiss Quality Education Institute" - do we know anything about them? Is the SQEI the same as this? I don't know enough about how to tell genuine institutions from the other sort. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland had become full of colleges like this, and some considerably worse. A few are respectable. Almost all are genuine. DGG ( talk ) 13:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was a rather Delphic response, but I have formed my own view of a university whose website can't spell "Publication" and is partly populated with Lorem ipsum. What I really wanted to know was how to assess claims of being accredited. On being asked for reliable sources about CCU's accreditation, the article author has gone quiet, but their motto is "Persistence, Quality & Innovation" and I suspect he will be back. Do we have lists of genuine and fake accreditation agencies? JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incels[edit]

Hi, there has been a recent attempt to restore the article in a vastly inferior form to what I was trying to restore, I was wondering if you could please userfy Involuntary celibacy + the talk page into my space. It would be shocking to see this version allowed and not what I was trying to restore. I've left a message here on Juliancolton talk page. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now at User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy; talk p. at User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll know it's me[edit]

Notability requirements for startups[edit]

At COIN you said

Suggested guidelines on startups: -- material limited to information about motivation for starting an organization & funding prior to the first public offering is not reliable for probing notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would Housing.com fare when held to this standard? And do you think people who consistently !vote against deletion (I'm thinking of C----d here) would buy into such a guideline? Do you see a successful path to consensus around a new notability requirement, and if so how do we start? – Brianhe (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in addition to all the material that does not show notability, that article contains some that talks about their actual products and does. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiConference[edit]

Nice to meet you --Fjmustak (talk)

WikiCon USA Notability section[edit]

Nice meeting you and discussing this topic. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hollie Steel[edit]

I think in the confusion caused when a chunk of your talk page was hacked out accidentally by someone, you might have forgotten about closing the merge discussion! --Dweller (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for your Advice[edit]

User:DGG, if I should take Content dispute to WP:Dispute resolution, will I be able to count on you to give me your profession advice with regard to edits on this page?Davidbena (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can not reasonably assist you while the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arb com case is in progress. Perhaps the decision there may clarify some of the questions. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sobha Ltd[edit]

Dear (DGG talk), Entire page article is been rewritten completely neutral tone.

Please let me know for any changes.

And also need your input on organization wiki pages providing their socail links under external linkks. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists.

Is it good to remove the warning tag now?

Need your input & guidence

Thanks & Regards, --Deepak HM 08:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Deepak — Preceding unsigned comment added by --Deepak HM 08:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Deepakhmwiki (talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this appears to be an undisclosed paid editor. I have asked him on his talkpage to clarify his status before making further edits. – Brianhe (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes an article more than a stub?[edit]

Hey DGG, I've been doing paid work on the stub for Peter Hancock (CEO). When I started, it was a scant two sentences, but I've since expanded it. I'm curious if it's eligible to be upgraded from a stub, and if not, what else do you think needs to be done? I'd appreciate your opinion on the matter.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I divided it into sections, each of which needs to be expanded. To start with, we need his date of birth! We also need more on his schooling, including dates . We need a chronological treatment of all positions (in particular, did he join JP Morgan immediately after graduation?, and what was the name of the firm her started after leaving there and how long did it last.? has he written anything? One justification of doing paid editing for a corporation & its executives should be the ease of getting this sort of information. Additionally, some of the refs used are not truely third party, and should be in ELs.

while I was at it, I made some changes and indications for improvements for the other paid articles. They;re just sample changes to indicate the sort of improvements that are needed. The one of China's Energy Grid is at least 5 years out of date in almost all sections. The table is perhaps not of value, and the outline part needs to be rewritten in paragraphs. A good of it is uncited, including some sentences that are straight PR, such as the advantages for US companies of doing development there.

Let me remind you that under present interpretation of the terms of use, it is necessary for you to state who is employing you. If you work through an agent, that must be specified as well. (I am not sure I personally agree with requiring all this, but as I understand it it is the current consensus interpretation) DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I'll be reviewing your suggestions throughout the next week.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Dr. Ram Dhan Singh Page[edit]

Dear DGG, You've deleted page created by me ram dhan singh and i request to contest it by bringing the following facts to your kind attention
1. Dr. Ram Dhan Singh was a very eminent scientist who ushered in food security and green revolution in the Indian sub-continent.
2. I run a trust under his name, and maintain a website under his name www.ramdhansingh.org, and have written the biography on that page. ^[1]
3. That biography page is written by me in my own words, and thus am the rightful owner of that page, and i have used the same material to create a webpage of Ram Dhan Singh on wikipedia ^[2]
4. This now is interpreted to be a copyright violation and has resulted in red-flags and tags for speedy deletion on both the page 'ram dhan singh' as well as my own page.
5. Having explained above that i am the rightful author of these materials, what can i do to preserve the pages of 'ram dhan singh' ? Looking for an early resolution, Thanks and regards DrRKRana (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biography page was published under a non-compatible copyright. That copyright holds, and we cannot violate it. There is no flexibility in this.

However, as is likely you are the legal owner of the work, it would be possible for you to donate the material using the full formal procedures at WP:DCM under the proper license. But I very emphatically do not advise it, because the material was not written in a straightforward objective style, but instead was written in such a manner as to seem to be promotional for the subject. It would need to be entirely rewritten from scratch to be used in WP.

Given your connection with him, the only acceptable way for you to write the biography in wikipedia is via the WP:Article Wizard.When you do so . avoid sich phrases as ". His modesty, simple and humble life style of honesty, hardwork, devotion and dedication to duties offers great lessons as well as inspiration to agricultural scientists for generations to come. " ; avoid details such as his salary in his early positions; be sure to validate claims such as " These varieties were widely cultivated not only in pre-independence Punjab but rapidly spread to North-Westem Frontier Province, Sind, the then United Province, Rajasthan & Gujrat but also crossed national frontiers as far as Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Soviet Union and other countries.' by references from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Scientific books and papers are what is wanted. Similarly, statements usch as "am Dhan Singh submitted a scheme in 1933 for processing of barley into malt." must be supported by references. Ever honor similarly needs a reference of its own to support it. Omit trivia such as visits to his home by famous people.

I agree with you that his career seems sufficiently notable that there is probably potential for an article here. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for un-Deletion of Article[edit]

Hi DGG, an article that I submitted for Cloudcade was deleted without reason. The article complies with all guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. All information are properly cited via credible sources, contains objective facts, are not self-promotional and contains helpful information for those who are interested. Please take a look for yourself, all previous comments regarding the Company being non-notable have been properly addressed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudcade The company has since launched a popular game on mobile and web called Shop Heroes. I would also like to create an article around that as I'm an avid fan. I am requesting for the article to be un-deleted, thanks for you time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenith711 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted by clear consensus t a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudcade about a year ago, for the reasons given there. Attempted recreations of it were deleted twice since by two different administrators. Based on the latest article, the company has never done anything but raise small amounts of money, and has not yet released any product.It is at the discretion of the participants in a deletion discussion to decide what constitutes significant coverage. My advice to you would be to write a proper article when you have major published reviews of your products. Trying to get a WP article before that is not just the seeking of publicity, but the premature seeking of publicity. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, thanks for responding. However, the context of the article has since drastically changed since 2014. The company has since launched a product, Shop Heroes, which was actually featured by Apple with the release of iOS9 and further featured by Google Play all across last week as the top game worldwide. The company has two offices, one successfully released product and a 2nd one in the works according to their team. There are also published reviews of the product all over the web, with a few cited in the updated article. Please take a closer look.

If you think you have sufficient material to write an article, start over and use the WP:Article Wizard. Remember you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. We might consider the refs in the deleted article to be more in the nature of press releases than reviews;I don't want to judge==you have the right to try again so others can look at it.CpIf the game is what is currently notable, consider making the article on it instead. If you have a connection with the company, be aware of our policy on WP:conflict of interest even if the connection is non-financial. ; if the connection has any financial aspects, see also our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sobha Ltd[edit]

Dear (DGG talk), Entire page article is been rewritten completely neutral tone.

Please let me know for any changes.

And also need your input on organization wiki pages providing their socail links under external linkks. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists.

Is it good to remove the warning tag now?

Need your input & guidence

Thanks & Regards, --Deepak HM 08:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Deepak — Preceding unsigned comment added by --Deepak HM 08:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Deepakhmwiki (talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this appears to be an undisclosed paid editor. I have asked him on his talkpage to clarify his status before making further edits. – Brianhe (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes an article more than a stub?[edit]

Hey DGG, I've been doing paid work on the stub for Peter Hancock (CEO). When I started, it was a scant two sentences, but I've since expanded it. I'm curious if it's eligible to be upgraded from a stub, and if not, what else do you think needs to be done? I'd appreciate your opinion on the matter.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I divided it into sections, each of which needs to be expanded. To start with, we need his date of birth! We also need more on his schooling, including dates . We need a chronological treatment of all positions (in particular, did he join JP Morgan immediately after graduation?, and what was the name of the firm her started after leaving there and how long did it last.? has he written anything? One justification of doing paid editing for a corporation & its executives should be the ease of getting this sort of information. Additionally, some of the refs used are not truely third party, and should be in ELs.

while I was at it, I made some changes and indications for improvements for the other paid articles. They;re just sample changes to indicate the sort of improvements that are needed. The one of China's Energy Grid is at least 5 years out of date in almost all sections. The table is perhaps not of value, and the outline part needs to be rewritten in paragraphs. A good of it is uncited, including some sentences that are straight PR, such as the advantages for US companies of doing development there.

Let me remind you that under present interpretation of the terms of use, it is necessary for you to state who is employing you. If you work through an agent, that must be specified as well. (I am not sure I personally agree with requiring all this, but as I understand it it is the current consensus interpretation) DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I'll be reviewing your suggestions throughout the next week.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I've looked over your comments for both articles. Regarding the Hancock stub, I'm working with AIG to find more references to expand the article per your recommendation. As for Smart grid in China, I wholeheartedly agree that there still needs to be work done. When I first started working on it, I drafted this up in an attempt to remove a lot of the extraneous, poorly sourced, and biased content from the then-current version seen here. As I'm sure you've seen, it's much harder to get content removed than added as a COI editor, hence why a lot of the outdated information is still there. I try to strike a balance between preserving the original while updating and revising. If you have the time, would you be willing to work with me to clean up the current article? And if not, could you point me towards someone who might? Thanks again for all the feedback.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @DGG:, just wanted to ping you in case you hadn't seen this. Hope you're well.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

draft Krov Menuhin[edit]

hi DDG, thanks for the advice. I have edited the article, could you let me know how it is now, in your view. Much thanks.KarenMenuhin (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on an academic[edit]

Does being a Fulbright scholar and having a professorship meet the cut for wikipedia notability?

I'm not sure I am one to write the article, because he and I are friends, but I was considering encouraging others to write an article on this gentleman who was awarded Fulbright scholarship in the 2011/12 academic year.

If I write it I will do it as a draft, declare my COI, and submit it for review, but I would like a steer from you on whether the qualifications are sufficient. I have not done a load of research on referencing for him yet. Fiddle Faddle 20:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the rank is apparently full professor at University of Nebraska, Omaha, a respectable but not famous part of the University of Nebraska University of Nebraska, Lincoln is the principal campus in the system. This makes notability under WP:PROF likely, but not certain. Fulbright is not by inteself a sufficiently major award; thisneeds a checkfor publications, but he might also be notable as a journalist. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am now cautiously optimistic and will take my time. Fiddle Faddle 23:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One aspect I am finding hard is to know how and where to seek academic papers written by this chap. Please can you suggest how I might do that element of the research? If I can't find anything I will have to abandon my embryo userspace draft. So far I have found interesting things, but not notable things and I would not accept the draft myself!! Fiddle Faddle 22:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made "some" progress at User:Timtrent/Chris W. Allen (academic). I would appreciate your thoughts, if you have the time. There is an obvious section used as a scratch pad for possible further drafting. I do not believe I have got anywhere near verifying notability. I have been very clear on the talk page to detail my COI. I may need to accept that the gentleman is interesting but not notable. I won't give up just yet, though. My intent is to offer for review a clear pass, and not to offer anything less. Fiddle Faddle 13:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help for the award section of Masato Sagawa[edit]

Thank you very much for your help for this article on 29 July, 2015.

I have modified Masato Sagawa, and I still see the following note in the Award section:

"This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2015)"

I have linked five (out of 10) awards to the Wikipedia articles or some webpages; however, some awards cannot be found in the internet. Please advise how I can solve this problem.

Christina.h.chen Christina.h.chen (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in general, each individual award needs to be cited if challenged. but since the major prize, the Japan Prize is well documented, I wouldnt be concerned about it further. Someone with better access to sources an do the rest. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi DGG, You have deleted three articles authored by me titled : Asarulislam Syed , Jannat Pakistan Party, Shalimar Radio. You reasons are not true and certainly not fair. Jannat Pakistan Party did contest the Elections in 2013 in Pakistan despite that party candidates, members were harassed by Pakistan's ISI. Kindly undo the delete on these. Thanks (Ibne'Ishaq 01:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC))

I did not delete Jannat Pakistan Party or Shalimar Radiosee Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jannat Pakistan Party & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shalimar Radio. It was deleted by other administrators, as the result of community discussions in which I did not participate. Nor did I delete Asarulislam Syed. it was deleted by another administrator as a copyvio. but I did comment in the discussion that he did not meet WP:PROF . DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Arnold J. Sameroff (psychologist)[edit]

Hi DGG. I did some work on this Professor's draft. Is it better now? I do have some education in the field of child developement, but there was an awful lot of jargon, and I may have mangled some of it.—Anne Delong (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little further editing, and accepted it. Thanks!. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Adelman (entrepreneur)[edit]

Hi DGG you have deleted Jason Adelman (entrepreneur) page (G4) but I have created that page different from previously deleted page. Can you please retrieve the page. Restlips (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Robichaux[edit]

Hey Dave, I now got an email from a TechInsider reporter asking about how I found the Jack Robichaux hoax so would you mind restoring the deleted article to public visibility at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia? Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to figure out how to deal with the fact that the name has also been used for an actually notable musician, as discussed at the afd. We don't want to imply that such a reference would be a hoax. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks again for the swiftness

but I was wondering why you passed some of them such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdülaziz Bayındır. BTW, I'm not sure if you fully understand what I said about Jack Robichaux, a deleted article can be restored at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Jack Robichaux(I frankly like having them publicly visible so they show all of the info). Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chittagong Madar Bari (2nd nomination)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chittagong Madar Bari (2nd nomination). Thanks. Worldbruce (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HallKeen Management[edit]

I might have missed something obvious but I removed your G5 from this article and left your G11 alone. I could not find any note that the editor was blocked for socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A IP removed your G11. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[[User::NeilN|

NeilN]], see User talk:Justlattersandnumbers, note the spelling of the name DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spin the wheels again?[edit]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My article was deleted[edit]

Hello Dear! You have deleted my article QForm due to its promotional content. Can you help me to provide with information on what was with promotional meaning in my article?? Because i wrote about the program and didn't want to promote it. Maybe i provided some unnecessary facts or smth else? Thank you. The copy of the article is in my Sandbox. Mskpetrov (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cross-language COI survey[edit]

Hi DGG, I haven't forgotten about my promise to share with you the questions for the research project previewed at WikiConUSA this month! However, I was traveling and haven't had a chance to do so until now, and I've placed the questions into an Etherpad here: COI Languages Survey. This is meant to be view-only (although I don't think Etherpad does that) so if you know anyone who is interested in taking the survey itself, send them to this Google Forms questionnaire. And if anyone doesn't use Google (we've heard from one or two) I can provide a separate link, which would be again Etherpad. Cheers, WWB (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Dreamers of the Ghetto[edit]

Hi, I noticed you A7'ed this article (which I wrote), and I know you get a lot of these, but I wanted to ask and ensure you had made the right choice here. I left a note on the talk page explaining that this article had been supported with multiple sources which established this musical group's notability per WP:MUSIC bullet 1 (which, in essence, is also the GNG). I know you as a careful judge of deletions, and so I was a little surprised to see you agree with the A7 here; this is not at all a clear case of non-notable material, and so I thought maybe it was just a mistake. Would you mind taking another look - or, failing that, restore a draft so I can make adjustments to the article in hopes of restoring it? Chubbles (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oct 28: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC[edit]

Wednesday October 28, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project!

We will also include a look at our annual plan and budget ideas, to see if the chapter is able to fiscally sponsor more ongoing projects tied to our core mission of expanding and diversifying free knowledge.

We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

Wednesday October WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com).

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus events, RSVP now for our latest upcoming editathons:

October 25 - AfroCROWD + DAWN @ Brooklyn Public Library
November 4 - Aphra Behn Society @ Grand Summit Hotel (Summit, NJ)
November 10 - Basquiat: Still Fly 55 @ MoMA

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

Please comment on Talk:Keynesian economics[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Keynesian economics. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on a PROF[edit]

Hi DGG, I respect your opinion when it comes to WP:PROF issues and thought I'd get your input on something. I've been cleaning up Adrian Parr, and while I can't find many in-depth sources I know that not every professor gets written about significantly. Is her status as director of a research centre enough to push her over the PROF/GNG guidelines? I've been a little trigger-happy with Drafts and AFDs about professors in the past, hence why I'm seeking your thoughts on this one. Thanks for your time. Primefac (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Parr. Your work has improved it further beyond that point. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

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

Rajkumar Kanagasingam[edit]

Some time ago you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam. As the article has recently been recreated, and nominated again for deletion, you are invited to participate in the new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam (2nd nomination). —Psychonaut (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article Genesis Mining[edit]

Hello DGG, this article was created by an Orangemoody sock, and you deleted it as such on 1 September. Now it has been re-created by yet another SPA (/sigh). If it's allowed, could you put a copy of the deleted version in my userspace please for comparison (and eventual sock verification)? GermanJoe (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkstalk says, User:GermanJoe, please note that just because the corp-article was created by an orangemoody-sock, does not mean the COI-encumbered editors associated with said corp are guilty of anything. Refs in the article include WP:NOTEWORTHY namedrop by The Economist [1], plus a bunch of trade-rags in the bitcoin industry. This probably puts Genesis Mining in the top 100 orgs in the bitcoin world (out of a list of roughly 400 or so per my WP:OR), albeit not in the top 50 where WP:GNG is unmistakably satisfied. Rather than deletion, the cite to The Economist suggests an up-merge to List of bitcoin companies would be more wiki-kosher per WP:PRESERVE. Company website[2] claims New York Post [3], Business Insider [4], and ~~Yahoo Finance [5]~~ (republished press release). That makes this corp a plausible WP:42 topic for a dedicated article, rather just a redirect to the list. My own quick check found some other general-readership-press mentions: IB_Times,[6] CNBC,[7] and Fortune Magazine,[8] (same story picked up by WAMC-aka-NPR [9]). Two in-depth plus five noteworthy-mentions puts Genesis Mining into the top-fifteen-bitcoin-orgs-in-the-universe, more or less -- definitely can satisfy WP:GNG.

p.s. Of course, if the SPA is not merely COI-encumbered with respect to the Genesis Mining corp, but is also a returning orangemoody-bad-apple, then by all means deletion is again warranted. But be aware that most of the article-topics ought to be seen as victims of orangemoody-socks, aka potential good-apples, and not as equivalent to the bad-apple orangemoody-socks. The SPA username looks like a crammed-together legal name, but I don't see anybody with a similar name on the staff-list at Genesis,[10] so maybe the SPA is a sock and maybe they are an intern and maybe they are just a fan.

p.p.s. There is an article created Sep'14 about cloud mining (the specific niche where Genesis Mining operates), which ought probably be up-merged into bitcoin mining, which itself was already-upmerged into bitcoin network... one of the pics in the gallery there is of Genesis Mining's datacenter. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid a misunderstandings, I never claimed that the new editor was directly Orangemoody-related (that needs a closer look and an eventual SPI to decide). If my sometimes unconventional English seemed to imply that, it was not my intention (we have a lot of COI-editors in general right now, thus the "yet another SPA" comment above). I'll leave it at that short clarification for now, as DGG asked for a bit time to respond in his edit notice. GermanJoe (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

general response[edit]

The difficult problem is is how to handle potential articles on the people & companies who have been exploited by the undeclared page editors. Most of the time, the problem does not arise: For orangemoody, 5% at most were likely to be notable ; in previous editing rings, the percentage has ranged from 10% all the way down to zero, depending on the general subject area. Aside from these large rings, there has also been use of undeclared paid editing by actually notable business concerns, sometimes with existing articles--most of the time, they knew very well what they were doing was deceitful, even before the clarification in our terms of service. In any case, I really do not see how anyone can ever have deluded themselves that paying to have an article written about themselves in an encycopedia was ethical, or that any respectable encycopedia would have staff who would accept such payment. True, a great many of those exploited did in perfect honesty not fact realize we were other than an advertising medium; some of the fault for this is in the promotion-ridden commercialized nature of society, but some is in our own lax prior practices.

In those cases where a subject is actually highly notable, I think the only reasonable solution is for someone here to write an article in the ordinary way. In most cases, I would advocate waiting at least 6 or 12 months, to avoid giving the impression that we do not remove paid articles. If someone is borderline notable, it as always will depend if anyone is interested, but my personal inclination is that I have other priorities: the truly notable subjects that are not covered. A practical question is whether the deleted material can be furnished to reliable editors prepared to rewrite. I think this would be subject to discretion, and anyone doing this needs to check that the material is not simply reinserted in altered form. (It would actually be a violation of copyright to do that without giving proper attribution to the paid editor!)

If someone else submits obvious coi material without a declaration of coi, the priority is to check for another member of the ring of sockpuppets, not to see if we can have the article. This is best done by one of the admins at spi; one of the main reasons I became an admin was to check deleted material. For articles written with a coi, deleting is more likely to be needed than rescuing.

This specific problem[edit]

75.108's suggestion for upmerge (in this case), making a redirect to a list, is an acceptable solution., since that list includes companies that are not yet notable.

For the necessary comparisons to detect sockpuppettry, I don't have the patience to work at spi myself, but I will take a look in a day or two. I'll comment again here. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My actual position is that, given only the refs currently visible in mainspace, I would recommend upmerge... but after doing a little digging, I found other refs, which seem to put this Iceland-corp into the top twenty of bitcoin-orgs. Agree that whether *any* bitcoin-orgs are Truly Notable^TM is a judgement-call, but Genesis_Mining does pass WP:GNG as written (once the refs I linked to above are mentioned), so barring mitigating circumstances, I would say dedicated article is the correct outcome.

Speaking of said circumstances... as far as the SPI-work, from my understanding User:GermanJoe might be willing to take that on, hence why they asked for userfication of the pertinent edit-history found in the now-deleted versions. p.s. See also side-discussion over at User_talk:GermanJoe#Re:_Genesis_Mining for additional gory details on this specific case, and about bitcoin-orgs generally. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As editors have cleaned up the article from promotional content to a short summary and consider it notable (at least barely), we should probably leave it at that - regardless of the less-than-optimal article history. Should the creating account edit in other previous Orangemoody articles as well in the future, we can still file an SPI then (but maybe it's just a company SPA anyway). GermanJoe (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking further, I decided what to do about it: the article as submitted had the first two paragraphs exactly as submitted by the Orangemoody sock. I deleted it and protected against further re-creation . Though it is conceivable that someone else, such as the company, might possibly have recreated it, the simplest explanation is that this is another sock. If it is the company, it was created in violation of the terms of use in any case. Though we currently have no rule that these must always be deleted, many admins delete on that reason alone. If a redirect is desired, it should be a protected redirect. I don't choose to give even that recognition, but any other admin is welcome to do so. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GermanJoe that the GenesisMining corp is on the borderline of wiki-notability, when ignoring trade-rags. However, since the rework was a straight copy of the previously-sock-submitted-work, that strongly suggests that DGG's hunch of wiki-foulness is correct. I do think that this hunch should be logged somewheres, if not with a full-blown SPI, then at least noted on the LTA page. From what I saw in the orangemoody-sock I personally witnessed at Peridon's talkpage, the bad-apple sock will create an article full-blown, and then contact the firm by off-wiki means. We should look for somebody COI-encumbered from the firm, to show up, and then pass them to Risker or one of the other folks that is intimately familiar with orangemoody-type-incidents. Mayhap with the off-wiki evidence the hypothetical-company-SPA could provide us, we could track down the new-suspected-orangemoody-person, via said evidence. I really really don't like to think that there are already fresh new orangemoody-type incidents, already happening, but if there are, it matters greatly whether these are copycat-imitators, or the same people under new usernames. DGG, can you or User:GermanJoe pass along your info to one of the orangemoody-experts, please? Or maybe GermanJoe *is* one of those experts already? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the article to the LTA list of possibly Orangemoody-related articles here. But I have to politely pass on that "Orangemoody expert" suggestion. Certainly not my goal, especially not with the current ineffective policies and user rights concept. I am still curious, if anything significant will change after this incident. But enough ranting for now :). GermanJoe (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the checkusers have worked with these in detail, and they're the experts in this in general. But those of us who work with particular types of subjects gain special experience at recognizing problems with them. There have been , and will be, other rings, tho so far some of the Orangemoody techniques are thankfully unique. The attempt at promotional articles will always be a problem , if we retain open editing and anonymous users. The problem intensifies as the RW importance of getting a WP page increases. All we can do is try to reduce a combination of various means to try and reduce the impact. One key step has been taken: the current terms of use, and the general recognition here that they are enforceable policy. There are a variety of other possibilities, and I'd expect everything anyone can think of to be considered. One key change requires no change in written policy, and is a matter of outr individual attitudes: to interpret the notability requirements much more strictly in susceptible fields. There are some areas where we should stop accepting borderline articles if they show signs of promotionalism or promotional intent or possible sockpuppettry. So I argue at AfDs, and the position is often supported. I therefore do not agree with 75.'s efforts at trying to rescue such articles--they are better simply gotten rid of. The time spent in trying to fix them is counterproductive in two ways: it encourages the promotional editors, and it prevents us doing more useful work, such as writing the hundreds of thousands of needed articles on notable people, or maintaining the articles we have already. (I shared 75'a attitude for several years when I first came here, but with the rise in promotionalism my priority is now the opposite, and least in some subjects--including even some of my favorite fields.) The time spent on this article, and one lower down on the page in the last week or so, has made me resolve that I will no longer help promotional editors, unless the subject is so famous I'd write the article myself. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Harshada Wagner[edit]

HI There, Can you please tell me more about how this subject does not qualify for an entry in Wiki? there is a wide range of reference to him online in articles, interviews, content and a book. He is a relevant and well known spiritual teacher and I believe that he meets the requirements in the Wiki article for submissions of a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amberwilk (talk • contribs) 23:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claims in the latest article were: he "begin a pilot program at ___ using meditation." ". He studied under many Yoga masters" such as ... " "following the ... disaster, he ... ...provided play and art therapy for children in the Tsunami camps", " established a program offering Meditation to combat veterans... ", and "founded .... in ... as the primary platform for his teaching" In the previously deleted versions, an additional accomplishment was authorship of -- they included a book found in almost no libraries, and, all the refs. that I could find were his own work, blogs, of publications of groups he was affiliated with. None of this is a claim even to importance, let alone notability in the sense an encycopedia uses it. Furthermore, an article written in this manner is advertising for his program and services, and previous versions were even worse). I deleted the present version on 2 grounds: lack of indication of significance, and promotionalism. The previous version, for good measure, was a copyvio from his web site. If you want to try again. use the WP:Article Wizard. In addition, since I assume there is likely to be some conflict of interest, see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Just a couple of things. His book was just published in May of 2015 and so, it takes time to make it to libraries. I am not sure that the relevance of old versions of his entry should be taken into account, that seems unfair. Often in this kind of work, the proof of importance and relevance is his self published items (not to mention his many CDs available to purchase widely, articles, trainings and the fact that he is on faculty at several well known and version institutions across the US). These types of articles, blogs, trainings, CDs and books are how this type of spiritual work is transmitted. First, you learn and study under masters and then you do your work of teaching, writing etc. The abundance of his work online is in itself proof that he has a relevance worthy of an encyclopedia entry.. Furthermore, I am not paid and would like to see entries like this on more spiritual teachers and masters. If he was a band who had published a relatively unknown CD would his entry be allowed? I can find examples of this on Wiki and so it seems wrong to have deleted this entry. The last entry was not written in a way that infringed on copyright at all, was not paid for AND had ample proof of his importance. How would you suggest I proceed with all of that in mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amberwilk (talk • contribs) 13:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia, there is no case where "the proof of importance and relevance is his self published items " -- it's what other people think of it as shown in published reliable sources. First you learn, then you write, then other people read you and write about you. It's that third part that shows notability. If he were a band that had published a single LP that had essentially no airplay or distribution the article would have been just as quickly deleted. We get a few dozen such articles a day, and delete them, along with people with not yet notable books, inventions, artworks, products, and all other intellectual and material creations. The way I suggest you proceed is to wait until there are several substantial 3rd party published reviews & discussions of his books in reliable discriminating sources, such as well-known magazines , that are not merely blogs or self-published work of other people. Then try again, using the article wizard. If you would like to write on other such people, select ones with multiple important books about which there are such reviews and commentaries. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: companies in Russia, etc.[edit]

I understand where you are coming from, systemic bias, our difficulty to locate sources if they exist, etc. Perhaps we should focus on languages we can speak. The amount of spam is really disheartening, though. Anyway, I am fine with deprodding, as long as you leave the notability tag for future consideration (maybe in 5-10 years somebody will review those articles again). Cheers, PS. For the record, pl wiki is extremly inclusive. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andoria-Mot, why this was kept here is beyond me. Pl wiki discussion was a travesty, people kept saying the company is important, but nobody cares about sources. The best I found was a single blog post, but that, plus the company owns website and an existence of an old-vehicle fan-forum section about its products were enough to keep it. Ridiculous. Would you mind doing me a favor, looking into this and perhaps starting a 2nd AfD? This company made some engines, but so what? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that afd was one of the 100s of examples of no-consensus because of insufficient participation. 6 or 7 years ago, I tried to follow every afd in fields I understood, but I can no longer do that. You'll have noticed a few other eds. tries to inform me here of some such potential situations before the expected close, and I try to look at most of them and say something, which of course is not always what might be expected. I can't do many more than I do now, but I can do some. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andoria-Mot (2nd nomination) - almost two weeks and again, only one comment... will you take a look? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Economic history[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Economic history. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth[edit]

David, I just wanted to say that you are one of the biggest disappointments of this extremely disappointing ArbCom class. Resign. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite (talk · contribs): Perhaps you mean that I should have done more. While I have discovered I can not do as much as I intended, I think I'm accomplishing more than if I had left the committee. But if you mean that my effect has been a net negative, I think I have come to understand the problems we are faced with better than you do. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erker's Optical[edit]

I was about to do a 2nd nom AfD, but I see you voted keep. Not impressed by your rationale there... and I don't see much in sources. Would you care to revisit this? People were confused about sources about a person vs. the company; for the latter I see nothing but strictly local coverage, and that fails NCOMP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to think that all historic companies are notable. What counts as historic varies, and an 1879 firm in St Louis is not obviously historic, but their web page which is the source of the biz journal article says they were "This first optical lab west of the Mississippi". If this can be documented , they are notable. sources for such things are specialized, and I'm not capable of finding them adequately. I'm certainly not capable of doing it quickly. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think first business-of-its-type in Fooland (or Fooland's province) is automatically notable, not unless it would generate coverage of that fact by proper (non-local) sources. Otherwise we enter slippery slope - keep this company because it's the oldest barber shop in Smallville, this one because it is the largest, this one because it has the most employees... Those days I need to look no further then Category:United States company stubs to despair, there are so many categories like this, filled with 50-90% of what I consider pure spam. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Josu4u (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josu4u Thanks; I'm looking into it. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hey Dave, I wanted to know if you've ever been at the edge of retiring or ever thought of it? Considering you've been here for almost ten years as have I, there must've been times you had the impulse of retiring. I ask because I certainly have come and go in that time and although I sincerely appreciate this website and its concept (and I get hooked in periods here and there as I have recently, I always get walled by some eventual drama), the unnecessary and tiring drama simply seems to be unavoidable sometimes. Frankly, I think the fact several people have serious health troubles affects this sometimes especially if it's mental and psychological. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought I'd say it, but I find that I am considerably more reluctant each day to start editing WP. In general the inevitable frustration of the way this system necessarily works can be dealt with by moving from one area to another, but I may be beginning to feel that I've done as much here as I can. Perhaps the fault is arb com, where the public work is frustrating for we almost never actually solve any problem (at least, nothing we've done this year has helped much), and the private discussions which are the bulk of the actual work are not just frustrating but distinctly unpleasant for me, as I generally find myself in a very small minority--I had not realized the extent of the focus on narrow legalism rather than substance. I only remain on the committee in the hope that the new arbs will be more willing to think in terms of benefit to the encycopedia, not in terms of what people "deserve." Of all the places in WP where IAR has a role, it is most relevant to the work of the committee, which has much greater powers of discretion than any individual admin. I suppose having said this much, I should emphasize that personally, I very much like every one of them whom I know--they're much more human outside the committee. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is wiki-kosher for arbs to name specific usernames, that they would like as new arbs, but if so, please write up a voterguide, DGG. Or if you prefer, just toss out the names you had in mind, or even, the generic criteria that you are looking for. I too would like to see more IAR on the committee, although I also like the arbcom folks I'm familiar with, present company very much included. But it is a hard and thankless job. ( I will contradict my own flat statement by saying, thanks for doing what you can, it is appreciated.) In particular, nobody wants to do the arbcom thing; it is a huge timesink to run, and like a super-RfA tends to attract mostly new critics and little praise. Even if you "win" you tend to be the focus-point of much angst and many complaints. Point being, DGG, if you are permitted by your wiki-honour to urge people to run, that you think would be good arbs, in whatever fashion, please do so. Same goes for your compadres, if you can ask that they speak out. There are some folks already announcing candidacies at WP:ACE2015/C, but Yunshui just retired, and none of the arbs up for re-election have yet put forth their names. Because it has been such a hard year, this is an important arb-election methinks. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kochi Metro (Malayalam) Short Film Fest[edit]

Sir, please see the explanation for " Contest deletion " please remove the deletion tag and help the page. Rajeshbieee (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeshbieee Click the button for "Contest deletion" and explain why you think the article is not primarily written to promote the event, and that the even shows some indication of being sufficiently important for an encycopedia. Another admin will either agree it should be deleted, or agree it should not be immediately deleted. If they think it shold not be immediately deleted, I shall probably ask the community for a decision--you'll get a notice for that also. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the speedy was removed by another ed, and I'm not going to take it to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again[edit]

Precious again, your not supporting to lose the valuable admin service of Yngvadottir!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NTA (Company) proposed deletion[edit]

Hello! I have been working with User:75.108.94.227 to ensure the NTA_(company) page is up to snuff with wiki rules. I am WP:COI, so it is slow going. I was assured time was not an issue, and as I have a full time job, I work with the wikipedia article as time allows. Also, a family emergency yesterday prevented me from responding to any messages. Please let me know if this is an issue. Wscribner (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wscribner, The next step if I remain unsatisfied is for me to list it for a discussion at WP:AFD--the discussion will run 7 days at least, and the community consensus will decide. There are two problems: first, it is necessary to meet the WP:GNG by having references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. At present, there are none. The South Bend Tribune article is fundamentally a press release for the company. (I know 75. thinks otherwise on this, but I think what I said represents the current community standard) Ref 6 is a press release for another company, which quotes NPA as the company certifying it. The others are incidental mentions. It has proven very difficult to find good references for organizations acting as standards certifying agencies--this is primarily a problem with the available sources, not necessarily with the organizations, but it affects the ability to write an acceptable article--I find the field interesting, and I've repeatedly tried, but usually failed -- even for official national agencies. Second, quite apart from the WP standard of notability , which is artificial, I see no evidence that the company is important in any ordinary sense. According to the article it is one " of five private DAPIA firms and one of the fifteen public-or-priviate IPIA entities" in the field. If there is evidence it is the single most important US agency in the field, it would provide a plausible argument; even if it were merely the largest of the 5 private firms, it might help a little. I am usually willing to make a argument for including the largest national organization in any field, and sometimes such arguments are accepted despite week sourcing. I shall not list it for afd until the beginning of nest week, but anyone else may decide to list it sooner. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG, Thank you for your response. From what my research finds, NTA is similar to the next closer company in income, however, we have 50-100 employees, but they are listed as having 1-49. I am not sure that makes a difference as far as "largest", however, I do know that we have the largest market share in DAPIA services. Our goal in a wikipedia article is not to "market" but to provide the evidence to show we are experts in our field. While anyone can read Wikipedia, reading the information, and having it explained to you by a real person are very different things. Many companies and individuals who require testing, inspection or certification of their building product or material or structure, are uncertain of how to go about it. We want to make it easy for them to find information by offering them an actual 'person' they can call. We are working very hard to meet Wikipedia's requirements, however, it takes time to find the proper information.

In reference to the South Bend Tribune article, that was an article NTA did not pay for, or ask for. All NTA authorized press releases are on our own website, at http://www.ntainc.com/press/press.html. Ref 6 is another press release we did not write or ask for, and provides evidence from another company that we do, indeed, provide product certification. Please be patient, per the WP:NORUSH, while the article is taking shape. Thank you for taking the time to explain your concerns.Wscribner (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the content is that of a press release, which is what matters. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

David, your statement "The courts are clear that retaining the sequence does constitute copyvio..." is not quite correct. When the sequence is logical, such as chronological, copyright protection does not attach. It is a Feist-type issue. Many cases. But rest of what you say here is quite to the point. Cheers. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, there are additional factors. As you say, When there is only one natural sequence, what you say is correct, for there is no other way of expressing the content. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.drramdhansingh.org/contact

[2] ttp://www.drramdhansingh.org/biography

[1]

[2]