User talk:DGG/Archive 126 Jul. 2017

                                       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

Hi DGG. Do you or any of your watchers know any good experienced editors that work on articles about religious denominations, and that would interested in cleaning up Open Episcopal Church, which is apparently an LGBT-friendly denomination? The article is a mess (and seemingly POV) and the citations include a lot of primary and social media stuff. I somehow took pity on the two newbies squabbling over it when it came up at a recent declined RFAR. I've helped out a little at the talk page but I lack sufficient interest to actually help clean up the article. Any help or advice would be appreciated; I don't really know of a good go-to editor on this. It doesn't actually necessarily need an editor interested in the subject matter; just could possibly make do with someone who enjoys clearing things out and cleaning things up. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC); edited 14:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Softlavender a suggestion for you: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've now done some copyediting on it; I think right now what mostly remains to be done is more specialized weeding out of uncited, badly cited, or problematical text I think. A fair amount of the sourcing is either poor, primary (or self-published), and/or dead & needs checking on Wayback. Also, some of the text is just gibberishy ecclesiastical stuff that needs major overhaul, possibly from someone whose field of interest more closely matches ecclesiastical subjects. Softlavender (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, there are very few religious articles on Wikipedia that in my opinion don't have those issues. I could go on for days about the issues facing articles related to the Catholic Church, but the solution to many of the historical articles in that religion and other major world religions is often to gut and rebuild, which is an option in that case because of how much scholarly work has been done from both secular and religious academics on the history of major religions. I might pop over to the one you're linking here later, but since it appears to be a relatively new denomination that has a smaller membership than the population of town I live in, you aren't likely to find as many secondary sources that can be used to construct a good article. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Speaking of horror religion articles that deserve WP:TNT, another one that came up at a recently declined RFAR or ANI is Religion and sexuality. Again, I took pity and tried to help the squabblers on the talk page, but as far as the article itself, it is so bad I had to tag-bomb it (which I have only ever done once before in my life). At least the Open Episcopal Church is a very modern thing, but too small a thing to have many wiki eyes on it, as you say. I have no personal interest in it. I agree with you about religion articles (especially Christian/Muslim); I generally stay away. Softlavender (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried to read the religion and sexuality bit, but the prose is so bad I lost interest and then skimmed to see that it is essentially a bunch of listings. For what it is worth, history of religion articles are actually quite enjoyable as no one really cares enough to fight about them and there are scholarly sources around. My current content project is trying to bring the 17th century papal conclaves to good topic status. The issue there is that until recently, they were all almost entirely based on two self-published sources and a 1930s history of the papacy that modern scholars regard as little more than a gossip rag. They've been pretty easy to fix and don't have many of the issues you have with improving most non-historical religion articles. As for the topic at hand, I'm going through the prose now seeing what I can fix. The talk page conversation might be too much for me, but I can try for the basic ones that at least bring it into compliance with WP:V and WP:NPOV. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• UPDATE: The article in question has been substantially improved, and the tags at the top removed. It's not great, because the text is choppy and many references are either lost to the mists of time or non-existent, plus there is not a lot to report about the tiny denomination (understatement). For those interested in improving fairly important articles, hop over to Religion and sexuality and feast your eyes on that disaster. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • as the article subject is sufficiently broad-scoped, I suggest it be nominated for WP:TAFI. 223.227.122.249 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC) TAFI nomination made. See here. 223.227.122.249 (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion here please?

Apparently Heterophobia redirects to Homophobia, that's like redirecting Black supremacy into White supremacy isn't it? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It actually redirects to a section of that page, Homophobia#heterophobia. The usual way of proceeding is to expand that section into an article. Anyone can do it. Not everyone will want to be involved in the inevitable conflicts. DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Afc quick accept?

Would you mind accepting up draft:Akal Wood Fossil Park? 3 weeks sound like too long a waiting period for me. 223.227.122.249 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I reviewed and accepted - UNESCO World Heritage Site. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Alif Oil

Hello,

you have deleted this article on the ground of lack of notability. According to the Manila Bulletin website, the director-general of Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) has said, that Alif Oil intends to invest US$1 billion.

Hence I ask you to undelete this article. Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

what I see is "intends to put up a palm tree cultivation and oil refinery in Mindanao that could be worth US$1 billion". When they do, and it isevaluated by external sources as beign that important, there might be a basis for an article. DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have listed Alif Oil at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 July 3.Sarcelles (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Census reports

I can understand why a census report would come in handy in an article about a particular state during a particular time but I don't see why WP should maintain individual census reports for every state in the world. See 1941_Census_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir which the indeffed user (email) said was based on 1901_Census_of_Delhi_District. I prodded the former but the tag was removed because I cited the reason as inaccessibility to the source (and later discovered how to access the source), so I sent the article to AfD. Would the reason to delete be WP:NOTDIRECTORY? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I commented/ If my assumption there is wrong, please let me know. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I did a search for census and a handful of articles showed up in the drop down menu, including Australia, UK, Canada, Pakistan, Egypt, India prior to Independence, and Germany - the ones I checked include an historic timeline with encyclopedic prose describing notable events. Example: Census in Australia, Census in Germany, Census_geographic_units_of_Canada - they're not just charts from a primary source as in the case of the ones at AfD. If we start allowing only the reports without inclusion of any encyclopedic significance, our encyclopedia may become an archive of census reports which to me is not unlike WP:NOTDIRECTORY. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I continue to see this as a article about the population, not about the census. The data is of encyclopedic significance, along with thousands of presentations of similar data in WP. But you are right it is not by itself a sustainable article, and it should could probably be merged. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

DGG, do you think maybe it would help if you added the above to your comment at 1941_Census_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir? ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Rohit K. Dasgupta

Could you please take a quick look. I'm hesitant to tag it but something gives me pause. You know more about academics than I do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohit K. Dasgupta DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts

Slightly related to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of participants at the Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, but do you have thoughts on listing of electors at papal conclaves. As I mentioned in another thread above I've been working through the 17th century ones, which were largely lists based on self-published sources of the electors. My current technique has been removing the lists because they are overwhelming and not from RS. I'd been planning on going back through when I was done with that century and seeing if I can reconstruct the lists as articles from reliable sourcing, but your !vote there has given me second thoughts. Input is welcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

uncertain--but in any case they would be part of the article. They must also have sources in Catholic encyclopedia, histories of the papacy, etc. I'd expect everyone who participated was usually the subject of at least one biography, and in the 17th & 18th century I would expect almost all of the sources to be in Italian. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I asked because more recent ones have it as separate list articles (see Category:Lists of Papal conclaves). I personally side against the inclusion in the article because naming 50-70 individuals with half of them being red links is less than ideal. I am also just generally list averse in articles, which is why I like checking myself on such things. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

But should they be redlinks? It seems to me that this makes it obvious that there should be articles. I recognize your greater expertise in the area, butsince all bishops even are considered notable here .... DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, most certainly none of them should be red links, though all cardinals being bishops or even all being priests is a 20th century innovation, being a cardinal is notable independent of episcopal status. When there has been a runner-up that doesn't have an article, I've been creating it. I'd do it for all the red links, except I don't have the language skills to do more than the more notable runners-up. I believe the 20th century model we have of not listing all of the individual electors in articles is probably ideal stylistically, but your comment at the AfD above made me reconsider whether the 20th century model of listing them separately was ideal. Following this conversation I think what I would probably settle on as the ideal is mentioning within individual biographies what elections the subject was a part of. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly the same. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Alison Martino page

Hi DGG, I saw you tagged a page I created for deletion Alison Martino for being not notable. That was just a skeleton that I was hoping to build upon. There is a lot more to say about Alison's reputation as being an expert on the Sunset Strip and Los Angeles, which I think is notable. From what I understand, I can remove the tag and then try to beef it up with more sourced information an see if you guys agree then. Is that correct? I've read everything I can and just want to verify. Thank you so much! Ddutkowski (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Ddutkowski, you can do that--it's the purpose of the WP:PROD procedure. Remember that you will need to show the reputation by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I made updates and I hope I communicated the "notability" with references. Fingers crossed!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddutkowski (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Entuity page

Hey DGG,

The Entuity page was blocked for recreation by you at 19:09, 5 October 2016. What do I need to do to submit a new page for review? It should be noted that:

• I work for Entuity, so on my user page I would declare a conflict of interest
• I have checked out the user page of Destructor84 and can see that previous deletions were due to the page being written in a promotional way. I have a draft that doesn't read as an advertisment.
• I have credible references to use in the article.

Our company believe we have enough notability in our field to warrant an article, and we would also like to add ourselves to the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems

Many thanks,

Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiubov (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

1. . It has been deleted twice; both I, and another experienced admin deleted the article.
2. . It was an advertisement at the start, and has not improved. An article limited to a list of features and a list of releases is not appropriate for an encyclopedia
3. . At least half the references were press releases,

If you want to try for an article, the only really acceptable method for an editor with direct conflict of interest, is to do it in Draft space via WP:Articles for Creation. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, DGG. I viewed the history of this article in detail yesterday and can see (and agree) with why it was blocked. I have submitted a new article for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiubov (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Mettl page

Hey DGG,

The Mettl page has been put under Articles for deletion by you.

I'd be grateful if you can tell me why it was put for deletion

Many thanks,

Debarshi

Debarshi Nayak (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

as it says at the AfD, and as another editor has explained also. it does not seem the company is yet notable. The references are almost entirely press releases, some in the form of newspaper articles, but still essentially repeating the information of the company. You apparently have a conflict of interest, and obviously those with a conflict of interest tend to consider what they do as important. So it may be, but it does not now meet our standards at WP:CORP. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PayU India

• I have highest of regards on your knowledge of Wikipedia. I am highly participative in your AfD. But this one i do not agree on various grounds.

• You have deleted the One of the Biggest Fintech startup in India. Its like deleting PayPal or Ebay from Wikipedia. There might be article quality issue, but this is no PR stunts, if you even know India, this is by every means follow standards to Encyclopedia or Wikipedia. It is Textbook notable, I will not be surprised if students are being taught in schools taking examples of PayU.

• I know you are very senior and not biased. But are you see every Indian startup or company as advertising. I can show to over 1000 Americans companies here with baseless, blatant promotions, and ridiculous Press coverage being protected in the name of GNC or some other Wikipedia policies.

• Even you have protected many American articles which I have AfD, on what grounds, just because they are covered in Media? or they are American?

• You are an Admin, and this decision does not make any sense. By every means there are some Startups in India which deserves the place here. Else i will be first one to nominate them.

• I am not advocate of any articles here, not for Indian neither for American, but it should be treated similar, if its Indian startup or an Indian Entrepreneurs does not make them automatically non-notable by their place.

• I can give you list of Ridiculous US startups you have protected without any significance as they have, PayU and few others are not promotions, It is a history of Payment.

• You are very intelligent making decision, i will still be participating removing the spam as you tag them. No offence just my view, you are biased in many places, no one can be perfect, neither you are. Sorry If i offended you, but I can not agree on few decision of yours. Light2021 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Light2021, It is always appropriate to challenge me to explain myself. True, some people here don't like it, but that's a little silly, because this is a place where it is expected and a necessary part of our manner of working. I will always take something like this seriously and give the best answer I can. What's more, sometimes I'm just plain wrong!

I must follow consensus when I close. My role in closing is merely to judge what the consensus of reasonable arguments is, and state it. I may not instead close according to my own opinion. No admin may do that. (Some have been known to do so nonetheless, but it's quite wrong, it is called here a Supervote, and such decisions are usually reversed at Deletion Review)

If I disagree with the consensus, I have 4 choices only: instead of closing, I may give my own opinion, or I may pass it by and let someone else close, or I may list for further discussion, or, if the consensus is clear enough, I may close it according to the consensus as expressed.

the consensus here was clear. Most of the experienced users thought the references insufficiently independent or insubstantial. If that's what they think, rightly or wrongly, that's still the consensus. It had already been relisted once, and it is rarely useful to relist again.

I do not see Indian companies as likely to be non-notable. I do see them as relatively difficult to prove notability by the standards we use, because I consider articles on companies in Indian newspapers as very likely to be PR. I also see most articles on American companies or organizations of any sort in most newspapers as likely to be PR, and I have so argued when relevant. There are more Indian companies with promotional articles being submitted these days, in part because more American companies have learned not to try for articles here. But , as you observe, there are a great many that got into WP in earlier years, and we have not yet removed all of them.

In both cases, I judge by the content. If several articles repeat the same words, they're almost certainly copying it from the press release. If they interview the CEO, and let him say whatever he chooses about the origin and accomplishments of the company, they're an organ for his PR. If they use terms of praise without analysis, they're PR. If the overemphasize minor accomplishments, they're PR. NGOs and similar organizations are even worse in general, because they use cheaper and therefore less skilled press relations people.

But this is irrelevant in this instance. I did not go back to the original sources here, because I was not trying to evaluate the article and decide what I thought about it. I was evaluating the discussion, which is all I'm supposed to do. Unless the discussion looks really weird, I assume the arguments are made in good faith.

If there are any particular keep closes you think I did wrong, let me know--but remember, I must follow the consensus, not the merits. If you think I've argued wrong in any particular case, that's another matter, because most articles I argue are somewhat equivocal. I try to concentrate on the more difficult decisions, and therefore the consensus will not always be with me.

If there are any particular horrible examples from anywhere, that you think I might want to nominate, just tell me.

But let me give my opinion on the actual notability of this company: I think it might well be notable, but I do not think the article shows it. But I see it's an international company and I think it would be much better to write the article about that company first, with a section on hte Indian company. I see that the entire company (I think) of Naspers, which is notable, and so at least a redirect there would be appropriate. It's already mentioned in the article. a redirect would be appropriate. I will make it for both the international company and the Indian one. . Perhaps I should have seen that originally. But then, perhaps someone could have mentioned it in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for writing and truly appreciate & understand your point. Light2021 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I looked up some of Mr Magoos' sources and the company does seem notable, although it wasn't clear at first that there was a PayU that was the parent of PayU India. Two things struck me with the voting - not everyone seemed to take the time to read his sources, and of course I'm sure you noticed that TwisterSister voted delete twice, although that didn't affect the final tally. I do notice two biases in Wikipedia - one against Indian companies, which as you pointed out is a function of the press being a bit fawning, but also the fact that some of the articles are written with poor grammar. The other is against businesses - I've taken articles that were tagged for notability and added sources and almost verbatim info from the coverage, and seen the articles subsequently tagged for advertising. Nonetheless, are you able to email me the deleted PayU India text so I can see if it can be fixed? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Reposting in cased you missed my request. Do you have access to the PayU India text, and if so, can you email it to me? I'll take a shot at fixing it and will submit it to AfC, and will let you know here when it's up. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Small Question

I noticed in wiki talks generally people write !vote instead of simple vote. Why is that so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:128A:EF2:1031:4B77:3D2A:55D8 (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @2405:205:128A:EF2:1031:4B77:3D2A:55D8: Please see WP:!VOTE for the explanation (! means not in this case). Happy editing, —PaleoNeonate - 13:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That article is a bit wordy. It means commenting without voting. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I;d word it a little differently: it means that at AfD and similar places, we do not take a strictly numerical vote, but we judge consensus between different alternatives. The number of people on each side does make a difference, but so do the arguments they use. "Comment" in this context has two meanings: first, as Tim says, that everything we say there is in a sense a comment, but also as applied to a particular statement, we will prefix it by Comment to indicate that we are not auppporting one side or another, but just making a remark--or that , while we do support one side, we have previously made a "keep" or "delete" !vote, and are making an additional statement. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Red link

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Red link. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sunday July 9: WikNYC Picnic @ Governors Island

Sunday July 9, 1-6pm: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" on New York City's green and historic Governors Island, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday July 9 WikNYC Picnic (RSVP) (also on meetup.com) 1–6pm - come by any time! Our reserved picnicking area is Grill #5 by Nolan Park in the northern part of Governors Island. Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia NYC banner! We hope to see you there! --Pharos (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	for the work and contribution. Light2021 (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your removed text from Draft:Patrick Obahiagbon

One of the reasons why I decided to go through AFC for my articles to be assessed before being moved to mainspace was because I want to create perfect articles in the long run, and I love to engage other Wikipedians, like am doing now. Initially I was so sure there would be an article for "Patrick Obahiagbon", considering his level of popularity in Nigeria, not for being a politician but his style of speaking. I was astonished to discover that there wasn't. However, I noticed articles had been created on two occasions (in 2012 and 2014) but were deleted for BLP violations. I am not an admin so I can't view what the editors wrote about him. But I have a hunch that the content of this present article, created by me that you (and Dr Strauss) were not okay with was also what led to the BLP violations in the previous articles.

I do not agree with your complete removal of of a section in the article that speaks about Patrick Obahiagbon being a grammarian/vocabularist. He is even more known for that than being a House of rep member. I put it to you that you will never find any reference talking about him that wouldn't mention his style of speaking or writing. How I wish you could watch his videos online, you will understand what I am saying better. His English is strange and its well documented online, he is also very proud of it, and it does not in any way harm or promote him. It's about doing the right thing. I might not have worded it accurately but it shouldn't be removed, that is core content. If you should ask any Nigerian, "what is Patrick Obahiagbon" mostly known for, the answer will be related to "speaking big big English", not being a politician. If you ask who can speak English most in Nigeria, 70% of the answers you will get will be "Patrick Obahiagbon".

If another editor familiar with Wikipedia policies thinks adding more information or a section on his style of english is appropriate, I will dedicate time to expand the removed text. For now, I will just let sleeping dogs lie since its two very powerful editors against me. Although I strongly believe that the only reason why your views are different from mine is because you haven't done enough personal research on him from my perspective. If you can watch any three of his videos on Youtube and read any three of his articles, I bet you will agree with me that the information on his English causing an appeal among Nigerians is worth mentioning. Darreg (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

If it were not that he is a MP, he would not be notable enough for an article. "popularity" is not notability in terms of there being an encyclopedia article. If the material on his fine vocabulary is added, the article would probably be deleted as puffery. My job is not to express my views, but to tell you what the consensus will be. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Baratunde Cola

How do I get my page back for correction to resubmit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsheis2017 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingheis2017, it was deleted as an advertisement, but it is also an exact copy of his page at Georgia Tech [1], so it should have been deleted as copyvio also. We cannot include in Wikipedia anything which is published elsewhere, unless it is published under a free license. The page is marked as the copyright of "Georgia Institute of Technology | NanoEngineered Systems and Transport Lab". It is possible that they would release it under the provisions of the Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;, which requires irrevocably giving everyone in the world permission to reprint, reuse and modify the material for any purpose, even commercial. The methods for doing it are explained at WP:DCM. But I would very strongly advise you against it, because the content is so much a promotional page for him that it would need to be almost completely rewritten. He is notable, so it is worth writing a proper article--I advise doing in in Draft space, including only the most significant material and omitting all statements of praise, and all details of his undergraduate career and justifying any claims of "first" by reference to published independent sources unconnected with him or his university. The routine facts of his career can be referenced to his official biography, but everything else needs a specific source for every statement. Include links to his 2 or 3 most cited papers. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Article on Ajay Kanwal

Hello Davi,

Was creating this page to describe the significance of Mr Ajay Kanwal to Janalaxmi bank. Wanted to understand what were the shortcomings you saw that made you pull the article off. I

wanted to fix those and re create this page. Requesting you help on this.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uctruly (talk • contribs) 11:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish promotion. Therefore, the significance of Mr. Kanwal to the bank he advises is irrelevant; an encyclopedia is interested in his significance to the general public. In explaining his importance to those who deal directly with the bank, there's a much better place: the bank's own website. I have consequently listed the article for speedy deletion as an advertisement. Another administrator will decide. If they should decide it does not qualify for immediate deletion, I will list it for a community discussion at WP:AFD. It seems likely that you have some connection with him or his bank, so please see WP:COI. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you...

...about MfD - I tried it, and this is what I got. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) Hello Atsme. For Draft: space, MfD would suit if CSD did not work. Since this is a mainspace article, the possibilities are: PROD, CSD, if none of those are appropriate or work, AfD would be the right venue. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate - 14:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok - so the article has to be in Draft space for the MfD venue. Thanks PaleoNeonate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: you're welcome. BTW, I checked if the article should also be tagged as an orphan, but I then found two articles linking to it, one Draft: space which would have won this award, Draft:Creately and the organization hosting that award: BCS Sri Lanka Section which also appears to have sourcing issues (in case you'd also like to look at them). —PaleoNeonate - 14:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, really, PaleoNeonate? Well...ahem...those were the ones I actually meant for MfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Banner on my page

Hi David, is there any way to remove the banner from my page? It's been there for years now, even after you fixed my page, and the only effect, I think, is to question the credibility of my page. The page itself is as minimal and modest as can be. I would be so grateful if that banner could be removed, at long last... Best wishes, Stevan --User:Harnad 14:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

removed one--I need to check the edit history before removing the other. DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you close this AfD?

Hi DGG, I saw that someone speedied Noddy Kidswear after I called out massive sockpuppetry in the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noddy Kidswear, and then you deleted it, so the AfD's redundant now. Can you close it? I wasn't sure how to have it done. Thanks! JamesG5 (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone else got it. JamesG5 (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Asa Philippines Foundation

Hi DGG, why are you putting deletion tag to Asa Philippines Foundation Inc. article. Can you please let me know why does the article should be contested to deletion. 110.54.203.56 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

why are you apparently using multiple accounts to evade the restrictions of removing speedy tags? The article is pure propaganda, for example:. "surprisingly, “ASA” is not an acronym comprised of words but rather is a Bangla term written in all capitalizations with a common ground to the Filipino language -- both term would mean as “hope” in both languages; A perfect term for the context of something so noble as to aim to uplift the many from poverty. " DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Nader El-Bizri AfD

Considering your experience, your input is welcome at (the very messy AfD page) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nader El-Bizri. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate - 20:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello DGG. I understand your concerns and the reasons for placing warning tags. I also believe you are willing to hear my clarifications. I was not aware that in the course of a discussion I should not make edits. I did this in good faith to improve the article and bring more references. Being new to the Wikipedia protocols and technicalities might have resulted in what messily appears as “disruptive edits”. In real-life I am an academic specializing in philosophy. I do not have a connection with the subject of the article, but I am intellectually interested in his research and of other academics in the field. I used to make occasional edits in philosophy on Wikipedia without adopting a name. I had a bit of time after the end of the semester this summer to contribute to Wikipedia. One of my motives was an incident with a graduate student who used Wikipedia as reference and resulted in negative evaluations of the thesis as per the criteria of reputable universities. Given that I occasionally follow the news of the Wikipedia article being discussed, and those of other academics in related fields, I was concerned about a deletion request being made by a user who did not specialize in academia. I hence became engaged in the process. Given that I am new to this, I tried to find ways to bring this to the attention of experienced Wikipedia editors to serve as independent objective referees/assessors. It became clearer to me as the process was unfolding that it has its internal self-corrective integrity - You are clearly an experienced editor, with sound knowledge as librarian. One side-comment to consider (generally and independently form the article being discussed) is that: “chapters” in anonymously-peer-refereed edited volumes (published by Cambridge, Oxford, Routledge, Brill, etc.) are nearly equivalent to anonymously-peer-refereed “journal articles”, this is the case in the humanities, unlike the criteria of the natural, applied, and social sciences) - I was hesitant at first to write this whole clarification, but I then felt it is vital to do so given the integrity editors like you are bringing to the process, and that clarifying my actions ultimately serves the same purpose, although my contribution to Wikipedia will remain minimal given the limited time I am able to dedicate to it. Thanks anyway (AcademeEditorial (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC))

Based on my career talking to academics, publishers, and specialist librarians in all fields of knowledge, such chapters are in general not the equivalent, even in the humanities-- except in a few very specialized fields, or if the chapter is in something really important, and I consequently left one in. But I was exceptionally conservative in removing material--normally we do not even include any journal articles for people in fields where the notability and the academic advancement is primarily by published books, and even in the fields where articles are the most important forms of presentation we normally include only the two or three most cited--and there are some editors here who challenge even that. Taking you at your word, there may be no direct coi, but there is such rampant promotionalism in all areas of the world , including the academics, that even good faith editors tend to write promotional articles as that;s what they've always seen, and unfortunately even in WP. It will be years until we have removed half million or so promotional articles from earlier years when standards were lower, but at least we do not want to add to them.

If you do have time for WP,I urge you to write brief bios of leading people in your subject area. The easiest criterion to meet to show notability is holding a named distinguished professorship. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DGG for your response. I began now a User-Page and will see how things progress. The summer is easier than later in the year in terms of having some time to making contributions to WP. I prefer to improve existing articles than start from scratch since I am new to the WP technicalities. However, given the tags under my userpage, I will steer away from the article being discussed and leave its handling to experienced editors (AcademeEditorial (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:List of highest funded crowdfunding projects

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of highest funded crowdfunding projects. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion of April Wilkerson

What I object to is not having a chance to contest the speedy deletion. You deleted the article in less than 24 hours. Please give us a chance to contest your deletion. The YouTuber April Wilkerson is a big deal in the do-it-yourself home improvement and construction world, and her projects have been described and referenced in numerous respectable mainstream news sources. Please go about deleting the article the proper way -- through the community-approved process of AfD -- not abusing your powers as an administrator -- and let users vote on whether to keep the article or not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

my error--I meant to only tag. I almost never delete singlehanded. Restored and sent to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Oren Alexander

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Oren Alexander, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Colette Mazzucelli

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Colette Mazzucelli, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare , you are aware that almost all of these two articles were written by one or more now-banned undeclared paid editors and their multiple socks? DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) As Colette Mazzucelli's article has been around since 2005, edited incrementally over the years, perhaps it should be reverted to the version of 22 March 2016 before the banned editor's major contributions, and their contributions hidden? PamD 07:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)On the other hand, perhaps the edit history of Oren Alexander suggests that perhaps there's another sockpuppet/paid editor to add to the list (it was created by an editor who has made no other edits before or since)? PamD 07:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, they should be tagged with G5. But when I reviewed them, I disagreed that they were so promotional as to be unsalvageable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) How would that work, GorillaWarfare? Criterion G5 is absolutely specific that "To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked". We're just shooting ourselves in the foot here. We know that undeclared paid editing sockpuppet rings exist and that they need to be stopped, yet we can't organise ourselves enough to have any procedure for dealing with them. What's the way forward? Because I think it's time to look for one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And G11 is absolutely specific that it applies to pages that are "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION". Perhaps you should start a discussion to amend the CSD criteria, if you think articles like these should qualify? Otherwise take them to AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with GorillaWarfare: I always thought that G11 was about the article's content, not who created it. {{db-g11}} does say in its current form. Adam9007 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, actually so do I – G11 does indeed say those things. But I don't see how G5 could be any more likely to be accepted. Do you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think Doc James has discussed in the past (at some page I lurk at) trying to clarify G5. Currently it is very narrowly construed. For now, I think the best option is simply to keep pointing out in AfDs that WP:N has two components, and that promotion is a valid reason to delete something per WP:NOT, WP:DEL4, and per WP:DEL14. As someone who is a regular at the NPP conversations, I do think the Sheryl Nields AfD, and the controversy around Marcomgirl in general did a lot to raise the awareness of the issue of promotional editing even within a group that isn't keen on promotionalism to begin with. I continue to think the best way forward at this point is through the AfD process: it is sometimes flawed, but it is a way we can achieve a practical consensus over hundreds of cases rather than a drawn out RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: No, I suggested it just based off of what DGG said above. I didn't look at the editors involved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

just reminding people that "once an article is nominated for CSD, it can be deleted under any applicable criterion" DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. We're still just floundering round in circles here without a proper criterion or policy for dealing with TOU violations. Doc James has reverted to an earlier version of this particular page, as PamD suggested above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment So the question how do we interpret "while the user was actually banned or blocked" in the G% criteria? As I have said previously in this case User:Susana Hodge is not the master it is just the oldest account we have found to date. Just look at their first edit. They will have prior blocked accounts and just because we only get CU data for the last 3 months does not mean they do not exist. We can come to obvious conclusion and for these types of cases I occasionally do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The way forward is to hold to the principles, not to the often contradictory guidelines that have developed around them. To start with, WP is an encyclopedia in contrast to a medium for advocacy. The two are incompatible. The best practical approach to this is what I've been saying explicitly at AfDs, and what I've actually been doing for the last ten years: either immediately rewrite the article or delete it. Anyone who argues that an article can be fixed, needs to prove it by fixing it, not just by hoping somebody will eventually.

G11 is necessarily somewhat subjective, and two experienced people (such as GW and myself) can still differ in whether an article falls under it. That's why no admins delete G11 single-handed. I make 5% errors, let's say for argument's sake even 10% on the more difficult cases; let's say another more conservative admin makes 2%. Having both of us do it, gives 0.2%, 1 in 500 , which is an error rate as good as we can hope for.

But since it is to some extent subjective, we have to take into account everything that affects how we look on it, and that does include the purpose of writing, which can often be implied by who it is who has worked on it. I think it is a reasonable assumption that articles by paid editors will almost always be promotional , because that's what people pay for. (Not 100% of the time, so some will need a discussion.) I also think it a reasonable assumption that people caught socking will have been socking earlier, and likely to have been banned for it, even if we haven't spotted it. More generally, I think that the terms of use means that articles by undeclared paid editors have no justification for being in WP. In removing them, we should use all applicable processes (fairly and properly and transparently and with checks from those who disagree, as always; we can interpret, we shouldn't distort). DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Debórah Dwork

I thought I would put in a little time reverting vandalism this evening and found a rewrite you did. I use 'Hatnote', an audio representation of content changes and it flagged this big change of yours. You are well-respected (by me anyway) and I couldn't tell from the edit summary what the problem was in the first place. Reply or not.

Best Regards,

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  01:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Bfpage, the article was nominated for deletion as promotional and non-notable by another editor. She is an academic, and academic biographies are my main area of interest. I immediately recognized that she was very clearly notable by the relevant guideline WP:PROF, but the article was indeed very promotional. I therefore rewrote it removing the promotionalism and summarizing the detail, as I explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debórah Dwork. You can tell from the previous version in the history what the problem was.

Hatnote [2] seems--and sounds-- interesting. Since the term is used in WP in a different sense, perhaps you could describe it for a page like WP:Hatnote (program) or even an article about it. and possibly mention it at meta:Help:Recent changes DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

July 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday July 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday July 19 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 145 West 14th Street (note the new address, a couple of doors down from the former Babycastles location) We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017 Editorial: Core models and topics Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago. The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005. Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable. In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed. Links WikiFactMine project pages on Wikidata, including a SPARQL library (in development). Fatameh tool for adding items on scientific papers to Wikidata, by User: T Arrow. It has made a big recent impact. Offline for maintenance as we go to press, it is expected back soon. As of July 2017, Zotero has a Wikidata translator. A personal Zotero library acts as an intermediary in managing and storing citation metadata. GLAM Newsletter June 2017, Wikidata report. This is a good monthly round-up to follow, and welcomes contributions. Exciting and Impressive! The Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) was launched in April: Infodocket on the first three months. Olivia Solon in San Francisco, Why the net neutrality protest matters, opinion piece in The Guardian on 11 July. Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Clarification on page deletion

Hello Mr. Goodman,

I would like to clarify the deletion of the page 'Nikhil Joshi' which you removed on July 15. Please tell me what errors I had made so that I can correct them and have the page accepted.

The codes which you cited are:

A7: No indication of importance

Dr. Joshi owns and runs a $60 million dollar company that is one of the fastest growing and largest tea companies in India and he is also the founder of an non-profit that promotes sustainability research and works with academics across the globe.

G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion

We had no intent to advertise or promote on the page, and don't believe our content indicated otherwise.

Please let me know what I can do to have the page up and running again. I appreciate your help.

Thanks, --114.143.28.68 (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the article in question and agree it is poorly referenced, contains outing (mentions the persons wife without proper reference), and is promotional. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the identifying the issues with the content. May I get access to the content and the page in order to make the appropriate changes so that it can be accepted? Thanks. --114.143.28.68 (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

page deletion

Hi there, I understand that my page on MacNeil Carwash Systems was deleted due to "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." Can you kindly explain? It was not meant to be advertorial and covered much of the companies history and proprietary findings. I fail to understand how it differs from the Tommy Carwash page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Car_Wash_Systems Ginamakkar (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ginamakkar. I have removed the other page you mentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy decline: Squatty Potty

Just letting you know I declined the CSD on Squatty Potty, because while it is promotional, I don't find it "unambiguously" so. The "fringe theory" is rebutted within the article, although this could be expanded, and frankly this is a fairly well-known product. Even I've heard of it, and I'm a low consumer of mass media. Altogether it caused me to decline, although the article would likely benefit, and may be rightly deleted, following an AfD discussion. Just my thoughts. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

see my comment at the AfD. Of course it is not fringe. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Those are good comments. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Prime Campus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prime Campus 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/Prime Campus 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.

(your speedy notice on this article was contested) Grutness...wha? 01:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

see the AfD for other comments. It's so obvious I don't think I need add to the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Curious CSD behavior

I've noticed some peculiar CSDs you've been placing on pages recently. Namely, here and here. I'm not saying their notable, but they seem to be far from speedy deletion. In the last example, the subject is mentioned a couple times in a reliable source. Granted, you obviously have a lot more experience than I, so perhaps it's my misunderstanding of CSD criteria. But, it seems I'm not the only one puzzled, as per the other comments on your talk, and you recently had a month with more declines than deletions. Anywho, any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Drewmutt, AFAICS both the cited articles are spam (probably not obvious to someone who does not have a related background) and I would have tagged them as such, or deleted them if I had seen the CSD tags. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain how the first one (that you've since deleted) was spam? It would probably be deleted at AfD as non-notable, sure, but there's nothing in it even near G11 level. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

what other purpose do you think an elaborate article by a spa on a soon-to-be-released game can possibly serve? Especially one containing "the developers have stated that their goal is to create “games that focus on characters and have elements of storytelling, but also feature strong competitive and cooperative aspects” and that they felt “really compelled to go in a new direction… creating games that bring out people’s skill and creativity and allowing them to show it to the world” I read articles all the way to the end before I nominate them. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There are a couple of promotional sentences in there, but by and large it contains the same type of information we expect in video game articles (info about the development team, plot summary of the game, etc.) It needs the promotional sentences removed and to be examined for notability; G11 is absolutely wrong here regardless of what intention you think the author had. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

as for Prime Campus, " property management application that automates the time consuming process of communication and coordination between tenants, property managers, and external suppliers, consultants, and tradespeople...The first contract Prime Campus was awarded, was with the University of Otago Language Centre and Foundation Year... renowned for its residential campus environment... [Its] Willowbank Quarter Limited offers high quality accommodation for professionals or students seeking one-bedroom apartments or purpose-built student flats containing three, four or five bedrooms." pure advertisement. See also the section "Business model" DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so shortly. To be clear, you tagged that article as A7, not G11. But lets say it was G11, is there a portion of this policy I'm not understanding correctly? G11: This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. It seems pretty cut and dry to me, I feel you're cherry picking a couple of the worst offenders, and not looking at the page as a whole. Even your examples, I don't feel qualify as unambiguous advertising, although I'm willing to be wrong on that. But let's say you meant it to be A7, it's flatly wrong, and objectively so. It's okay to mess up, heck I do it all the time, but I accept it and learn from it. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ravelin Technology

Hello DGG, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ravelin Technology, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume this was a form notice, which I never object to. But if it was meant more specifically, about my nominations in general, you may want to review the comments of other users here and at the afds saying they agree with the speedies you have been declining. I suppose we each think the other's interpretation is out of line. By all means please do continue to decline the ones you think are wrong, and notify me, as the consequent discussions will establish the actual consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravelin Technology DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Forgive me if I've missed something, but... what on earth happened to WP:DTTR?!? — fortunavelut luna 13:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I could not send a notice all (though DGG has just said he wants the notifications), or I could write a more personalized message for each speedy decline notice, but that is time consuming compared to using the checkbox on the deletion gadget (which usually does not leave such a newbie-oriented message; I explain that below). I usually process speedies without paying too much attention to who tagged the page, and usually just use the "notify tagger" option with the "newbie message" option unchecked. For what it's worth, I don't buy into WP:DTTR very much. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey DGG -- it's a form notice from my speedy deletion gadget. The gadget has a "notify tagger" option, and a "use newbie message" option, both of which are checked by default. Looks like I just forgot to uncheck the newbie message box, since this message looks different than the other ones I've sent you using the same extension. Sorry about that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello DGG, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for RM discussion closure

Hi,

Season's greetings. If you know the related procedure requesting your help in closing Talk:Legitimacy_(criminal_law)#Requested move 2 July 2017 RM discussion closure.

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Mental Daily

Hello. As you are the person who deleted Mental Daily and who initiated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mental Daily, I am sure you will be interested in Draft:Mental Daily (website). Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

AfC / Draft article copied into mainspace

Hallo David, Could you have a look at Joyce Stevens and Draft:Joyce Stevens? She seems clearly notable (Member of Order of Australia, subject of several articles and obits), and a lot of changes have been made since the draft was last rejected as "appears to read more like an advertisement " and as lacking sources.

The mainspace article appeared fully-formed today with edit summary "(Created new page entry for Joyce Stevens based on a draft made by another editor.) " That obviously isn't right - copying within Wikipedia without real acknowledgement to the editor who's done all the work. But I'm not sure what the protocol is when the copying is also bypassing the (horrible) AfC process. I hope you can do something to help! Thanks. (Incidentally, if the Submission Declined message of 28 June is from a template then the template needs to be fixed as it doesn't seem to make sense: "...should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."??? If the subject being discussed is anything other than a fictional character, who's "the creator of the subject..."?) PamD 15:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

anyone can move a draft . Sometimes a move without using the AfCH process is necessary--I do it when the AfCH macro doesn't work, which for me is about half the time. But this was done by copypaste, which is almost never necessary, and we normally try to fix copypaste moves by redoing them properly. I will take care of that. For copying within WP we normally just correct the attribution; in this instance, doing the move properly will take care of that. She is clearly notable. The article does have a promotional done, but it seems to be based upon the tone of the tributes to her after her death, and seems fixable. I've revised the draft & moved it to mainspace.

the wording is the wording of the template. It obviously needs some adjustment. The AfC templates are in general terrible, but my efforts to try to get the fixed within the Afc process over the last few years have consistently failed--there has always been some excuse for not doing them. I will make another try at it. The real solution is to redo the entire AfC and NPP process, as Kudpung has been trying to do for several years. The problem is that it seems to require assistance from the WMF programmers, who have their own ideas about how we should do things. Some of the people involved have sometimes not been very willing to actually cooperate. At one point I was thinking of listing the AfC pages at MfD. In the past, before the RfC system was fully developed, that method was sometimes used effectively.

But for any system, we depend on the quality of the participants, & the quality of one of of the reviewers of this article is known to be a problem. I'm trying to deal with it without banning him from afc altogether.

and thanks for your further fix-up. As is obvious, I was trying to get this quickly to avoid confusion, but i see from the eds talk p. I wasn't quite quick enough. I left a comment there that I hope will be encouraging. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - but you left your comment on my talk page accidentally, not her's! PamD 22:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

PamD, although it can't happen fast enough for me, I think we've achieved a lot (by Wikipedia standards) since I started the ball rolling in Esino a year ago. I am convinced that merging AfC and NPP is the way to go because with a few tweaks the Page Curation system software can easily do both tasks. This would be a 'soft' deprecation of AfC because the Drafts would appear as such in the feed and the AfC team would simply migrate to using a the NPP GUI. There are half a dozen other advantages that I won't go into here, although I have had to temporarily full protect the AfC user list again.

Due to the pressure I and now other editors have exerted recently, the WMF has now done volte-face on some of its ideology based arguments, now accepting a more pragmatic approach instead, which leads me to assume that when we ask for Curation to combine the relatively simple elements of the AfC helper script, the devs will probably do it. The only real resistance is from the AfC users who have no better argument than simply wanting to keep their independence. Once we have the results of the upcoming ACtrial, we'll know more because it directly affects both systems of new article quality control. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I haven't been involved in AfC for ages now (aside from just bouncing stuff in their direction when a creator gets upset that their company / band / friend / autobiography was deleted) - are there really individual fiefdoms? I've never been comfortable with the whole idea of AfC as a project in the first place, it's a process that complements NPP as one whole workflow for new topics (or if it doesn't, it should). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Spam

I have written to Arbcom concerning a paid editing issue. I don't want to take any on-Wiki action myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion will be valued at

this thread; now that Jimbo is involved!Winged Blades ^Godric 12:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Richard S. David

Just a quickie, I downgraded your CSD A7 to AfD as the article had a source confirming his intention to stand for a political post. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard S. David. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I do not consider the mere intention to be a good faith statement of significance. Nobody can rationally think that just that alone is enough to justify an article in an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Neumatic Hymns

Hi! Hoping you or one of your TPSers might be able to point me toward an academic source that might help with articles like Neumatic Hymns, Anbandidi Gospel and Psalter 1446/171, which SuggestBot just served up to me. There's no doubt that these artifacts are notable, but they definitely need some help to make them comprehensible to a general audience. Any suggestions/advice/projects to talk to? Thanks, as always. StarM 01:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

this will need to be done at a major research library for additional information, including the background.; I will try to find time for it , but no promises. However , see the list of potential similar articles. It would be good to know we have the most significant of the group. There's a list of highlights in our article National Archives of Georgia, which unfortunately looks like a copyvio from their web site. See a guide to the archive, and see [3]. It is possible that all information may be in Armenian. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, Duke University Library might be one of the best resources if you are in the States and have access to ILL. Their divinity school's library is, for lack of better word, divine, and Duke is very good at anything involving original physical documents and studying them from a cross departmental perspective. Catholic University of America might also have some resources: they are decent at History of Christianity (including Eastern Christianity) in terms of an academic departments, though their libraries are often lacking. You could always use WorldCat, but I find it easier to do searches within specific library's catalogues if I know they are good at one field, and then go to my ILL. Hope this is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for the tips and resources. Less worried about the in language sources, but hoping Duke may have something in English that better explains what these are. Right now the article(s) don't make it clear if it's about the parchment, the ideas conveyed in the parchment or something else entirely. DGG, I tried to fix the Georgia Archives earlier this spring after merging a few others there. I think it's going to need a rewrite from someone bilingual. Thanks again StarM 17:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Les girls les boys

Hi there, just wanted to letcha know the creator dumped your PROD tag at Les girls les boys. It didn't seem like a revert, so not sure it pinged ya. Oh, I also removed the redlink in there because.. well. it was just silly. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

now at AfD DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Question re: deleted page - can you help?

I'm asking you because you have been helpful to me before. A former client contacted me about his Wikipedia page which was deleted. Seems some editors are saying that his page was created by a sockpuppet. His name is Bernt Ullmann. He is a very successful businessman with tons of press.

I imagine you know how to see the contents of his deleted page to evaluate notability. Seems very unfair that his page was taken down without any discussion or normal AfD. Doesn't seem to serve the users of Wikipedia. Also, how can a user post and article if he/she is actually banned or blocked when they do so? I don't understand all these rules. I'm just trying to help my friend and I don't know where to turn. Hope you can help. Thanks. TriJenn (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think he is notable. The point of our rules is that there is no legitimate way for a person who is blocked or banned to edit. Otherwise, what would a ban mean?

If you have no connection with any of the accounts listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00/Archive, get in touch with me by email. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot Inaccuracies / Usage Questions

It was great to speak with you this evening after the NYC WikiWednesday. As I mentioned then, I had two newbie questions and you suggested posting them to your Talk page. The first relates some changes that were made by a bot to a page I was watching. I did not agree with some of the changes and thought it made some errors, but the instructions for reporting it were complicated enough for me to want to just scream. Are there guidelines or recommendations for how to handle bot changes if we do not agree with them? Thanks! FULBERT (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

FULBERT Which page, which edit? I'm having some trouble identifying it. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

DGG You are not alone! I have looked all over but cannot locate it. If something similar happens again, I will share a link back here with you for your help. Thanks! FULBERT (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

DGG Here is something else that may have started with a bot response. Can you give me some feedback on my response? Thanks!FULBERT (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

DGG Here is another bot response that I do not understand; not clear on what it did and how to reply if we agree or disagree with it. Any guidance on how to handle these will be appreciated. FULBERT (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Changes to a page if related to it?

The other question I had was about the guidelines for making changes to Wikipedia changes if we directly work with or for the organization, etc. What is the process for updating such pages to avoid conflicts? I have searched for these guidelines, but have somehow missed finding them in a simple form. Thanks! FULBERT (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:DCOI, if it is just as a member, you do not have to provide details or say you are a member, just to say you have COI. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

DGG Once again, so simple once you know where to look! I think I need a table of contents or the like! Many thanks. FULBERT (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of South Jordan Fitness and Aquatics Center

I'd like to get some explanation on the deletion of South Jordan Fitness and Aquatics Center. I believe the article credibly indicated the importance/significance of the subject through it's participation in Tour of Utah, which was just one example of why the article was significant, and had multiple valid sources. —Formal Dude (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@FormalDude: As I explained to you on IRC, the subject of this article certainly falls far short of meeting notability guidelines, and hence was tagged as so, and consequently deleted. I suggest you take a look at our notability guidelines to better understand that simple inclusion in another Wikipedia article does not denote notability. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I completely understand how the process of deletion works. I'm asking User:DGG what his thoughts were when deleting, sense he was the deleting administrator. The article was not 'simply included' in another Wikipedia article. The facility was notable because it took place in at least one major event. —Formal Dude (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a family recreation center in a small city. Every reference is from the center itself, except for a notice of its annual summer festival.That one stage of an notable cycling race will take place there this year doesn't make it important, or give any reason for thinking it might be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. The information is already in the article on the city; you added it at the same time you wrote this article . Since anyone who might for some for the center will inevitably find the city article, there isn't even need for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the help. I'll keep that in mind in the future. —Formal Dude (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

PrimaveraReader (software) - re-creation?

Hello DGG, when you got a bit of time, would you mind checking please, if this article is a re-created copy of the previously deleted version (minus the 3 new sources and a few later adjustments)? If it is a copypaste job (not sure) and the article would be kept, does the original edit history need to be hist-merged to provide a complete attribution of all contributing editors? Thanks for any help and advice. GermanJoe (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Not the same as the previous aeticle--apparently a re-creation from scratch. But I doubt it will be found notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. It used some of the same sources (iirc) - I guess that got me on the wrong track, but all OK then. GermanJoe (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

An interesting AfD

Hi. I think you will find this AfD pertaining to Danilo Kocevski interesting. I created the AfD, but to me this is not a clear cut case. I think this is right up your alley. Hopefully, you will take a look and participate when you have time. Regards. Anyone else who reads this is also invited. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I have limited ability in evaluating unsourced articles on Macedonian writers, but I did what I could. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-07

Latest news from the Wikimedia Collaboration team, about Notifications, Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

The team is currently working on three main goals, which we expect to complete this summer or in September:

1. Graduate New Filters for Edit Review core features out of beta:
   • The core New Filters features slated to become standard parts of Recent Changes are the ones that have been out in beta for a while and fully road-tested by the community.
   • These include the new filtering interface, the machine-learning filter groups “User Intent Predictions” and “Quality Predictions,” the highlighting tools, the ability to save your filter settings for later use, and the new filter groups: “Watchlisted pages,” “Last revision” and "User registration and experience."
   • There’s a list of “blocker” tasks we need to complete before these features are ready to graduate out of beta.
   • We expect to release those features by default in September. A more precise message will be sent to communities. If you have questions about it, you can write a message on Mediawiki.org, in any language.
2. Extend the New Filters to Watchlist: The Watchlists of very active editors can include thousands of pages. To help these busy folks keep up with their work, we’re adding the New Filters UX and tools to Watchlist. The Watchlist and Recent Changes pages are similar, but there is some work involved in adapting the tools to their new setting. That work should be ready some time in late summer or early fall. Stay tuned for an announcement!
3. Continuing work on “Integrated Filters”:
   • While the New Filters for Edit Review beta brought probably 70% of the old-style Recent Changes features into the new user interface, it left some behind—like the Tag and Namespace filters and the controls for the number of days searched and number of results presented. As the name is meant to suggest, “Integrated filters” integrates those old-style tools into the new UI.
   • It also adds some new tools users have asked for, such as:
     • “Live updates” which provides a near real-time automatic refresh of the Recent Changes page.
     • Category filters, which enable users to search by category.
     • User filters, which let you define searches that include or exclude edits by particular users.
   • We will put the community-defined related links that cluster at the top of most Recent Changes pages into a collapsible panel, in order to clarify the Recent Changes page.

We should note that it’s not certain these last two additions will make the cut for inclusion this year. If you want a make the case for either one, we want to hear from you.

Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

• Some styling adjustments are ongoing on the filters for recent changes. [4]
• RecentChanges with the Beta feature were very slow to load on Wikidata. It is now fixed. [5]
• In the Beta feature, you can try the Live Updates feature. Just add &liveupdate=1 at the end of the URL in Recent Changes page. [6]

Future changes

• ORES review tool will be deployed to Romanian and Albanian Wikipedia soon. These wikis will be able to use predictions filters. To have the predictions filters on your wiki, you need to work on the labeling campaign for your wiki or request it. [7]
• Sometimes the RecentChanges page were reloading before the filters have ended to be loaded. It is going to be fixed. [8]

Notifications [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

• It is now possible to display the number of unread notifications in the browser title bar, using a gadget. [9]

Future changes

• It will be possible to restrict who can send you notifications on a wiki. This new feature will accessible in your preferences, in the Notifications tab, on Wednesday, July 26. [10]
  • The documentation is ready to be translated.

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Oasis BITS Pilani

Seems like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OASIS (culfest) all over again. --Muhandes (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

more extensive article. I suggest another AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been away for several years and forgot how to initiate an AfD which will point to the last one, I thought you might want to do it. I can figure it out if you rather not. --Muhandes (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Didn't figure it out so I simply linked the previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oasis BITS Pilani. --Muhandes (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

John Blossett

Hi, I want to say that before I put up the deletion temptation on any article, I always try to find references for the article. If I can't find any then I put up the deletion template. You took off the template. Why? Did you look up John Blossett on Google and find references? Plum3600 (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

this is the sort of material which is likely to be found in print sources. If not , a merge would still be possible. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

AMAC Accessibility Solutions and Research Center

Hi. Not sure exactly what happened here, but it looks like a cut and paste move by a new editor (or perhaps very occasional is a better choice of words), to AMAC Accessibility. Think this might need an admin to fix so that the history is kept. Saw you on the edit history, so... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMAC Accessibility. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

01:11:51, 29 July 2017 review of LaToya Cantrell by NOLAfiddler

• NOLAfiddler (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:LaToya Cantrell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have edited the article to remove anything that seemed potentially boosterish. There were no "adjectives of quality" in the original draft, but I removed things that could be construed similarly—for example a sentence that described Cantrell's work on "housing equity," which could be interpreted as normative. I am sure that none of this material is copied from campaign literature because I wrote the entire post in a sitting without copying anything. I do not work for Cantrell's campaign or write campaign literature. As for "listing of minor things," everything in this article was major enough to be reported upon either in books about the recovery from Hurricane Katrina or in New Orleans newspapers, but I've nevertheless cut some things down. I will respond quickly to more requests for edits. I've been waiting for 18 days since I made the last round of edits, so I'm hoping for an update on the review.

NOLAfiddlerBased on your user name, you are likely to have a conflict of interest with respect to this article. If so y9u need to declare it --see WP:COI for our rules.. After you have done so, or explained that you do not have any direct connection with her or her campaign for election, I will look at the article again. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker)  Done Already accepted it. It's going to be a magnet for stuff since the subject is running for municipal office in one of the most-crooked states in the Union, but the subject passes GNG and it's written well enough to pass. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC),

I met Cantrell in 2007 while doing academic research in New Orleans. Regarding my username, I have lived in New Orleans off and on since then, although I currently live in Atlanta. I consider Cantrell a friend, but not a close one; I probably see her twice a year, often at public functions. A mutual friend who knows her better than me suggested I write the article. I did not talk with Cantrell about the article, and no one paid me or compensated me in any way for writing it. This is my first Wikipedia article, so I didn't know about the COI policy, but I've read it and it makes sense. The COI entry recommends that editors with a conflict of interest "put new articles through the articles for creation process instead of creating them directly, so they can be peer reviewed before being published," and that's what I'm doing. Thanks for responding quickly to my note!— Preceding unsigned comment added by NOLAfiddler (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @NOLAfiddler: You did put the article through AfC, and I accepted it. You broke no rules. DGG wants to be vindictive and punish the fact that you're here to promote your friend. I thought the entry, once you cleaned it up, was fine. I could see that you're doing this ahead of an election and you were not honest at the start about it, but I judged it based upon criteria. Don't bother creating a new draft. If the existing article is deleted, you will be prohibited from re-creating it and the community's judgement will stand. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Brodha V draft

Dear @DGG: I created this draft: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brodha_V ) last month and it was reviewed by DrStrauss. He declined the submission for formatting issues but you intervened and said :" Dr.S, the reason you gave was Please see WP:MOS and clean up sectioning. it is not acceptable to decline an article because of formatting, unless it is so bad as to make the article unreadable, which is not at all the case here. I have reverted your review, but I am not reviewing it myself, because I cannot properly evaluate articles in the subject field. Please re-read the instructions for AfC reviewing, [[11]]. I'd like an explanation of what provision there you thought this article violated. RileyBugz,you might want to review that section also, and I'd like to know what you, too, thought it violated. @Nramesh:, please submit again. But first, please make sure that the material you submitted is not copied from any prior publication. Sometimes that's the origin of formatting problems--and, as you know, copying material from another source is not acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC) "

I created this article myself using published sources of information. It is not plagiarized and is an original piece of writing. The link Brodha V currently redirects to the page MWA which is the name of the band the artist belonged to, not his page. Therefore, there was a need for this page to be created. He is a popular artist from India with a lot of followers and needed his own wiki page with accurate and referenced information. I have cited my sources and cleaned up the formatting. Every week the review gets pushed back by an additional week and I am in a time crunch to have this article published. Please help me get it approved. I have been reaching out to DrStrauss for a re-review but I have not been getting any response. I'd appreciate your time and help immensely.

Best, Nramesh (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nramesh:, why are you in a time crunch to have this article published? I can think of only two reasons, one is your wrote it for a school assignment, (which seems unlikely_; the other is that your wrote it for pay. In the latter case, see WP:COI and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

{{u|Nramesh}: I believe I did respond. I don't have access to the AfC helper script anymore which is why I redirected you to WP:AFCHELP. DrStrauss talk 20:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)