User talk:DGG/Archive 107 Dec. 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


MoTA[edit]

Hello, I see you have deleted MoTA, while this artcile obviously contained a neutral source (Ministry of Culture of Slovenia that describes the org quite accurate) http://www.culture.si/en/MoTA_Museum_of_Transitory_Art. Obviously it is quite difficult to get media refs in English, since this is a Slovenian organisation. Though the org is international active in the niche of new media art, an avant garde genre or art that usually doesn't reach mainstream media.

Can you restore the article, and if you still doubt the relevance of the subject not speedy delete it, but put a request for deletion for it, so people have a bit longer time to figure out what this organisation actually is and does? Now it was gone before I got the chance to come up with these refs.

Best wishes, Sida 66-gaa (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sida 66-gaa, references do not have to be in eEnglish. But they do have to provide substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. They do not have to be in mainstream media. But they do have to be in media which offer selectivve editorially responsible coverage. I'll take another look at the references you've provided DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Indeed the refs have to be third party. The Ministry of Culture is a third party ref. That's why it surprised me somewhat the article was deleted. Also the other int links mention the orgs existence and collaborated with them. If an org like this is so involved in an wide international collaboration network I would assume it automatically is relevant enough not to delete it. It's part of an international cultural infrastructure. Sida 66-gaa (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any news on this deletion? Can you place it back and in case you doubt the relevance of the topic tag it with a request for deletion, instead of the speedy deletion traject? I would like to know the opinion of experts in the field of new media if this topic is interesting enough to include. Thanks in advance, best, Sida 66-gaa (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you answer my request above? Thanks, Sida 66-gaa (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if anyone is curious, this is a complaint that I responded to a request to look at an afd.
I responded that
"at one time I tried to comment of all afds where I knew enough to say something useful. I cannot now do so, so I started trying to spot those that either were in subject fields I care about or that had multiple relistings about which I could try to get some consensus--or close. I no longer can scan them all myself even for this, and I ask SwisterTwister (and some other people) to notify me about a selection. I more frequently than not take the view ST does, but only about 2/3 of the time, and whether I am likely to or not doesn't seem to be the criterion ST is using--if it were, I'd discourage them from asking. Have you noticed also, the complete difference is the basis of our two arguments? ST tends to go by the GNG; I tend to use other considerations. ST usually searches for sources; I often analyze in more detail the ones that are presented. More generally, ever since I realized I couldn't do everything, I have deliberately decided to work first on problems people presented to me. By now they know that I will often not give the response they might be hoping for, or might be expected" DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:IJSRD[edit]

I have pinged you to look at this draft. I am unfamiliar with such periodicals.

Is it normal to charge a fee to submitters for publication of scientific papers? My researches own their web site show not only a fee, but that one transfers copyright ownership to them. I smell something inappropriate here. But this is a world I do not understand. I would most definitely appreciate your advice, and the draft would benefit from your eyes, please. Fiddle Faddle 10:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feel is that this is a fake journal, a scam. Google searches reveal other people thinking the same as I do. I have no idea how to verify my gut feel. Now it has developed I would mist assuredly value your guidance, perhaps you'd direct action.
If a scam, do we document it as such, for example? It may be a notable scam, so is deletion the right answer? Fiddle Faddle 11:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
t's not a fake journal in the usual sense; it is simply an extremely low quality journal. The usual scam has distinguished scholars falsely stated to be on the editorial board, a publishing fee of a few hundred dollars at least, and very few actually published papers. This is the opposite in all 3 particulars. They have a very undistinguished board (I checked about 10, most are at the Asst Professor level at relatively minor Indian universities); the article fee is only 750 Rupees which = $11; there are a great many actual papers.
I read a number of papers: they are characterised by poor English (sometimes very poor), extremely bad proofreading--not just with respect to the english, and usually trivial work, only rarely with a significant amount of mathematics or thorough referencing--they reminded me a little of science fair projects. I finally saw why, in one key sentence from the journal home page omitted from the article: this monthly journal is mainly started to help researching peers belongs to Undergraduate, Postgraduate and Research students.
It's a student journal. run by beginning faculty to provide a place to publish student work. Most of the contributions are far below the quality that I would recommend a student publish.
I commented on the Draft page. After theres been a chance for people to see it, I may list it for G11. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As you can tell, I know what I do not know. But I know where to come for guidance. Fiddle Faddle 22:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the main/sub-article relationship project[edit]

Hi DGG,

Thanks for replying to our page in the Village pump. I've created a Meta:Research page which details the research questions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship Of course, you are welcome to take our survey and/or give us feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah90 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Return of Phil Shawe[edit]

Back in October, you started a delete article discussion about Phil Shawe, the outcome of which was to delete. Less than a month later, on 19 November, user Kyriejax12345 started a new article about Phil Shawe (Kyriejax12345 has not made any other contributions to Wikipedia). What's the policy for instances like this? It doesn't appear Shaw did anything remarkable between 24 October and 19 November to warrant having an article in an encyclopedia. What's to prevent subjects that have been deleted from resubmitting? Chisme (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we have is Speedy deletion criterion G8, "recreation of a deleted page without fixing the problem." As the new article, though shorter, has the same dependence upon unreliable sources that do not show notability, I deleted it accordingly. I have also warned the user. And if it is created again, I can protect the title against re-creation. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Chisme (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extrascientific aspects of GMO foods[edit]

It seemed like the most immediate point of contention there (and in the wider world) is whether eating a GMO food item is in a medical sense more hazardous than eating a "conventionally bred" food item, and then whether it's more hazardous to the ecology. Those two questions are in the domain of science, but you're right that the issue in its entirety is much larger, and if it can ever get past the first two questions it will involve economics, aesthetics, and public policy. I've noticed that the immediate issues tend to focus on how genetic engineering is perceived as different from the old ways of doing things, while the extended issues seem to arise from the fact that plant breeders have a different set of incentives than farmers and consumers, that the technology has given them more power to act on these incentives than they have previously had, and that some of the consequences can be perverse. How they might make herbicide-resistant soybeans and tomatoes that have more shelf life than nutrition or taste is less significant than the fact that they can and that it can be profitable to do so. The consumers have limited influence and where problems occur they tend to assume that it's a bad method that's causing a bad result. There are also issues of aesthetics as well, the philosophical problem of what is or is not natural, and the extent to which natural solutions are desirable for their own sake. I agree that it's a potentially vast area. This has no bearing on the case, but it's a subject that I've given some thought to. Geogene (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As usual in this sort of thing, there's intelligent opposition, and unintelligent opposition. And as usual, the unintelligent part is the loudest, because people get much more upset because of prejudice and hysteria than because of actual but not immediate dangers. I regard the pesticide question as unsettled--some of this is because I remember the almost unregulated use in earlier generations, and some is the actual current danger of their use beyond the safe limits. People do tend to use things beyond the safe limits. And besides social and economic effect, I was thinking of moral effects also. But the social (and moral) effect I had most in mind is the possibility of industrialized agriculture permitting growth beyond what other resources could sustain. If you lived in my part of Brooklyn, you might not think the customers are having a limited effect. For anyone looking my post is in the proposed decision edit history, but I removed it fro there because, just as Geogene said, I almost immediately realized it didn't belong there. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lawrence A. Frakes[edit]

Hello DGG. I've added some material to this draft stub about a professor. He seems to be notable.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted, and added a volcano. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Geopolitical Futures[edit]

Why was the stub article Geopolitical Futures deleted? It was auto marked for deletion under CSD A7 upon page creation, yet it is in fact a significant and credible subject. I added a reference, external link to the official website, and internal links to the founder George Friedman on both the article and talk pages. No explanation was given for the deletion. It certainly wasn't due to lack of credibility or significant. In addition, I have emailed the PR team of Geopolitical Futures for explicit permission to upload their corporate logo to Wikimedia commons. An explanation for the page deletion would be very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictionary707 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary707 (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 2 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

h-index[edit]

I wanted to look up some h-indexs for professors on Google Scholar, what is the general recommend level for notability and how would I do this using google scholar? Valoem talk contrib 21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look for their name in the form "FM Last", not their full name. The results will be in approximate descending order by the number of citations. Sort out those references that are to web sites, non-academic journals, newspaper articles, and the like. Th h index is the highest number where are that many papers with that least that many citations: r.g., if the counts as typical for a probably not notable biomedical scientist, are:
40, 35, 33, 30, 29, 27, 26, 25, 24, 22, 21, 21, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13,12, 12, 12, 11, 10, 8, 5, ....... their h=16, because there are 16 papers that have been cited 16 times or more. I report these counts saying just that italicized phrase, rather than report it as an index ,because it is clearer in words..
But the h index can be deceptive. Consider another biomedical scientist, almost certainly notable:
190, 180, 170, 60, 30, 10 , 5, 5, 4, 3 .... . For them, the h=6.
But which is the more notable? The h index emphasises doing a great deal of not very important work, over people who do a smaller amont of extremely important work. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q[edit]

Do you or any of your fellow librarians/stalkers/academics know anything about IGI Global? Is it a legit outfit? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was formerly part of Gale. Its journal has been going for a long time now. Thearticle will need expansion DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFD notice[edit]

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kendriya Vidyalayas, I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendriya Vidyalaya school articles. 103.6.159.83 (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latinas & WW2[edit]

Hi, I don't fully understand what's happening here: after the discussion to delete, the article name within the discussion went from blue to red (from memory) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Latinas_and_world_war_II however I noticed this morning an edit on my watchlist on Latinas and World War II. On closer inspection, the history of the article is consistent with one that's never been deleted rather than one that's been re-instated. Only thing I can think of is that there's a minor formatting difference - the capitalisation of the Ws. As I'm quite new to the back-end of wiki, I wasn't sure how to trace the audit trail of deletion and post-deletion activity. thanks Rayman60 (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman60 Here is what seems to have happened: Latinas_and_world_war_II contained very little content, and what content there was present was a duplication of content in the more general article, Hispanics in World War II. As nobody seemed interested in improving it, it was accordingly deleted, as is the usual course of things here . Rather than someone stepping forward to work on it, another article was started, as is perfectly legitimate, and called Latinas and World War II. It appears to have significant content that is not just a duplication, and there is no reason to delete it. If there were significant content in the originally deleted article, the two could be combined via what we call a history merge, tomerge the edit histories, but there doesn't seem to be enough to be worth doing this.
The thing to do now is to work on expanding then new article. From the format, it may be the work of a class. If so, please ask for assistance in setting it up properly as a class project , at the WP:Education noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I'm not the creator or editor of the article, I was involved in the deletion discussion. I see now that there were two articles, one with small caps 'w' in World and War, and one with capitals. The one with capitals was created after the deletion debate began but I think some of the points raised were in reference to the still-live version rather than now-deleted one. The original editor who is writing as part of a school project has returned with new edits after a brief hiatus, but not sure whether the discussions on the deletion page are still valid. Rayman60 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knauss (2nd nomination)[edit]

Does this warrant a speedy close per invalid nomination rationale? And also blatantly notable person? Valoem talk contrib 04:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His response is rather interesting. Valoem talk contrib 07:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is his right to try to change consensus on these by seeking decisions on particular instances at AfD/DelRev. Many guidelines have been in effect changed in this manner. Trying this has inherently the risk that it may have exactly the opposite effect. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Burleson.
Message added 08:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request to revisit the discussion per sources presented there. I pinged users there, but the ping may not have worked (per a comment at the discussion). North America1000 08:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhana J.[edit]

Hi! I understand that @SpacemanSpiff: is away for few days. Hence i came to seek help from your admin tools. Seems that an article with same name was deleted previously after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadhana J AfD. Just wanted to check if these two articles are about same woman. Given the current status of article, its seems very unlikely to meet notability standards; references have few dead links, few press releases and some CD cover listing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same person. It was expanded a bit, but essentially the same and does not meet the objections, so I speedy- deleted it as G5, reconstruction of deleted content. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30#Vu Digital[edit]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu Digital (2nd nomination), you supported deletion and the AfD was closed as "delete". At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30#Vu Digital, I asked for the community's permission to restore the history under the redirect so I can merge material to C Spire Wireless, the parent company.

I will only merge material sourced to TechCrunch, Mississippi Business Journal, Broadcasting & Cable, and The Clarion-Ledger, which all pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I will not merge any material sourced only to press releases or sources that fail Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Would you support this? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi and other local business journals I consider never reliable for notability , as they just reprint what the company sends them and show no selectivity in the companies they cover. . I think the sameabout local newspapers from the area the company is located, just asI am for local authors. More controversially, I am no longer sure about TeleChruch--too many of the stories are basically PR, I recognize the impossibility of cleanly separating PR from unbiased news in this and many other fields, which is one more reason why I wish we could get rid of the WP:GNG guideline in favor of abstract standards. Then we could say: this company has so much in sales, of has a >X% market share, & is therefore notable.
more practically, how about a more general article on "video-to-data"? DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Button makers[edit]

Hey, because of L. Nichols Buttons AfD, I was wondering, "Does Wikipedia actually have any button makers of notability?" I didn't find anything, but I keep thinking that that can't be right! Thanks! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 01:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should be sources. It was in the NYC garment trade a distinctly separate industry. There are probably sources on historic manufacturers also. But in checking, beware: most of the material I can find on WorldCat is about political pin-on buttons, not buttons fro garments, and most of the rest about buttons for military uniforms. But see: Newberger, Edward Louis. The Button Industry in the United States. Haworth, N.J.: St. Johann Press, 1998. and Jones, W. Unite. The Button Industry. London: Sir I. Pitman & Sons, 1924. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, then I'm getting that Wikipedia has zero articles on button makers. Correct?! (Except that one currently being deleted, that is!) --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 19:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the NYC trade, the firms were mostly very small; I think it quite possible that none were notable. I have no knowledge elsewhere. Nut has several dozen elevant books listed in addition to the oes I already identified, in particular Jones, Nora Owens, and Edith Mattison Fuoss. Black Glass Buttons. Ypsilanti, Mich: University lithoprinters, 1945. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fascinating and worthwhile topic. While a modern invention such as zippers will tend to have notable manufacturers associated with the project -- see, e.g., the Wikipedia article on the YKK Group -- the button is one of those objects that's long been so familiar that its history is obscure. Important button makers do pop up in conjunction with subjects that are notable for other reasons or as an incidental mention in a larger discussion; for instance, the button makers of Birmingham are mentioned in the article on Matthew Boulton, while the button making industry of Muscatine, Iowa is discussed in the page on that town, and the storied royal button maker Firmin & Sons has its own page, even if buttons get only a brief mention. (For more background on Firmin & buttons, check out its website [1]. However, one could argue that separate pages could be made for companies or regional button-making industries such as these due to their significant historical impact; the Birmingham button makers were recently the subject of a book by economist George Selgin -- Good Money: Birmingham Button Makers, the Royal Mint, and the Beginnings of Modern Coinage, 1775-1821; the Arcadia Images of America series has a well-researched book on Muscatine's Pearl Button Industry; and Slate had a nice general overview of other key developments [2] Maybe the folks at The Button Room museum, the National Button Society, or the British Button Society would be interested in buttressing the button history here, assuming they have access to even more research. In the meantime, I'm going to see if I can dig a little deeper on L. Nichols. Fashionethics (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsten Quandt[edit]

Thoughts on notability of this individual? czar 06:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notable. Needs trimming a little. I'lll try to get to it. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Ullink[edit]

Hi DGG, I noticed you deleted my Ullink article. I had tried to be as factual as possible based on previous discussion with Edgar181 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edgar181). I have worked many years in the capital markets and would argue that they are a significant organisation in the space, especially after buying key businesses from NYSE 2 years ago. Please can you advise what I'd need to do to allow the content to pass? Can add sources. Thanks. (Blueflamingoweb (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately, Blueflamingoweb , the article doesn't say anything about such acquisitions, let alone document it with references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. I have moved it to draft space, as Draft:Ullink, where you can work on it. I'm not sure what you said is sufficient to get the article actually able to be acepted as an article, but a tthe very least it needs such references. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI see http://www.blueflamingo.co.uk/portfolio/ullink The version you restored looks like a copyvio as well. SmartSE (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{U|Smartse}}, I'm glad you detected it. You're an admin just like me, so just delete it. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd check with you first. Deleted and blocked. SmartSE (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MoTA II[edit]

Can you answer my questions above, please? I don't understand why rather neutral articles are speedy deleted so fast and that it is so tough to get it back to improve the article with proper sources. Thanks, Sida 66-gaa (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sida 66-ga, It didn't indicate any importance. We need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements todo that. The Ministry of Culture site is a directory listing which mainly copies the organization's own website. You need substantial reviews of performances there from newspapers or magazines thattalk also about the venue, and if at all possible published material in such places about the venue itself. . What I have done to help you, is to move the article into Draft space as Draft:MoTA,so you can work on it. When ready, you can send it for review, and another WP editor will check. If that ed. moves it to main article space I will not speedy-delete it it again, but I or anyone else can send it for a community discussion at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trained on wikipedia with the exact procedures you now mention. My proposal is I place it back in the main space where it was and I try to add the refs as I think they are good and you propose a deletion and an other moderator decides after a proper discussion if the topic is relevant enough for inclusion or not.
I totally disagree with you a Ministry of Culture website is not a valid source, even if this website copies the info text from the organization itself. A source is required to A: proof the subject exists (for which the MoC ref is a valid source) and B: to proof its cultural relevance (how on Earth can a cultural institute not be relevant enough for wikipedia if the own MoC of that country regards it relevant enough to include on their website about culture in Slovenia? That doesn't make any sense). All other orgs collaborate with this org INTERNATIONALLY. How can an organization be irrelevant to wikipedia while it obviously has such a wide spread network among several countries? That doesn't make sense either. It's obscure for main stream media, but the facts I mention above are there and the refs support these facts. This org is not a hoax. Best, Sida 66-gaa (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you do, it will be nominated for deletion, and if deleted, any further attempt to make the article will be speedy deleted. (how a afd discussion will go is unpredictable, but I'd guess on the basis of my experience that nobody else is likely to agree with you about using a source that copies the firms web page to show notability. If it is notable, there will be additional references enough to show it. You are more able to find them than anybody else here; you are familiar, I hope, with the places where they might be published. Find them, and add them to the draft. Then all you need do is click the button labelled submit. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

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

Help requested[edit]

Any comments for a better consensus would be beneficial and appreciated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Dunsby and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Doldersum (third relist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Stunt (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Byrne, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Millie's Fried Chicken] (consensus seems clear enough for a close perhaps), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Excela Health, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Hannigan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embrun Forestry Corporation.

I was also wondering if you could help me examine and evaluate these articles I found recently, for their notability and overall appearance: Amal ibn Idris al-Alami, Dietmar Wolter, F. Charles Brunicardi, Željko Loparić, Valerie G. Hardcastle, Christopher Ho Chee Kong, Winai Dahlan, Samuel R. Williamson, Jr., Allen Schick, Larry Travis and C. Hassell Bullock. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost exit poll[edit]

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire[edit]

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes
  • Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not?
  • Your Answer: yes, here.
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia.
  • Your Numeric Answer: not an arbitrary limit ,
  • Your Comments: at least a few thousand many significant edits, many to content space; many to relevant noticeboards, etc.
  • Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia.
  • Your Numeric Answer: not arbitrary
  • Your Comments: I'd usually expect several years, but it isn't really arbitrary
  • Q#3. Arbs...
A: should not be an admin
B: should preferably not be an admin
C: can be but need not be an admin
D: should preferably be an admin
E: must be or have been an admin
F: must currently be an admin
  • Your Single-Letter Answer: D
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin.
  • Your Numeric Answer: not an arbitrary number
  • Your Comments: I'd usually expect several
  • Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported:
  • Your Comments: As a current member of the committee, I'm obviously not going to answer this one.
  • The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
  • Your Wikipedia Username:
  • General Comments:
the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends
  • Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who?
  • Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year?
  • Your Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be:
A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions
B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions
C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language
D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English
E: working on policies/guidelines
F: working on essays/helpdocs
G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content
H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content
I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat
J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL
K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST
L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help connect or informally
M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally
N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc
O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments
Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have.
  • Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom.
Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN,
continued: F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC,
continued: K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o,
continued: P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN,
continued: U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD,
continued: 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR,
continued: 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT,
continued: Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer
Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have.
  • Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom.
Options: (same as previous question -- please see above)
Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have.
  • Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#12. Anything else we ought to know?
  • Your Custom-Designed Question(s):
  • Your Custom-Designed Answer(s):
  • The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
  • Your Wikipedia Username:
  • General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes
  • If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, click here to notify the Signpost copy-editor, leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published.
  • If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, click here to notify the Signpost column-editor, leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder).

Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry!  :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. GamerPro64 14:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ACADEMIC bio review[edit]

Hold off on additional AFD a bit? We can always AFD nominate stuff after more people comment on more of them. Alsee (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes; afew minutes ago before seeing this I already said in the section for Leon Carroll that I was going to do that. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Message[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.

Speedy deletion nomination of NationBuilder[edit]

A tag has been placed on NationBuilder requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. ... Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Me, replied with an additional source. Not appropriate for speedy, please nominate for wp:afd if you'd like to see it removed. ∴ here…♠ 03:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Me, Please restore the article I contested and send through the proper AfD process. Thank you! ∴ here…♠ 01:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin and don't have the authority to delete or undelete an article. For that you need to ask DGG (talk · contribs). Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi DGG, Please restore the NationBuilder page so that it may proceed through an AfD as contested. Thank you! ∴ here…♠ 03:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
here, I undeleted it and moved it to Draft space as Draft:NationBuilder. I suggest you incorporate the material you found especially from what looks like the best source, the LATimes Opinion, and make it stronger before it goes back to mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DGG, much appreciated. ∴ here…♠ 06:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Restore page Shafi Bahraichi[edit]

dear sir . i create this page because mr. Shafi Bahraichi is notable person of our city's literature world of urdu .what u needs for restore this articale. please suggest me i am new writer in english wiki but i joined 3 years letters. i create a an articale after research meet his friend family members .--JUNED AHMAD NOOR--JUNED AHMAD NOOR (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion nomination of Miracle software Systems, Inc[edit]

Hello DGG, You have removed Miracle Software Systems, Inc for A7 as it doesn't credibly indicate the importance or significance being on Wikipedia. But it has been listed on several well know magazines like Business insider and ranked 98 in fastest growing companies in 2002 by Inc magazine. Please advise . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivanmyc (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sivanmyc, the references in the article were entirely mere notices of whose software it distributes, and press releases. But the most importantthing I must ask you before proceeding further is whether you have any WP:Conflict of Interest? If you do , you must use the WP:AFC process, and, if the COI is financial, declare it , according to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, Now i got it. Yes the article that I'm writing is my Employer and I'm writing on the same. But there wasn't any article on the organization. Am i allowed to do that or no? If yes, Will using the "{connected contributor}" template do any good?. If no, What is the process of getting a article on the same. Thanks for your Reply. Please advise further.

Speedy Deletion nomination of AXELOS[edit]

I agree that it is a good idea to delete this page. I had not been aware that a duplicate page 'Axelos' existed, because the company prefers to have its name capitalised. I've corrected the original article to replace the incorrect link. Fustbariclation~enwiki (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 14[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
  • Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need some advice on Christopher Yanov[edit]

Hi DGG. I need some advice on Christopher Yanov. I've been looking at some articles that appear to have been created by the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm but have as yet been undetected. See my recent comments in this section of Risker's talk page for background. This article fits in with the usual modus operandi of the socks - springs fully formed and formatted from "new" editor, extensive and often misleading reference padding [3], created first as a redirect [4], marked as reviewed by a confirmed Orangemoody sock [5]. Some of them are obviously non-notable, e.g. Paperstone and Neumarkets, both of which I have prodded. This one is more borderline. While he did found a locally notable charity, Reality Changers, the coverage of him as an individual is quite poor, almost all of it is for the charity (not him) or interviews with him, or self-written. It seems to be plugging his (as yet) unpublished book. Any ideas of what to do with it? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to mark all articles where there is strong behavioral evidence should be deleted, by G5, Banned user, unless the person is so important that it is worth rescuing. Even then, I wait 6 months before re-creating. But let me check with Risker. DGG (talk ) 21:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we should wait to hear from Risker. Not being an admin, I am particularly reluctant to mark these articles with G5 if the creator hasn't been "officially" blocked as as a sock. That's why I'm wondering if I should file SPIs on the probable socks I'm finding. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it would be a good idea to file a SPI,becaue the information will add to the net of puppets, and might help identify others. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion Nomination[edit]

A page I created Thursday was marked for speedy deletion. Any suggestions on how to support the insertion of the page?

It is for a company that is basically the unofficial past-time of an entire Province in Canada. I checked before and saw that other local radio station companies VOCM-FM, and even the same type of companies (Kijiji, Gumtree) all have articles written for them. The page I created was nominated for speedy deletion because of section A7 - how is this page any less significant or does not credibly indicate its importance in comparison to the others? I included news stories and articles from major news corporations. I have found more sources to include including some of the same from the aforementioned sites that show traffic and national page rankings, etc. to show significance as well.

Any help is greatly appreciated. Cheers

So the page has been deleted (by you) - I made some additions prior to it being deleted and was given no assistance or guidance as to why the page was insignificant or unimportant. Please see the above reasoning as well as what was listed to contest the nomination for speedy deletion. This page was in no way any different than the pages listed above yet for some reason was deemed unacceptable. Can you provide any insight as to how I can get the page reinstated? Thanks Koolkev77 (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean NL Classifieds, Inc., The only 3rd party source that was more than a mention was a local story about confusion with a sex website having a similar name. The deleted article says it's in the " top 1700 of all Canadian webpage". Gumtree is in the top 30 in the UK. Kijiji has a complicated history, and might need a merge with the company that bought it. When you have substantial additional references, try again in Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The American Journal of Managed Care for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The American Journal of Managed Care is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Journal of Managed Care until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Huon (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Örgryte New Church[edit]

Hi DGG, regarding Örgryte New Church - saw you in the merge log - is this actually a translation from sv:Örgryte nya kyrka? We may want to import the transwiki history then? — xaosflux Talk 23:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It apparently is, but I I'm not even sure what you mean--do you mean the entire history of the Swedish article, or indicate from which version it was translated? --I didn't do the transwiki so I'd have to go back and check. FWIW, it's a very rough translation. I can fix a little of the worst of it on the basis of knowing the right English terms for the subject , but after that it will also need someone who actually knows the language. I havent tagged it for that yet because I'm still working on it today. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a version here is just a translation of an article on another wiki, we can bring in the per-translated text to preserve attribution - I'll happily work on it. If the initial source here was "original" and everything has been built from that, we don't need the foreign attribution. If it is a maybe--lets check on it later, a talk page note linking to the other wikipedia is fine for now as well. — xaosflux Talk 01:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Google Translate product. The last word in "vaulted, pentagonal cows" is obviously translated from Swedish kor, which is the Swedish word for a choir (architecture) but also the plural of ko, cow. --Hegvald (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a/c WP:Translation "i You are not required to import the revision history", as confirmed by Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia which requires only a link or a note. I do not consider it advisable to add additional complications. It is to the advantage of everyone to keep W{ procedures ass uncomplicated as possible. If you wish to change the guidelines to make this as a requirement, it would need wide consensus.
It's machine translated of course, as shown by numerous indications. This was unfortunately not realised by me or anyone in earlier reviews of the draft, or I would have accepted it and fixed it then. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gonstead technique[edit]

What is your opinion with chiropractics coverage? This technique is the third most common in this field. I do agree a chiropractics is a form of quackery, but should be have some coverage on major techniques. I think this passes our GNG guidelines, but some editors deny the use of sources from within the field, what is your opinions on this? Valoem talk contrib 13:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bias and prejudice, is what I think it. I commented there, though without using those words. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks DGG, ideal solution and we keep an emerging editor. Well Done Victuallers (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy Deletion nomination of Miracle software Systems, Inc[edit]

Hello DGG, You have removed Miracle Software Systems, Inc for A7 as it doesn't credibly indicate the importance or significance being on Wikipedia. But it has been listed on several well know magazines like Business insider and ranked 98 in fastest growing companies in 2002 by Inc magazine. Please advise . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivanmyc (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sivanmyc, the references in the article were entirely mere notices of whose software it distributes, and press releases. But the most importantthing I must ask you before proceeding further is whether you have any WP:Conflict of Interest? If you do , you must use the WP:AFC process, and, if the COI is financial, declare it , according to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, Now i got it. Yes the article that I'm writing is my Employer and I'm writing on the same. But there wasn't any article on the organization. Am i allowed to do that or no? If yes, Will using the "{connected contributor}" template do any good?. If no, What is the process of getting a article on the same. Thanks for your Reply. Please advise further.
Sivanmyc, that is also covered by WP:COI and the our Terms of Use. You may write the article, but you must write it in Draft space, and you must declare your connection on the article talk page and your user page. I see that you have started it, at Draft:Miracle Software Systems,Inc, but you now need to explicitly declare the financial connection. For the article, you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The items in Hindu businessline and Business standard are in effect press releases, no matter where they were published. Fastest Growing in Inc. does not necessarily imply notability: we need actual accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need some advice on Christopher Yanov[edit]

Hi DGG. I need some advice on Christopher Yanov. I've been looking at some articles that appear to have been created by the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm but have as yet been undetected. See my recent comments in this section of Risker's talk page for background. This article fits in with the usual modus operandi of the socks - springs fully formed and formatted from "new" editor, extensive and often misleading reference padding [6], created first as a redirect [7], marked as reviewed by a confirmed Orangemoody sock [8]. Some of them are obviously non-notable, e.g. Paperstone and Neumarkets, both of which I have prodded. This one is more borderline. While he did found a locally notable charity, Reality Changers, the coverage of him as an individual is quite poor, almost all of it is for the charity (not him) or interviews with him, or self-written. It seems to be plugging his (as yet) unpublished book. Any ideas of what to do with it? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to mark all articles where there is strong behavioral evidence should be deleted, by G5, Banned user, unless the person is so important that it is worth rescuing. Even then, I wait 6 months before re-creating. But let me check with Risker. DGG (talk ) 21:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we should wait to hear from Risker. Not being an admin, I am particularly reluctant to mark these articles with G5 if the creator hasn't been "officially" blocked as as a sock. That's why I'm wondering if I should file SPIs on the probable socks I'm finding. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it would be a good idea to file a SPI,becaue the information will add to the net of puppets, and might help identify others. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody. The PROD was removed from Neumarkets and Paperstone and I've sent them to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neumarkets and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paperstone. In the interim, I've redirected Christopher Yanov to Reality Changers. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gonstead technique[edit]

What is your opinion with chiropractics coverage? This technique is the third most common in this field. I do agree a chiropractics is a form of quackery, but should be have some coverage on major techniques. I think this passes our GNG guidelines, but some editors deny the use of sources from within the field, what is your opinions on this? Valoem talk contrib 13:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bias and prejudice, is what I think it. I commented there, though without using those words. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks DGG, ideal solution and we keep an emerging editor. Well Done Victuallers (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir George Kenning Article[edit]

Copy of my thank-you note to Victuallers (talk):

Thank you for your (and DGG's) efforts in getting this article published. You have restored my somewhat-battered faith in Wikipedia. Thanks also for the changes you have made to the article itself. I will now set about adding categories and putting wikilinks to the article from other articles that already mention Kenning. Davebevis (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on deleted page[edit]

Hello there, I recently submitted an article for the European Aeronautics Science Network (EASN). Another version was submitted by a different user during the summer and it was deleted after discussion because of notability criteria. Being personally involved in aeronautics, I recognize the network as one of the main contributors on its research with focus on academia. I have therefore submitted a new version and included a list of external-third party sources in order to support its notability. The article was deleted again by User: Dennis Brown who I contacted in order to request some information on how I could proceed with this, but he is currently not as active in Wikipedia. As you were originally involved in the first article [9] I would like your feedback on the above. I have gathered a list of external links and references showing the recognition of the network by the European Commission, but I am afraid that if I submit a similar article again, it will be deleted on the premise that it was deleted before. Could you please advise me on the matter? Thank you in advance Mr2t7bv (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Mr2t7bv[reply]

Mr2t7bv, the best course is to write at Draft:European Aeronautics Science Network a revised article with fully satisfactory references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. When done, ask me to review it. My apologies for the delay in responding. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Alpha[edit]

Hi there,

First of all I apologize in advance as I am new in wikipedia editing and I am not even sure if I should post my reply here. I received a proposed deletion message of a recent article which I created (named "Generation Alpha").

You mentioned two reasons for the proposed deletion.

1. Neologism The term "Generation Alpha" refers to something new which did not existed before. So by definition we would need to use some kind of neologism since we are trying to describe something new. But at the same time this necessary neologism is in line, extending and following a long "tradition" of how generations are categorised and named, making it a neologism only partially and by necessity as per above. So based on the above this should not be an argument for deletion.

2. Inadequate sources You are right and I added some additional sources which I found. Hope this is more complete now and I would be happy to hear your view as well.

Thank you very much Yannis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannis Sot (talk • contribs) 10:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis SotWhat's the context in XYZ? All you said was "has appeared in"  ? All together, this does not seem to add up to notability unless there's a good deal more to be found. There is a long tradition of how generations are named, but we need some evidence that this is a widely used name, not just a suggestion or neologism that has not yet come into widespread use. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

Draft Andreas Anton[edit]

Hi there. I am not sure how to react on the draft. For me its good to go, but there has not been any reaction since your last comment on Draft:Andreas Anton some weeks ago. Shall I just put it in the artcile space? Polentarion Talk 16:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polentarion. thanks for reminding me. I've started adjusting the text to use a more idiomatic English style. I have some questions about phrasing that appears to me somewhat ambiguous, at least in English. For example, What is "a more reflected UFO-research." ? Does "more reflexive" mean more scientific, more academic, more accurate (and more accurate in what way?), more throughly researched, more heavily studied? In addition, although not required, it would really help if there were some English language references. At least, please, expand the abbreviations in the reference list, such as "hpd,"
And in general, the article remains somewhat ambiguous about his actual position. This really does beed to be clarified, as it is likely to be listed for a deletion discussion, as is frequently the case for those involved in parapsychology. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

Parse founders / notability[edit]

Hello, you deleted one of the founders of Parse (company) but reversed the deletion of the other (Tikhon Bernstam). They are comparable. Can you undelete or bring them to parity?

Mschmidt47 (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mschmidt47, I think Bernstein is notable as founder of Scribd, which is much more impt. than Perse. But Sukhar was deleted only by PROD, and can be restored on request. I gather you would like to do that, so I will. I will also send it to WP:AFD for a discussion to obtain consensus, which is how we decide. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilya Sukhar. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Gung Medical Foundation page deletion[edit]

Hello there, I’ve first setup the “Chang Gung Medical Foundation” page sometime in early September. I know that all entries in Wikipedia must maintain truthful and neutral, therefore I took meticulous care when writing the page, providing accurate information, and used neutral words whenever possible. As I am new to Wiki, I also referred to other hospital pages on Wiki for proper writing style and techniques. Such asJohns Hopkins Hospital and MD Anderson Cancer Center, Singapore General Hospital, Changi General Hospital Singapore) , Bumrungrad Hospital (Thailand), Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, and some other famous hospitals in Taiwan. But recently, I found the page was deleted, and reason was G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I was a little confused by the deletion, so I re-read through the pages I had referred to, and compared them to “Chang Gung Medical Foundation”. I found Chang Gung and the other pages were written in similar ways in both style and format, and it was not any less neutral than others. So I am writing to you, in hope to find out the exact words (or contents) to why the page was deleted. If possible, could you kindly tell me why, so that I can change or rephrase the content. Many Thanks! Imccgmh (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all the same. Your article contains such text as " [X] Group founder and former Chairman ... and his brother ... established CGMH with the primary purpose of providing high quality and affordable healthcare to the Taiwanese public. In the early 1970s, individuals needing proper medical attention were faced with insufficient means of healthcare delivery, a lack of medical expertise, and expensive medical service" or "a number of the world's top-notch physicians in their respective fields, along with state-of-the-art equipment and professional and caring medical staff" There is no such pure advertising language in any of the articles you mention (tho some do need some improvement) The "world Renonwned Expertise" section has a number of possible claims for largest unit in Taiwan in some field, but none at all for the superlatives of expertise or quality.
I see also Draft:Chang Gung Medical Foundation which is the same as the deleted article. The standard for drafts are lower, because they are there in order to be improved. If not, I'm going to list it for deletion also. :::In addition, you have been inserting links to the article in multiple articles with only the most peripheral relationship, such as the hospital in which someone died. I shall remove them, if nobody has gotten there already to do it.
As this is the only subject on which you have edited, it wseems very likely that you have some degree of conflict of interest. See our policy WP:COI, and also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure . If the conflict is financial--that is, if you are an employee or agent of the hospital or paid by it in any manner, this must be declared. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the RFC for notability on Battle of Karbala[edit]

Hi, I think we have reached to the consensus on Battle of Karbala. Can you please close it now. --Seyyed(t-c) 19:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sa.vakilian, I cannot close a discussion in which I have commented. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mart Deletion[edit]

Hi DGG, I previously created a page for a national company called Paper Mart which was subsequently nominated for speedy deletion, which you followed through with. I understand now the issue of duplication (I had been under the impression that citing the page with overlapping phrases as a source was sufficient, especially since it was the company's own website. In any case, I have rewritten the article without duplication and have also provided more references and information to show the company's notability. I am letting you know as I was about to recreate the page but noticed the message that I should contact the editor who deleted the page. I am not sure if I should ask to have the page restored or if I should enter the version anew. I am very new to Wikipedia so I appreciate your patience. Should I just post the new version?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paper_Mart&action=edit&redlink=1 21:51, 12 December 2015 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Paper Mart (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.papermart.com/History, {{{url2}}}, {{{url3}}})

JamesLeary (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JamesLeary, a copyvio version cannot be restored. Place your new version in Draft space as Draft:Paper Mart, and I will look at it. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I just did so. Please let me know what you think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paper_Mart JamesLeary (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little cleanup. The problem is that most of the sources are mere notices, or trivial, or press releases. I do not think that without something much more substantial this will make an acceptable article. DGG ( talk ) 09:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A request[edit]

DGG have you had any prior contact with Lucia Black? If not I would like to request a review of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#An attempt to return to Wikipedia. It is perfectly fine if you do not want to take this up, I am just looking for a neutral party for a closer. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to ask a non-arb. you will find very few comments from current arbs at ANI, unless its something they have some special interest in, because if we deal with it at ANI, it's difficult to review it subsequently if it even does go to arb com. . DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Alpha[edit]

What is the status of your proposed deletion of the Generation Alpha article? I agree with you. The article probably should be merged into Generation Z as some sources are starting it (Alpha Gen) as early as the year 2000. At this point, it's a marketing term that is being used to segment parts of Generation Z. We merged the "Pluralistic Generation" ("Plurals") into Gen Z and it's actually worked out pretty good. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[[User::2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8|
2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8]] Thanks for clarifying this. I added the merge tag. Please expand on the rationale, which you will find on the article to which the merge should be made, Generation Z. If nobody objects, then do it. If they do, discuss. If you need help doing it , ask me. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Could you weigh in on the discussion support or oppose please and why? 2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wattics page[edit]

Hi DGG I am writing to discuss your nomination for deletion for the wattics page. Particularly I would like to explain how I have addressed your two points:

1st comment: as an article about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7.

I have now edited the page and, added more information and highlighted the importance of the subject. Wattics is a relevant company for University College Dublin as it was created by successful research activities within our university and it is now having a global impact. Wattics licensed the technology from University College Dublin and received significant media attention from the Irish Times {cite web |url=http://www.irishtimes.com/business/intertradeireland-sowing-seeds-of-future-success-1.1441369 |title= InterTradeIreland sowing seeds of future success, The Irish Times}} , the Irish Examiner "The smart money is on Antonio, Irish Examiner article". and other tech news media "clever-start-up-creates-tech-that-makes-smart-meters-smarter, Silicon Republic Article". .

2n comment: because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. However, the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is an article's subject does not, on its own, qualify that article for deletion under this criterion. Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material

I have significantly rewritten the content to make it encyclopedic and neutrally describe the entity. I have added more sections to improve the organisation of the page and added 8 more references and citations to the subject.

I am publishing the page again with the major changes implemented. (User:Doc Delaney)

Doc Delaney, I and two other very experienced administrators agreed that the material did not show significance and that the articles was fundamentally promotional. if you have written a version that does not have these problems, fine; it will be looked at again. The place to put it is in draft space, as Draft:Wattics.
As this is the only article you have written, it might possibly be the case that you have some connection with the company. Please see our rules about WP:Conflict of Interest. If the connection is a paid connection, as for an employee or contractor, see also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Question[edit]

Does this edit warrant blocking the anonIP as a sock, though I can't know how to connect the dots? ww2censor (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What he admits is that he had a former account. Unless he was banned or blocked indefinitely, it's not socking to edit as an ip, if he doesn't use his account at the same time. It's not worth a spi report. But I gave him a warning for unconstructive editing. If it continues, a block is appropriate; let me know. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I get it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Haiderchohan8[edit]

Greetings, DGG. I believe you have had interactions with this user before, when they blanked your PROD log. I just tagged an article of theirs, which seems to be a self-created bio that is clearly not notable, for speedy deletion. I then noticed that the same page has been deleted in one form or another 6 times previously. They do not seem to be getting it. Could you give me some advice on how best to deal with this, or perhaps look into it yourself? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin blocked the account already. Several spellings have been protected against re=creation .If any other account re-creates it somewhere, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, it was blocked between my post and your reply. Thanks, anyhow. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser mistake[edit]

Hello, Yesterday my account User:Point by point has been blocked by the Checkuser User:Materialscientist. I thought it was a mistake, because I never used any other account. But the User:Materialscientist did not respond to my request yet and blocked my IP adress. I am not searching for trouble, I just think that it is unfair to stay blocked infinetly if there is no apparent evidence of suckpuppetry. Could you help me, by unblocking my account or by showing me "evidence" that can help me understand what is going on. Thank you very much for your helpping. --2.54.15.237 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self citation[edit]

I got the impression you may be familiar with the McKinsey Quarterly and I know you are also interested in several related topics (self-citation COI, improving business pages, etc.), so I thought I would bring this RSN post to your attention in case you were interested and/or had an expert contribution to the topic. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 17:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew it existed until this moment, but I'll look at the discussion. (I just read some of the articles, which seem excellent; their greatest virtue is clarity.) DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Articles" tend to focus on McKinsey's recommendations ("China should do XYZ"). This is good information for current or prospective clients to see what type of recommendations they make, but I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia and as an involved party in their own recommendations, that's a bit primary. However, if you click "Download the Full Report," those usually have mountains of data deeper into the report about market sizes, global economy, demographics, etc. that I think could be useful in improving core business pages. I don't think it's boastful when McKinsey claims in the report to have collected the best available data on the subject - this is what they are known for. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 01:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tzvetan Simeonov[edit]

Not fellow ofor honorary member of any academic society.

It is clearly visible and from the article that he is Founding member or a Honorary member. Together with the all other honorary members, the list with the names is the link to the society honorary members "past presidents, founding members and founding council".

No published papers in GScholar or REPEC. Not editor in chief of a journal

Most likely the reason is the avoidance of conflicts of interests between academics in respect to every publication since they are all publishing their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwriter1231 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Founding member has to be of a notable society. And are you seriously asserting that he has not published any ascertainable articles because other people do publish articles? DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not sure if he had no published articles, however he have elected honorary membership in scholarly society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwriter1231 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators emails[edit]

Hi I was looking to email an administrator. Where would I find this information on the user page? Are all admins required to disclose their emails? 72.82.174.24 (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) IP, many admins (and other editors) can be emailed by using Special:EmailUser -- samtar whisper 08:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the Wikipedia email is not available to non registered users --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, didn't know that. Seems that's only casually mentioned on WP:Emailing users -- samtar whisper 09:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP, given the above misunderstanding from myself, you cannot find this information unless you directly ask the administrator for their email (which they are not obligated to give to you) -- samtar whisper 09:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will alost always ask the individual to get an account first, and then email me even if it is only to get an account for that purpose, and never use it again. First, I don't want to tell people I do not know my email, and second, even if I did , I do not want to post it on this web site. A few admins do in fact post it. I presume, 72.82.174.24 you want to ask me something? DGG ( talk ) 13:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have an account you know me very well just wondering if I can send you an email here dgoodman@princeton.edu, I'll include who I am in the email. 72.82.174.24 (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that's a working account. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays...[edit]

Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' greetings![edit]

Steel1943 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Steel1943/HappyHolidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

DGG, hope your holidays are happy, and a happy new year! Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion of Iterable (company) page[edit]

Hi - I saw you deleted the page I had created on Iterable (company). I understand there may be differing opinions on allowing companies to have pages on Wikipedia. I can understand arguments on both sides. My problem if any would be that the policy seems to be highly inconsistent. The Iterable (company) page was deleted, while there are pages like these that are allowed to remain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leanplum and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahuna_(company) . So my question is - how come we were marked and deleted, while others are not? Thanks for the response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviditer (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article had only Telecrunce and Venturebeat. the others have additional sources beyond that. Even so, I'm not sure about them. There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Mahboub Baccouch[edit]

This is an unsourced autobiography (apparently) of an associate professor. I CSD A-7'd it, then reverted as it has what could be classed as assertions of importance ("conducting top quality research"), although nothing which would qualify as a notable academic. I've BLP PRODded it, but what do you think (as the/an expert on academic biogs)? CSD? AfD? PamD 23:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it would be easy enough to provide basic sourcing to meet BLPPROD (google Scholar + the university website), but the publication record is not yet at the level that will conceivably pass WP:PROF, so I added an ordinary prod. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... which has been removed along with my BLP PROD (which was legitimately removed as the author/subject has added a few links to his departmental page, list of refs, etc). Not sure what the protocol is for replacing your PROD! PamD 17:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since anyone may remove a PROD, the only thing to do is afd: It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahboub Baccouch DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been rewritten and sourced by an independent editor who reckons Baccouch is notable - could you have a look and comment at the AfD? Thanks. PamD 21:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas!!
May you and your family have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and support, and of course all your work, on Wikipedia!

   – Onel5969 TT me 03:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Hare (author)[edit]

Hi DGG, I'm dropping you a note because of your prior involvement in cleaning up the article; I think the recent likely autobiographical edits can be deleted en masse, but prefer to bring it to wider attention rather than do the Christmas Eve carving myself. Wishing you Happy Holidays. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC2E:9C35:B399:A9E0 (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Collingridge Wheeler[edit]

Wow that was quick! Had you noticed the draft already before I pinged you? --Hegvald (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, but i saw immediately there was an obituary in the London Times, and this is enough for notability. The article can be improved subsequently. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too many drafts get arbitrarily dismissed by reviewers. Sometimes authors continue to work on them, sometimes they just give up. Reviewers, like new page patrolers, often seem to lack significant track records of actual content creation of their own. --Hegvald (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a different skill that article creation; I've discussed so many thousands of AfDs that I know what the key factors are, and I've looked at so many thousands of drafts and new articles that I have developed an eye for things that quickly show notability -- or that make it unlikely. The comment you made about look for reviews would be helpful in any case and is really more fundamental. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunningham Bounda LLC[edit]

Hi,

I created a page on a law firm named Cunningham Bounds LLC that you deleted. My apologies if I did not add or write this correctly, but this was a law firm that helped us through the Gulf Oil Spill and most of the sources/citations were from third ptyar although I did get some material off their website. Why can't they have a wikipedia page when literally tens of thousands of law frms have wikipedia pages? Just having a wikipedia page is promotional. Baker Mackenizeie has a wikipedia page. And Cuningham Bounds won class actions aginst Exxon which cheated our state out of billions in royalties, returning that to the taxpayers...and achieved records in making those who have hurt people through products that are defective pay and especially those of us who were hurt by the gulf oil spill. If leading the class action against BP in the worst environmental disaster in US history isn't worthy of a wikipedia page mention, then what is? If you could help guide me through this process, I would really appreciate it. Thanks atomccAtomcc (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atomccc the article was a blatant and obvious advertisement: "Simply put, the firm is a powerhouse of litigation ingenuity and courtroom expertise." or "Cunningham Bounds cemented its reputation as the “go to” firm for products liability cases" or "through Cunningham Bounds’ litigation, products have become safer, medical procedures have become more reliable, safety policies have been implemented, and countless individuals have received just compensation for their injuries." that sort of language does not belong in an encyclopedia . And not just wording: The article does not make the distinction between jury verdicts and what was actually awarded after the court review of the verdict & the appeals (as in normal for advertisements of lawyers). Being listed in Best Lawyers of America or in "Alabama's Super Lawyers" . is meaningless-there are no objective criteria. As for other articles you mention, There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. (Actually, we can do better: I've listed a half-ozen or so for deletion and intend to continue--we need to clean up this area. ) No prejudice against rewriting from scratch ,to emphasise any actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG,

Fair enough, I apologize for the breach in rules / protocol. Sorry about that - it really wasn't intentional. I am a scientist and am all for improving the standards of Wikipedia and didn't expect this response given the lack of standards in scientific information on this site. I took a bunch of text off their website and did not realize some of the legal implications, given that I am not a lawyer. May I at least create an entry mentioning their role in the BP Oil Spill -- and of course make sure that the amounts decided where what they are reported? I don't want to get banned or anything. I started a post on Actovegin a long time ago and did my best to accurately describe it and am interested in improving scientific literacy, especially when so many students get information from this site and you just shake your head.

If I were to start a page out again I would just make it brief and mention the Oil Spill. I'd like to include a couple other cases as clearly they represent lots of people swindled like the cases of defective drywall that was installed in houses down here all through the The South from Florida to Texas (and caused sulfur compounds to fill the air of homes corroding all metal). I wouldn't call it activism but you have to report some facts to get the word out that these things at least took place and that you can do something out it. And if they are reported by say the Mobile Press-Register, isn't that the best we can do journalism wise if verified with more than one source? I mean even scientific journals, as good as I'd like to think they are, are peer reviewed and subject to tons of bias. The best we can do is use multiple journalist sources to report what happened down here, and well, you have the Press-Register....

Anyway thank you so much for taking the time out of what is at least Christmastime for me -- happy holidays to you and a happy New Year. I certainly should be doing other things but I thought I'd put in something for the some people who really helped out millions on this one event, and will help, I hope, clean this crap up - though what politicians do with the money is another question.

If you could help, I would really appreciate it. I would take a big step backword and approach it in a much more skeptical light. What is not disputed is they have recovered billions from corporations for taxpayers. I know that it sounds like marketing but it is fact. Cheers, atomcc Atomcc (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomcc (talk • contribs) 08:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, try at Draft:Cunningham Bounda LLC. What you need is references that are discussing the firm, not just discussing the cases. If you can find them, an article is possible. But please realize that advocacy for something good, done from the most disinterested of motives without any conflict of interest, is still POV editing and advocacy, and as an encyclopedia , WP doesn't do that. This has caused problems for many people writing articles on worthy charities and the like. But in any case, never take anything from the firm's website or other previously published information. You need to rewrite it in your own words (except that you can use a brief quotation or two, set of by quotation marks, and with clear attribution. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tired of this[edit]

I spend so much time working on these articles and then you just delete them. I really question why I bother. It may be time for me to find a new hobby. Disappointed... Stagophile (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to talk about them. I never delete an article by myself. Though I have the power to do that, I don't think admins should use it. I either list an article for deletion and let another admin or the community decide, or I look at articles someone else has listed for deletion and see if I agree. Looking at your recently deleted articles, the only one I actually deleted was Larry Begley, which was a copyvio from his firm's web site. Another ed. determined that, a notice was placed on your talk page, and I deleted it, as any admin would . Drew Henderson was listed by another experienced editor, and when the article was not fixed after 10 days, another experienced admin deleted it. Draft:Ronald Ryan was deleted by another admin as a copyvio. Roni DeLuz. was listed for a community discussion by someone, and the discussion closed by an experienced admin as delete; I did not even participate in the discussion. Matt Leonard similarly, I wasn't involved at any stage.
I have proposed two articles for deletion yesterday: but you have 7 days to fix them. That's everything all the way back to 2010.
For .306 ventures, I saw a very sketchy article & reminded you to improve it: you have, & I will now check if I think it's sufficient.
The only other edits I have done that involve you has been to remove a considerable number of non0notable people from the pWP page for Fairfax University School of Business. Someone else noticed the problem, and I dealt with it. As I said there, if any of them are actually notable, you can try to write articles on them. (I haven't looked at the mList of Fairfield University People page yet-- you might want to check that for similar problems.
Since you joined in 2006, the standards for businessmen and businesses have gotten considerably higher, in response to the flood of coi editing , especially from undeclared paid editors. Though you don't have a commercial coi, and are clearly editing in good faith, the result of this is to raise standards for everybody. You might want to look at your earliest work, and see if there's additional material that could be added (if nothing else, the people have probably done something significant since that time). DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree[edit]

Talk about control freak. Instead of deleting pages that people are legitimately trying to write, how about help the community by offering suggestions to improve the content. Tired of it as well. Cthood (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(an spa trying to write a promotional bio, after deletion of a promotional article for the person's company) DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Ducellier[edit]

Thank you for expanding the article with appropriate information. Happy holidays!DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles[edit]

I have some other articles that seem questionable, quite so that they may need actually need deleting, and need evaluating so I thought you could look at them: Derek McCormack, M. Elizabeth Graue, Bennie Osburn, Dia Cha, Hédi Bouraoui, Lois Banner, Julia R. Burdge, James Neuberger, Ernst Strüngmann Institute, Mohd Noh Dalimin and Song Ho-young. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

clearly notable
McCormack is vice-chancellor of Auckland University of Technology, that is, the head of a significant university. (In the UK etc., chancellor is just the ceremonial head). Nothing else is needed for notability under WP;PROF.
Graue holds a named chair at a major research university. Meets WP:PROF even if nothing else is stated.
Osbourne is head of a veterinary school. Likehead of a med school, that's notable by itself.
Bouraoui has an honorary doctorate from a recognized university. That's a major award.
Banner is an eritus full professor at a major univerity with multiple books. They're non-academic books, but from good publishers. almost certainly OK, but needs checking.
uncertain
Ernst Strüngmann Institute is uncertain. The two heads of the institute are famous. For Wolf Singe, we need a translation of the deWP article on him, much more than we need this article, but I'm not sure what to do about this article
Burge might seem to meet one of the less well-know WP:PROF special criteria, being co-author of a very widely used textbook, I'd even say a famous textbook,but she is not the principal author or the author who established it as famous. I can only verify her being one of the coauthors for the 8, 9th and 12th of the 13 editions. I need to check the other textbooks. I will probably list this for afd, but there may be a debate.
Mohd Noh Dalimin is head of a university, but it may not be an internationally important university. I need to check its standing. (his previous university was much less not important ).
probably not
Dia Cha is another matter. the awards are relatively trivial, the article is puffery, and "" is not a RS for notability , I will need to check publications just in case.
Song Ho-young. The problem is what do about the national level awards. I would argue that they do not show notability under WP:PROf, for the standardof notability there is international. But some might think it meets the GNG. Thearticles is horribly promotional , but its easy enough to remove the excess. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks again for your continuous work! But what about James Neuberger? Also, I found others: Jonathan Bach, Michael O'Connell (botanist), Patricia Fara, William Doyle (historian), Glenn Laffel (this particular one seems to mainly only be a physician), Moshe Gottesman (listed as "Dean Emeritus"?), Robert Bates (political scientist), Michael I. Krauss, Michael McElroy (scientist) (this particular one also needs work) and lastly Ram Phal Hooda.
I'm also not sure of Gary Gottlieb as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam so far found several links (using "Gary Gottlieb Partners in Health") but the article would certainly need work if improvable so I'm not sure if AfD is needed. I'm also not sure of Robert Wood (psychologist) and I happen to see you made a few changes in November 2012. I have found several more but they're about authors instead but I'll list one here: Gerald H. Jennings as I'm not able to gather if he's solidly notable. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
general guidelines
All academic bios need a check for for copypaste against their university web p. whether or not listed in their bio and whether or not indexed by Google.
Anyone with article publications needs a check to see if they might be enough for notability--it often can not be told from the article.
certainly notable
Fara , as author at least
Doyle -- anyone with multiple books published by OUP is certainly notable.
Bates -- everyone who holds a named chair at Harvard is notable--but seems like copypaste .
McElroy -- everyone who holds a named chair at Harvard is notable. Stub, but does not particularly need work--it's a viable stub that unambiguously shows notability & we can wait for someone to expand it.
Gottlieb -- unquestionably notable but needs ck for promotionalism, Institue of Medicine is equivalent to National Academy of Sciences & is sufficient without need for anything else shown.
Jennings --everyone who has described multiple species is is notable--this can be assumed from the CV, but does need to be stated.
probably Notable
Bach --needs ck on publications
O'Connor
Lafell, but needs rewriting for promotionalism
Wood,, as author.
Probably not
Neuberger --needs ck on publication record just in case
Kraus -- and very highly promotional. again, needs ck on publication record just in case
Hoods, vice-c, but the universities need checking. if minor, could be challenged
Other
Gottesman is Dean of a secondary school, not a college, but has a honorary DD. Article is quite promotional. Probably will need afd to decide.
Details and workup in a few days. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

subjective criteria and afd[edit]

hi david,

I hope this is an appropriate space to ask about how to improve an AfD(if not please let me know !), and also to clarify your viewpoint on what is surely a subjective criteria. in regards to a comment that you made about inclusion in a museum collection being a reasonable criteria for notability. the guidelines here dont make a distinction as to the merit of a particular museum or gallery. suffice to say that i mostly agree with your assessment of the particular institution in question,you fail to back your claim with a reasonable argument. please advise so i can best respond thank you!

I hope this is an appropriate space to ask about how to improve an AfD(if not please let me know !), and also to clarify your viewpoint on what is surely a subjective criteria. in regards to a comment that you made about inclusion in a museum collection being a reasonable criteria for notability. the guidelines here dont make a distinction as to the merit of a particular museum or gallery. suffice to say that i mostly agree with your assessment of the particular institution in question,you fail to back your claim with a reasonable argument. please advise so i can best respond thank you! 

	+

Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRV to AfD[edit]

Is it considered standard procedure to ping prior editors involved when an DRV is closed as relist, are there any examples of this happening in the past? Valoem talk contrib 16:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I consider it good procedure. I don't know if it is actually required, but it should be. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has happened (including where I was actually notified) and I myself would like to be, especially if it was a subject I frequently comment at such as businesses and companies, biographies, etc. SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I haven't seen it before so it could be utilized more. I am not sure what to do anymore in regards to this AfD, obviously if this fails I won't touch article again. The amount of heat and off wiki harassment is enough. But I do feel that authority is the only way to override this going forward. This AfD highlights mobbing at the highest level, when editors see the number of attempts at restoration they become increasingly defensive with each incarnation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk · contribs) and Casliber (talk · contribs) are the only two editors that had any legitimate reasoning for there vote to delete and I appreciated that. The rest of the editors appear to be there to attack me and the article and have created an environment so hostile that editors supporting this concept are afraid to speak their mind. Editors appears to have ignored the fact that I went through DRV and garnered overwhelming support from even Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) himself who not only favored inclusion, but strongly supported it. The inherent bias now makes this AfD flawed. Cunard (talk · contribs)'s strong sourcing and well reasoned policy based inclusion seems to be ignored. Any editor reading the wall of text before his post is going to be bias or reserved about supporting this. I am not sure what to do next and have considered pinging all Arbcom members to see if they consider this entire debate historic to improving Wikipedia. Valoem talk contrib 20:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's personal. Besides any particular prejudice against this particular topic, WP can show a remarkable degree of prejudice against some sexual topics. Like many individuals and organizations, WP's willingness to accept such things is in principle very broad, but in practice is limited to what people are familiar or comfortable with. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpay[edit]

Thanks for your constructive criticism of Pushpay. I would welcome some constructive suggestions to address some of the perceived issues with my initial post on the page. VCandPEInvestor (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commented on the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Mahboub Baccouch[edit]

Hello DGG, please provide your opinion on this AfD: Mahboub Baccouch. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_107_Dec._2015&oldid=1144174824"