User talk:DGG/Archive 106 Nov. 2015

ARCHIVES

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

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

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

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

Suspicous deprodding anon

Check out Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864: he is deprodding primarily business-oriented prods, with no proper rationale. At what point can we call it disruptive? Technically, those should go to AFD now, and you know how much work that is. Could it be a new spammer tactic, aiming as tiring us out? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

could be a lot of things. . But theee are ways of dealing with it. One is the use of speedy when applicable, anothwr is afd followed by a speedy close, a third is a redirect with the rationale"to avoid deletion". I will go through all of them in a little while. But be aware of the possibility that on a few may in fact be notable. DGG ( talk ) 18

08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Second Nomination for Deletion for Norman Milliken article by Magnolia677

Magnolia677 has made a nomination for deletion of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norman_Milliken_(2nd_nomination) Magnolia677 has made a previous nomination for deletion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norman_Milliken You reviewed the discussion and judged the article as amended as a keep. Magnolia677's second nomination deletion is unchanged. The article's content is unchanged since the last nomination for deletion. Magnolia677 reasons for deletion in the second nomination for deletion are the same as the reasons that were rejected in the last discussion around the first nomination for deletion by Magnolia677. Unionville(talk Unionville (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Unionvllle[reply]

I commented. But I can't close this because I commented in the previous one. Btw, I consider my role in the previous one wad to offer an opinion, not a judgement. A close is in some sense a judgemnt , but a keep or delete is an opinion. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

We couldn't have done it without you

Well, maybe. But the encyclopedia would not be as good.

Celebrate

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super League XX

I recently had to undo what could be considered a good faith edit on the page Super League XX (my edit is still the most recent at the time of posting this). The user tried to point out that the links on the infobox below the Biggest away win were not functioning correctly. I noticed through the preview that when removing Biggest away win from the infobox, the links below where it would be were once again functioning correctly. Do you have any idea of what the problem is? Thanks. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds United FC fan: can't figure it out either. Ask at WP:VP/T DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the page of Greenvein

Hello DGG,

 I am a new user and not familiar with wikipedia. I recently created an article  about the organisation named Greenvein. It is not available now, and shows that it is deleted. Will you please tell me what had happened ? --Chithirakusuman (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chithirakusuman It was deleted because I, another administrator, and two editors, all agreed that it did not showe notability from the perspective of an encycopedia. You need to have multiple references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements -- the references that you had , though published in Indian newspapers, gave the impression of being press releases. It will also help to be more objectively descriptive, with less of a promotional tone. It is not necesarry to explain why it is a good idea, but just to describe the project and its results. Please do try again if you have more materials, but use the WP:Article Wizard. Please pardon my delay in answering, but things have been a little busy here. DGG ( talk ) 10:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Schools Council

Hi. I see an article was recently created and speedily deleted for Medical Schools Council. I didn't see the previous article and am not connected to the organisation. I have just started a new article to describe the organisation, so I'm just letting you know, as you were involved in the recent deletion. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 things

Hello there, DGG! Hope you're doing OK. Just wanted to bring Draft:T. Nejat Veziroğlu to your attention. I know you're busy, so I wanted to let you know I'd be happy to take over that draft for you and copy edit and move it when done. On another note, I noticed your G13 Eligibility Notice from HasteurBot above. How convenient! Is there any way to add myself to the bot's notification list? Ping me when possible. Appreciated, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 03:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FoCuSandLeArN, if you want to work on it, please feel free to do so -- for this and anything else. In practice, I may not get to it for a while. As you may be able to tell, I'm feeling a little overworked right now. As for the bot, just ask Hasteur. It's proven enormously useful to me and I hope will be to you also. It took a while to get it right, but it's currently quite efficient. DGG ( talk ) 10:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts

Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts is prepared. There's now 46,635 in the category (although only 46,607 listed there as it's increased as I prepared it). I'd love any help you can offer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article about Wikipedia Hoaxes -- comment on Jack Robichaux

Hello,

My name is Kim Renfro, and I'm a digital culture reporter for Tech Insider. I wasn't sure the best way to reach out, so here I am. Would you be interested in speaking to me about how you uncovered/removed the Jack Robichaux hoax? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jack_Robichaux) I'm really interested to learn more about your work as a Wikipedia user. My email address is [email protected]. Thank you! Kimrrenfro (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Kim Renfro[reply]

tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I look forward to hearing from you! Happy to hop on a call for just 5-10 minutes if you have time. Kimrrenfro (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Kim[reply]

Hi DGG, any chance we can connect tomorrow? My email is [email protected] and my work # is (646) 494-4150. Thank you! Kimrrenfro (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Kim[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000.
Message added 16:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Maggie Campbell-Culver

Hi DGG. Here's an old draft that you declared notable. I improved it and tried to submit it, but I keep getting a script error. I don't know if it's my browser or the script. Maybe you'd like to try?—Anne Delong (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

worked for me. DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't know what the problem was; it hasn't recurred. You may not have noticed this professor draft up for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Margaret Ferguson —Anne Delong (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice?

Hi DGG We met at MoMA Black Lunch Table Editathon in July(?) I am now visiting New Orleans and trying to do a meetup editathon here on November 17 at 6pm CST, but I have not been able to find any Administrators to join me. I'm wondering what your advice is. I'm wondering if I'm too novice to become an Administrator myself? Should I find someone, like yourself, who might be available to help create user names during the editathon remotely? I'm just worried about locking up our system. Thanks for any advice!! --Heathart (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heathart, administrator usually requires a history of sever thousand edits and substantial work at related processes, such as deletion nominations, AIV, 3RR, and the like--see any recent RfA page. And I can't grant it to you--it requires a community vote. But as for accounts, and anything else, I expect to be available on the 17th, either by remote hookup or by phone. I'll help you create accounts; there are several ways. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, This would be great! Yes, I am in no rush, I just want our editathon to be successful. So our meetup will be 6-8:30pm CST. Please tell me the easiest way I should be in contact with you for account creation that day? Thank youuuuu!!! --Heathart (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heathart Believe me also that RfA isn't all that actually, it can be overrated and quite heated and can also cause some unwanted comments and drama so believe me you should enjoy the benefits of Wikipedia for now by finding some interested areas of work. Adding information and sources is always welcome or finding other areas such Articles for deletion where you can find interesting subjects including a New York page. Once you also gain experience, you can move to New Pages Patrol and Articles for creation if you like.

BTW Dave, I happened to come across a 2010 audio where you spoke (I think in Indiana?) and I was searching Commons conferences earlier where I was surprised to find pictures of you at conferences so as I always pictured as serious as your userpage photo, I have the pleasure of seeing you in a much happier mood.

I have never attended any of the WikiConferences but you would definitely be one of the interesting users to meet. Cheers and thanks again for commenting at the AfDs, SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been in Indiana since I went to visit a girlfriend there in 1965. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I never knew you were such a player Dave.

Hmm, I attempted to find the link which included your current userpage photo but to no avail, you spoke with users about how editing worked here and what ArbCom actually meant and why you wouldn't involve yourself with it (irony, no?). Hmm, I know it was somewhere around there though. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wine

	A glass of wine for you
	Thanks for all you do! Heathart (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Speedy deletion of Babyoye.com

Hi DGG,

       I'd mentioned in the talk page of Babyoye.com : Here Talk:Babyoye.com, multiple reasons why shouldn't be deleted. This company has already been mentioned in two other prominent wikpedia articles : As seen in searches on this link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=babyoye&title=Special:Search&go=Go

Plenty of credible reasons why it should not be deleted. The citations are from top economic Press sources in India. Please revisit and reinstate the article.

Thanks. Logik 04:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the citations deal almost entirely with initial funding, and therefore are routine announcements. I see you've started a draft. If someone else puts it in mainspace without additional references, I will send to to afd, and the community can decide. If there are additional references, then it might possibly be OK. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahishekupadhya, I'm going to check this again tomorrow--I don't think it would pass afd, but it might be enough to pass speedy. But it seems an unusual topic for you. I'd feel better about this if I ask you if you have any conflict of interest, or have you been asked to create the article. DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've now added it as a draft and resubmitted it. It is currently here and is being modded by SwisterTwister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Babyoye I write about Indian topics chiefly, and being an Engineer - I like to cover technology topics - Indian startups etc. Please suggest how I can improve the coverage to make it a comprehensive article. Logik 06:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is PR agency.
Message added 17:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC). 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.

—SpacemanSpiff 17:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary ad

You used the unlinked " (TW)" instead of the linked " (TW)" for the summary ad. You should edit User:DGG/twinkleoptions.js to restore the default linked summary ad. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this matters?? DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda. It is a way for the beginner to figure out, that you were using an automated-or-semi-automated tool to make your change, by clicking the link provided, if they are curious enough to do so. Alternatively, edits made by User:SineBot have 'bot' in the username, so perhaps you could create an alternative account User:DGGbot, then use that username for your Twinkle work? :-)

Twinkle is a popular Wikipedia gadget that gives autoconfirmed registered users many extra options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks, and to help them deal with acts of vandalism or unconstructive edits. It provides users with three types of rollback functions and includes a full library of speedy deletion functions...

Of course, most beginning-editors won't know about the 'view history' tab itself, let alone know to click on the bluelink in the edit-summary of the person who used twinkle to revert them or template them, so making the twinkleoptions stuff work correctly is perhaps an exercise with minimal ROI. Is anybody but a long-haul wikipedian going to be able to understand more than 50% of the verbiage used at WP:TW? Talk about WP:JARGON.... 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My work using twinkle is not separate from my work not using twinkle: don't do large runs of one or the other. I always use tw for deletion nomination, alwaysfor tagging unless it's already open for editing and easier to just write the template, always for warnings unless I write an informal warning instead of or in addition to the formal one, and about 50-50 for blocking instead of the menu command. Surely you don't mean I should keep two accounts open and use a different one in placing the warning as I do in giving advice.?

I teach new users about the article history, but I don't normally revert or template from it myself. I can see that those doing anti-vandalism work might want to do so., but as for me, I do not work in those kind of batches.

The notices are not the fault of TW, which has to match the templates. There was a project to simplify the templates, and it did simplify some of at least the uw-1 templates. It seems to have bogged down. It would be nice to get it restarted. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding material to articless only serves to draw the attention of Wikipedians who nominate articles for deletion

Hi DGG, I still see evidence that adding material to articles only serves to draw the attention of Wikipedians who nominate articles for deletion.

Here is the latest example I happened to see: Association of Executive Search Consultants This article has been on Wikipedia since 2006 and has gotten very little attention, until an editor started adding content to it on Nov 5, 2015. It is now up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Executive Search Consultants. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it can draw attention to articles that should have been deleted long ago. And there are frequent cases where someone adds promotionalism to what was a decent but borderline notable article. That's what happened here, with the absurd addition at [1]. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raines International. Where there will be scause to complain, is when adding good content to an acceptable article, draws unfairly unfavorable attention. And there are such cases. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious to find out when Puffery became a legitimate nomination rationale? Is it documented somewhere on Wikipedia? Sorry for my ignorance, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

any reason why any article should be removed is a valid deletion rationale, if consensus agrees. is a valid deletion rationale. Much puffery can simply be removed, but an article permeated by it should be deleted DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion Daniel Buenos

Hi DGG, can you assist me? In error we posted Daniel Buenos page omitting the sources by mistake. Can you please provide the link in which I can update and submit? I cannot seem to locate Daniel Buenos' content. If you prefer you can contact me at [email protected]. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echaleguindasalpavo (talk • contribs) 22:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted both for no evidence of importance and for promotionalism . It was essentially an advertisement, written in language that may be suitable for his web page but it not objective enough for an encycopedia.Additional sources won't make it any less of an advertisement. I will not restore it. If you wantto start over , use the WP:Article Wizard, and avoid saying things like "Daniel Buenos is the real deal behind his made from authentic traditional spanish dishes" DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emeco

Thoughts? David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what to call it. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

Ok, the other topic of discussion is the dedicated section for the lawsuit, if you have time/interest in taking a look. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 17:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the WP:A7 of National Sleep Foundation

Hi DGG,
Grrr!
While I agree that this organisation does not appear to be a scholarly society and its purported journal does not appear to be a scholarly journal, would it have been better to test this at WP:AFD first?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not until there aresome references that are moe than press releases or mere notices. There's nothing to test--it does not meet the minimum requirements. DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation International Project Management Association

Hi, just read your comment: "pressreleases, and a list of branches is content that beklongs on the groups;s website, not in an encycopedia . " I understand the group webiste, and I will remove. Note that after reading the golden rules, I also inspired myself from a similar organisation project management institute which contains way less book reference but also refers to its own website. Regarding the press release, I was advice by another reviewers to add reference from newspaper. I will remove the group link. Can you tell me why the book references are not sufficient? Also why the rules are not applied the same way accross wikipedia since article exists on other languages in Wikipedia? Many thanks for taking the time to clarify, it will help me greatly to improve the article. Cznal (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The basic principles are constant across all, especially WP:V and WP:NPOV. But the more specific rules, the way they are interpreted, and especially the way they are applied differs widely. It could not be otherwise, because at WP the participants make the rules themselves, each language WP operates independently except for the common features of the software, and the only central authority is the system-wide Terms of Use, and even that permits some variations.

The different WPs are especially different in how seriously they take the requirement for reliable sources. In general, the enWP currently tries to interpret this as rigorously as possible, though in earlier years it was much looser, sometimes to the point of absurdity. The purpose of AfC is to help you write an article that will be kept in WP. The requirement for passing AfC, is that the article is unlikely to be deleted by a community discussion. It's those community discussions at AFD that make the effective rules. Unless you find better sourcing, it wouldn't have a chance there--based on my experience of many thousands of these discussions. In addition to removing the list, remove most of the references to your own site, and resubmit. Let me know, and I will take a look at it. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted all reference from the IPMA owned website as well as link to other wikipedia page on the topic in other languages. I have cleaned the reference to publication as well (several books are using standards and explaining IPMA). I have left the reference to known organisation who have participated and won the award (Maybe I will reference them as they also exist in Wikipedia, like General Electric). Just for info, I am not employed by IPMA (so I am not referencing to my own site, if that's what you meant). I am passionate of Project Management and have participated to congress, and workshop, all on voluntary basis. I was surprised the page did not exit so I decided to have a go (personal initiative and first time ever creating/editing wikipedia). I will resubmit as soon as I leave this page. Thanks for having a look. Cznal (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, the article submission has been declined once again for a reason I perfectly understand regarding copyright. I have deleted ALL COPYRIGHT now from the article, I am writing to you for more help as I believe the article is over charged with references (in my quest to prove IPMA is notable). (1) I did not planned to add company press releases for example but I was trying to find ways to show that the IPMA is notable because it is used by known international organisations (most in Wikipedia too). I am planning to remove the entire section, can you advice? (2) Also I believe based on the wiki rules that 3rd parties sources such as books and journal are sufficient sources, would you recommend I focus only on those and add more? (3) Finally, I am planning to remove all member associations (table) and leave only the ones existing in Wikipedia and referring to IPMA (Missing page today), would it help to go in the right direction? Many thanks in advance for your help. Cznal (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG and @Wikiisawesome, I actually tried to reformat with the 3 suggestions above, as after reflection and re-reading of guidelines I think this is the right direction. I would really appreciate some comment before I resubmit, or shall I resubmit? Draft:International Project Management Association Many thanks.Cznal (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at AKS.9955's talk page.
Message added 12:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Kutach

Noticed you deleted the Douglas Kutach article, calling the link to his bio infringement, but then saying there was no notability link! I really don't care, but deleting instead of fixing, and relying on others to fix what you are only tagging as a problem is a bit lazy, no? Just saying... And if the online bio wasn't used, you'd then tag it as primary instead of secondary? Why not use all this vast bureaucratic prowess to create and help, not just take shots and criticize, all you really did was eliminate another notable article. Why didn't you refer it to bio rescue, or don't you know about them?Pdecalculus (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moderating: After reading your objectives, I see you try to keep professors included. I just found this gentleman while researching another article, so although I have no particular axe to grind vis a vis inclusion or not, using the publicly available info on him at his schools seems like your own fair use argument on other issues, but you are humble enough to admit that you enforce stuff you don't particularly agree with. After studying you a bit, I've been preaching to the choir, you'd be the first to call him notable as a prof, right? No big, I fought this battle for several other folks and finally figured out that just emailing them and letting their own students jump into the fray was a lot easier than fighting alone, crowd sourcing newbies, as you'd say!Pdecalculus (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

response tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colston Westbrook

Hi, to enable you to take any action that you may judge appropriate, this is a courtesy note to advise you that the page Colston Westbrook that I speedy deleted after you WP:A7 tagged it has been reintroduced to main space, by the creator, after improvements. Just Chilling (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Your text Stored revision Line 2,835: Line 2,835:[reply]

− Just Chilling, thanks for the notice.The material added is much more interesting than what was there originally. It certainly isn't an A7, and would probably pass AfD. It does however need some major rewriting. I may do some of it myself.I commented further at User talk:Emihemi DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request article to be reinstated for editing - Draft: Polystar

Recently an article - 'Draft:Polystar' - was deleted. I would like to retrieve it in order to make edits. I understand the reasons and need to make improvements. Failing that, I would like a copy of the text so I may make changes offline. If you cannot undelete the article for editing, am I permitted to create a new article with the same title? Could you help me here? Thanks. Guy redmill (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will email it to you if you activate your email from your user login page. You can try again--I did not prevent re-creation. Please however be aware that (1)It has been declined or deleted by 6 successive editors , all of them them experienced. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Kimrrenfro (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Kim[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are These Two Notable?

Hello DDG. Lately I've been noticing quite a number of people and companies using Wiki for self-promotion. Could you take a look at these two and tell me whether you think they are notable enough for an encyclopedia: Greg Brockman and Julian Shapiro. Both these articles were created within a week of each other by a user named Factschreiber. Both articles are clearly self-promotional. On another topic, is there a place to go in Wiki to alert editors about self-promotional articles? I am seeing more and more of this kind of thing. Thanks in advance. Chisme (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Brockman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Shapiro. You are absolutely right that we're seeing a great deal of it--it sometimes seems like everyone on earth wants to turn us into a directory. One place to go to alert editors to this sort of thing is the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard. Consider also using your own judgement and placing tags for {{advertising}} or {{press release}} and also for {{COI}} on the articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time somebody tagged Techstars. I have long suspected they've been using some sort of Wiki-PR service for themselves and their companies. Most of the blue links on that page, IMO, could be deleted for the same reason. ~Awilley (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and advice. I thought you had to be an admin to engage in this kind of thing (nominating for deletion). I would really like to put an end to this misuse of Wikipedia. Chisme (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone may tag a page for deletion, but before they do that they should read carefully WP:Deletion policy and WP:CSD. The only thing an administrator is needed for is to actually delete the page. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you & Thank you!

Thank you for tagging the draft :"Hongchi Xiao" for speedy deletion. It is a wake up call for me as I learn what wikipedia is all about. God bless you with health, prosperity and wealth. Thank you!!! jdxzhu 01:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for un-deletion of an article

Recently an article - 'MeraEvents' - was deleted. I would like to retrieve it and make edits that will be in lines with the Terms and Conditions of Wikipedia, with credibility being established for every claim. I fully understand the reasons for the "speedy deletion," request ticket that was raised against this article and will make all the necessary fixes. However, if un-deletion is not possible, I would like to request you to send me a draft copy of the same, so that I could make the necessary changes offline, or at least grant me the permission to post a new article with the same title. Waiting to here from you. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennapanaidu darapaneni (talk • contribs) 06:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chennapanaidu darapaneni, you should try again using Draft space, which is designed for the purpose, and the easiest way to do it is via the WP:Article Wizard. Be aware that you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements.Many of the references used were mere announcements; others wete essentially press releases. It is normally not easy to find really good references for new companies. Awards can show notability , if they are major national level awards--I am not sure that the ones listed there qualify. I can mail you a copy, but only if you first go to your user log in page and specify an email address.

If you have any connection with the company, please check our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest. In particular, see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does "NOT BURO" mean?

I thought i'd ask an easy question following your signing things at the PD, I couldn't figure out what you meant? sorry to bother you. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) See WP:NOTBURO - there are a lot of these abbreviations which link to useful sections of WP Policy. People don't always remember to make them into live links. PamD 15:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC) @Roxy the dog: Forgot to ping you. PamD 15:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pam, that didn't register with me as what was meant for some reason ~~early this morning,~~. (the ping didn't work, not sure why not.) To DGG, thx for your ARBCOM work. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Walker

Most of the drafts I see with the G 13 tag are worthless. Maybe everything is relative but, with that background, this draft Draft:Angus Walker didn't seem quite the same category. I tend to stay away from music oriented articles because I don't have the qualifications, but before this one gets blown away I'd like someone else to take a look. I'm pinging @Primefac: who most recently rejected the draft. David, I knew you were once active in trying to rescue G 13s that didn't quite qualify. I also know with your Arbcom hat, you have too much to do, but I wonder if you could take a minute to glance at this and suggest options if you think that flushing it down the hole isn't the best one.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most are indeed worthless, but there are 2 degrees of worthlessness: the ones that no matter how much improved, will never pass even speedy, and the ones that will need AfD, but are very unlikely to pass it. I find that at present about 20% in the worst class, 30% in the 2nd. This is about the same as it has alwaysbeen for new articlesin any systems--from as far back as I;'ve been here in 2007, only about half the new articles have managed to stay in WP

I, like you, cannot judge most sorts of popular sort of music accurately, and therefore don't routines screen such articles & don't usually say anything unless it's pretty obvious. but but he appears to have 2 songs that charted. The problem, however, is that the article has the feel of being professionally written, and is therefore perhaps either a copyvio or undeclared paid editing. Checking Google, a significant amount of it is copied from http://anguswalkerca.wix.com/capebretonrebel#!about/cex7, which in fact is naively given as an external source. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I nominated it at copyright problems in hopefully someone will take the time to sort out whether cleaning it will solve the problem and leave enough left. I actually spend a fair amount of time working on those but I need to be in the right frame of mind to do that and I'm not at the moment so we'll see if someone else can help. Thanks for your observations.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I declined this a while ago, I seem to recall that none of the sources gave any more than a one-sentence mention of Walker. The claims in the draft would (on the surface) appear to meet GNG, but the lack of significant coverage was troubling (as was the presence of an entire unsourced section). After the CV issues are dealt with the article might be small enough that a few good sources could push it to acceptability, but it definitely needs improvement. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup?

Hey DGG, I was wondering about that article cleanup you wanted me to help with. I know you were going to send me an e-mail giving me examples of what needed to be changed, but I don't think I ever got it. I was wondering if you still wanted me to do it or not. It'll likely have to wait until after school lets out, since I remember you saying it was going to be pretty time consuming. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BEN-AMI SHULMAN

David- thanks so much for your invaluable help! I look forward to many sessions BEN-AMI SHULMAN (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Jeffries (CEO)

This is clearly the work of a paid editor skilled in PR work. While efforts have been made to achieve a balance between positive and negative aspects of the subject of this BLP, IMO it's still very 'advertorial'. I don't quite know what, if anything, to do with it. I don't want to give the author the benefit of my volunteer time to edit it down. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the article, the effect is of an attack piece, so much so as to leave one with a reaction of sympathy for the subject. If this is PR for the subject, it's a remarkably skillful job, and I am surprised the subject agreed to the approach. CorporateM, any help here.? DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help again if you please

Old Portage Road (New York)

You saved this from CSD13. After a slight clean up / rename, it's in mainspace at Old Portage Road (New York). FeatherPluma (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for picking up on it--all I did was repeatedly decline to delete by G13 in the hope someone would see it. I'd be very interested to know how you spotted it because on our our recurrent problems with AfC is how to get the drafts worked on by other than the original editors. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me on wikiD New York writing workshop yesterday. Elf-I-D (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Kuwait Airways

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kuwait Airways. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point re. User talk:V i p e r 777

Fair point DGG, I should have tagged that G11 samtar ^{t} 19:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You are the best in helping as well as in editing. Kudos! Josu4u (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 16 November

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

On the John U. Bacon page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taikang Life

(technically fifth largest, by premiums, not second- but whose counting?? KDS4444^Talk 02:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Contesting speedy deletion?

I created a page "Netter’s Essential Histology (textbook)" which was tagged for speedy deletion. Unfortunately I was on vacation and did not see the speedy deletion in time. I modelled the page on this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_Biology_of_the_Cell_(textbook) I am new at this, and cannot see how are they different? And if the page can be improved, can you please allow me to retrieve the information so I can do so?

Tonfriz69 (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really like he contents of MBC either, but it is famous, and an be shown to be so by very extensive references, tho not in the article. Netter is at best well knownLet me think about it. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BEN-AMI SHULMAN

David- thanks so much for your invaluable help! I look forward to many sessions BEN-AMI SHULMAN (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Jeffries (CEO)

This is clearly the work of a paid editor skilled in PR work. While efforts have been made to achieve a balance between positive and negative aspects of the subject of this BLP, IMO it's still very 'advertorial'. I don't quite know what, if anything, to do with it. I don't want to give the author the benefit of my volunteer time to edit it down. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the article, the effect is of an attack piece, so much so as to leave one with a reaction of sympathy for the subject. If this is PR for the subject, it's a remarkably skillful job, and I am surprised the subject agreed to the approach. CorporateM, any help here.? DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help again if you please

I would appreciate if you gave any necessary insight with these low-trafficked AfDs (this week's worth): .... I want to thank you again for your recent work, immense patience and efforts even going through the daily AfD log which somewhat surprised me. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old Portage Road (New York)

You saved this from CSD13. After a slight clean up / rename, it's in mainspace at Old Portage Road (New York). FeatherPluma (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FeatherPluma, thanks for picking up on it--all I did was repeatedly decline to delete by G13 in the hope someone would see it. I'd be very interested to know how you spotted it because on our our recurrent problems with AfC is how to get the drafts worked on by other than the original editors. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be curious to know the answer to how FeatherPluma found this topic. There are three ways to get drafts worked on by people other than the original editors:

Attract other long-haul wikipedians to work the AfC queue, by making the work more attractive (tried and failed... long-haul people who wanna work AfC already know where to find it)
Change the AfC-submission template, so that as soon as the author clicks 'submit' ... or even before they click submit ... they can see a selection of other articles sitting in the AfC queue, and the usernames of the authors/originators associated with those other AfC articles. The template could explicitly suggest helping other good-faith wikipedians in the queue, by saying something like "Thank you for submitting your article to be reviewed! The queue is currently N days and NNN articles long. While you are waiting, you can help other people in the queue improve *their* articles, if you like -- this would be very WP:NICE of you, and might even speed up the queue." This method is a slight variation on how User:Anne_Delong got started as a wikipedian, so it might even work, although of course there will be some aspect of the blind-leading-the-blind.
Something a bit more risky: mainspace anything that ought to be an article, regardless of the current state of the prose and the refs, then undelete it per IAR, when the inevitable insta-deletion occurs (N.B. this method only works if you are a sitting arb with the heft to make your undeletions per WP:ILIKEIT actually stick :-)

User:Kudpung also has put forth the option, of merging NPP with AfC, so as to automagically have the NPP folks help with tagging/rating/patrolling/etc the draftspace articles; whether this counts as "getting the drafts worked on" will partly depend upon the definition of "work" one opts to utilize. Certainly it would bring more *eyeballs* to draftspace generally and the AfC subset thereof specifically. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of things that haven't been tried yet. One more thing that could be done to attract people to drafts would be to alter the search engine software so that if someone typed "Son of Foo", and there was no article, but there was "Draft:Son of Foo", then instead of saying "You can start the Son of Foo article, it would say "You can improve Draft:Son of Foo and help it become an article" or some such. Or how about a "Today's abandoned draft for improvement"? And there are more ideas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. But if you are going to suggest that editors improve each other's drafts, I would not make it automatic, but have a template that reviewers and Teahouse hosts could selectively drop on the talk pages of editors who appear to have made a good start - maybe to this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions/List.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me on wikiD New York writing workshop yesterday. Elf-I-D (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You are the best in helping as well as in editing. Kudos! Josu4u (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 16 November

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

On the John U. Bacon page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit also added an invalid ISBN. I have seen a dozen or so erroneous ISBNs in this same format over the past week or two, and that sort of pattern usually means that there is a bug in someone's script or citation tool. Were you using a citation tool to add these citations? If so, it might have a few bugs that need to be reported. Please let me know what tool you were using, if any. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taikang Life

(technically fifth largest, by premiums, not second- but whose counting?? KDS4444^Talk 02:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Appropriate content for a university page

Hi, DGG. I was reading the page of Case Western Reserve University, and it seems to me that it's getting to be more like a promotional webpage than an encyclopedia article. Since you work with a lot of these types of subjects, maybe you can tell me if it's appropriate to include noted alumni in the lead, and a long list of academic rankings. I also don't understand the section called Undergraduate Profile. Am I just getting too fussy?—Anne Delong (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all university pages in WP are similar to PR. There are two types: when the whole thing is an integrated PR effort, or -- like here -- where particularly PR-like sections are added to specific parts of an acceptable basic skeleton. And a third type, where either the central PR or the PR forthe individual unitshave tried to write separation pages for everything possible. There was one university which tried to write an article for the expanded quonset hut they used for a placement center. & another for the building where they stored the maintenance equipment. Enthusiastic students can do just as bad, but they do it differently:I;veseen articles for individual floors in a residence hall, and I think once for an individual suite.

It is normal to include the 2 or 3 most famous alumni in the lede--the appropriate standard I think is world famous. That they put the computer entrepreneurs there instead of the Nobel laureates says something about priorities. The academic rankings, alas, are standard. At least they're in the proper location, near the bottom. I did some tinkering, but I've seen worse. If I fixed them all, I could do nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DGG for taking the time to look at it.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NYC next

December 9 - WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women scientists

Hi DGG. In your detailed assessment of the acceptability of the article on Rhonda Patrick, you tell us "There is an unfortunate undercoverage of notable women scientists, and there are thousands of notable ones to include. We should fill this by starting from the most notable." Can you share with us at least a few of the names (or direct us to pertinent sources) as we are currently engaged in a virtual editathon on women in science. It is not unreasonable to expect at least a thousand new start-class articles on women scientists over the next few weeks or months. If you wish, you can add red links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women science and technology. If not, simply list names here or on my talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be done. I am not sure I have time to do it. I can provide some guidelines for anyone wanting to do it. Note that they apply to women academics in general, not just scientists. I do not make a differentiation here in what I work on & perhaps you might want to consider this also.

(1) anyone who is president of a major college or university is notable. There are some obvious colleges to check here. tho some had male presidents in the past, and a few of the most impt seem to be done already. Checking a few, Simmons hasn't been done.

(2) Anyone in the Institute of Medicine or National Academy of Sciences or NAEngineering is notable. There should be a number in the IOM and NAS at least, who may not yet have been covered.

(3) All people in all distinguished named chairs are always notable. The lists in some appropriate colleges should be checked,

(4) Though it isn't a formal rule, essentially all full professors at a major university have in the past been held notable-- except in some traditionally female-dominated fields such as home economics or education or librarianship. I consider this a major inequity, and an indication of true bias at WP. I'm prepared to defend any article on anyone in such a position. I've lost some of these debates in the past. I hope things have changed. Please let me know of any challenged articles here, because this part is a high priority for me. I'm going to revisit the afds I lost in the past.

(5). There a problem with the first women in X field in Y place. It's fine if X and Y are big enough. The first women chemist in a country, for example. If it's the first women faculty member in synthetic inorganic chemistry in a particular state college, then it's not so obvious.

(6). Academics are easy to screen , because there is a formal internal hierarchy. Grad students are almost never notable, post docs very rarely, asst. professors usually not, associate professors usually not tho I disagree with the consensus here and thing they should be, and full, almost always.

(7)In fields where books show academic notability, WP:AUTHOR can be a very useful & flexible criterion.

I also intend to try to verify the existing red links on that page, & I will leave comments. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these guidelines. I had the impression from your earlier comments that you had some specific names in mind. I see now that I was mistaken. Rather than spending your time on examining the notability of red links, I think it would be much more useful if you could add a few names to the red links on scientists -- or indeed any other of the categories listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Tasks. Maybe you would even like to create one or two new articles yourself? It would be great if you could join the current editathon with at least one article based on your notability criteria.--Ipigott (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not my notability criteria -- they are my advice about what has been found to happen here in hundreds of afd discussions to be notable. The advice, as all my advice, is very conservative: it represents what should be safely notable and not challenged, not what might be possibly found notable in a particular discussion by strength of argument or chance of participation. My advice, not limited to this subject, is that people working on these projects should start out be choosing safe subjects, to avoid having a disappointing first experience. With sufficient experience, one can then try to stretch the boundaries a little -- but if one does that, one should be prepared to lose the argument without getting angry about it, or taking it as a lack of understanding on the part of the other participants. AfD can be unpredictable, and my predictive accuracy is not perfect, even when I know I'm right. When I know I'm testing to see if consensus has changed, I pick a point where I expect to succeed about 2/3 the time. To work here, one has to accept that not everything will go as it ought to.

If the question is what I think WP should include, that's another matter entirely.

Almost since my start here eight years ago, I do not generally write articles I want to, but rather on those which need rescue. As you can see from this page, so many people ask for help with their problems that this is my priority. (And it's where I can be most helpful--I'm not particularly creative, but I do know how to fix things.) At projects such as editathons, what I prefer to do is to check that what people are writing is OK; I do it in person in NYC, and I'll do it here for anyone who asks me. Everyone here works on what they want to, and that is what I've chosen. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:02, 20 November 2015 review of submission by H Hector Sinclair

H Hector Sinclair (talk · contribs)
- Draft:John Driscoll (art dealer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear DGG, I see your point. However, if I was to eliminate a couple of pufferies, e.g. "important" then all of the hyperbole is from reliable sources. Is that still not acceptable? Also, which sources were deemed unreliable (apart from the citation to the gallery itself)? I respect the work that the volunteers do, and would like to contribute myself, so if you can steer me in the right direction, I would be most grateful.

Thank you Hugh H Hector Sinclair (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

we do not include promotionalism. This is a more basic rule than even notability. it's a policy, at WP:NOT, whereas WP:N is only a guideline. What counts as promotional is of course a mater of judgment, but it includes much more than downright advertising. What the subject wants to say to a reader is promotional; what a reader might want to know is encyclopedic. There is naturally an overlap--a plain description of a high-quality notable product can have a side effect of being promotional. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skiddle

Hi DGG, I have removed the Prod from Skiddle and added several references from nationally recognised media titles. I have asked our comms dept to bring this page up to date as there are a number of additional notable mentions and references to be added. We don't agree that it should be deleted as we are a 'small ticket agent' as the references show this not to be the case. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.214.175 (talk • contribs)

that will be up to the community: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skiddle. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New users, drafts, and thanks

I am researching the effect of welcoming new users. Thus there are a lot of User talk: pages I created on my watchlist. It is a little depressing to see so many of them coming through with their drafts being deleted G13 six months after they join - but your messages that drafts have been accepted is a ray of sunshine. Thanks for that!

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Necto (nightclub)

After three relists, there's hardly been much input so I would welcome any contributions you have. Cheers and I hope you're feeling better, SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

done. Absurdly self-indugent article. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Portal talk:Current events/2015 November 17

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Portal talk:Current events/2015 November 17. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

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

Input requested

Speedy deletion declined: Eric M.K Osiakwan

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Eric M.K Osiakwan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Ged UK 13:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric M.K Osiakwan DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Cambridge Associates

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cambridge Associates, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I think there's more than enough there for A7. Might not pass the GNG. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. Ged UK 13:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Associates .. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Lujendra Ojha

Hello DGG, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lujendra Ojha, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Clearly the awards section alone is enough for A7, let alone the water on Mars claim (which is credible because of the awards). Might not pass the GNG though, take to AfD if required. . You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ged UK 13:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I lost the argument on the last similar one, where a grad student or post doc was on a team that discovered something important, so I'm going to leave it alone. The paper's acknowledge do show he did the analysis. I probably should have checked that earlier. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altered speedy deletion rationale: AphasiaAccess

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I deleted AphasiaAccess, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Ged UK 13:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually, on one of the 2 I proposed. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy change opinion

I believe there should be a sensible balance between deletion and creation of articles which balanced. What is your opinion about requiring an article historically kepted through AfD to undergo a DRV process before renomination as well? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

excess bureaucracy. It is already well established that there has to be a reasonable time between nominations, and that thistime increases after successive keeps. We haven't been able to mandate specific months or years, but we no longer seethe 6 or 7 times repeated attempts to delete an article we did when I joined. consensus can and does change, and afds are where the action is. What they need for fairer & more consistent decisions is more participation, and that's what we should focus on. If you are referring to Fastwalkers, I don'rt see it was kept by previous afds. The recent one is the first. If you have some other article in mind, what article is that? DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was something I noticed in general not related with Fastwalkers. I believe certain situations which require deleted articles to go through DRV, should apply to kept articles as well. It was a question I pondered when I read Emijrp's sum of human knowledge which calculates that there are at least 104 million notable articles that should exist here, we are at a mere 5 million. The reason is the flaw of human nature inherent in us all. While we are all here to built an encyclopedia we are also here to ensure our views prevail, after all, ego is unavoidable. The degree which we suffer varies. Some people become defensive to the point they refuse to admit a mistake was made, protect their views knowing it is incorrect, find petty reasons to maintain it and then mobbing, as you eloquently put it, occurs. There are those who edit to expressive themselves by content creation and others through content deletion and much like defense and offense in combat, defense (being reactive) has its advantages. If the growth of Wikipedia is to be maintained policy needs to favor content creation and entice new editors.

Right now, policy favors deletion and impends the rate of content creation. It may take a hundred editors to create an article, but only one to delete it. To combat this, policy should be changed to favor inclusion. AfD by nature favors deletion, modifying policies to slightly favor inclusion brings natural balance. Requiring a DRV process for renomiation seems like a sensible start we could avoid situations like OpEdNews where a single editor refuses to admit error and attempts to have content removed perhaps in hopes previous participants are occupied elsewhere.

Another idea is to make AfD closure numerically based. For example, we could require a minimum amount of participation from established editors before discussion is valid. The AfD nominator's opinion should accounted and their vote discounted, after all he is looking for the agreement of others, this prevents articles with little to no discussion from being deleted. This of course should not apply to promotional or vanity articles, but NPOV articles with secondary sources. Fewer the participants means higher probability of missed sources and errors. Perhaps a new close called lack of discussion which defaults to keep could be included and applied to articles which have secondary sources. Of course discretion should be applied in exceptional cases. In the end, numbers don't lie, minimum AfD participation requirements could partially remove human bias and error. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of an article that was previous deleted

Hi,

I wish to create a wiki page for this company called MeraEvents. But, when I tried to do so I found this message on the page. Could you please guide me on how I could go about with this?

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

16:15, 2 November 2015 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page MeraEvents (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhuja Iyer (talk • contribs)

Everything you have ever created here is advertising for this company, its owner, and related companies. They have all been deleted accordingly. Most were also copied in whole or part from their web sites, and this was an additional reason for deletion.

It therefore appears quite possible that you have a WP:Conflict of Interest with this firm or individual. I call your attention to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure: if you are employed or paid by them, directly or indirectly, it must be declared. . And even if the conflict of interest is not monetary, you should use the Draft space in trying to make articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Volunteer Tavern

Thanks, DGG, for contributing this article. Unfortunately it is misreferenced. The URL points to another pub.--Ipigott (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I shouldn't have accepted it, but deleted under the G13 as suggested. I made aquick check but didnt find enough to verify except from their own site, , so I did that now. Ipigott, thanks for catching my error. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hello

Annie 86 here. Thanks a lot for your guidance. I will make the necessary changes in the article, 'D&H Sécheron Electrodes Private Limited' and share the draft to know your suggestions. Have a good day ahead.

Regards,

Annie Annie 86 (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emsisoft article

You recently deleted Emsisoft article making the final decision. I included my reasoning WP:GNG, WP:COMPANY for keeping Emsisoft on the article discussion page. You deleted the article without further discussion. The member who labelled the article for speedy deletion was kind enough to advise me on how to improve it from a neutral point of view. So I did. Just to let you know I improved the article before republishing it. RespectfullyAna-4-fun (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, 4 different administrators have deleted this article, after 3 different experienced editors listed it for deletion. An article on the firms software was deleted in a community discussion, after 3 people and an administrator said it should be deleted, and the only person who said otherwise was someone connected with the company. That makes 11 of us. Are we all wrong? I did not consider this version significantly improved, nor did the very experienced editor who nominated it for deletion. Had I not done so, it would have been deleted in another AfD discussion.

I see you have not worked here on any other article except for trying to add this software elsewhere in Wikipedia; I and others have deleted those also. Perhaps you may have a WP:Conflict of interest. If so, you need to use the WP:AFC method for making an article, and you need to be aware of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, your reasoning belongs to the section "resoning to avoid in deletion discussions". 4 3 makes 7, not 11. Now to the point: can you please make suggestions on how to modify the article so that it fits your image of the right material? Ana-4-fun (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More input requested

Speedy delete of Lujendra Ojha?!

"A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)"

Being noted in multiple articles for finding evidence of recent water flows on the surface of Mars is not, in itself, some indication of importance? What is it with Wikipedia these days, anyway? I start an article, leave it rather stubby, hoping some people will weigh in to improve it, but practically the first thing that happens is someone tries to get rid of it. Yakushima (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see my comment above a few sections; I accept that I was probably wrong there, on the basis that the acknowledgements section of the published paper did indicate that she was the person principally responsible, which is unusual in student work.I had not spotted that point initially,and it makes a difference. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRV request?

I was wondering if there are any limitations regarding your ability to DRV given your association with arbcom? This is my usurped account. Omnipedia (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're asking about Lists of deaths at Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital. I think this can be settled without involving arb com, but if someone wants arb com to be asked, it should be requested in the usual place, where everyone on the committee can see it. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm talking about this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination). The discussion I feel was an administrative supervote. When counting the votes the outcome was

12 votes in favor of keep.
11 votes in favor of delete.
3 in favor of merge.

The arguments for keep are also vastly stronger. The administrator's close states' "That said, after carefully reading through this debate, as well as several of the earlier discussions, it seems editors are less concerned with the state of the article than with the un/encyclopedic nature of the concept itself. The biggest objection to the article is that it lacks a cohesive topic, owing to a field of largely discordant sources. Indeed, the true depth of the provided source material has come into question numerous times." No one in the discussion said anything near this the only way to determine the encyclopedic nature of content is through sources, which I provided in overabundance. In particular this source [2] from 1916 suggests the concept is nearly 100 years old. That source alone shows a cohesive topic exists. I've change the opinions of two editors in the discussion and this user Tarc is now banned. I want to DRV this before the year's end, but feel it best another editor do so. I am right here this subject belongs here, but it is impossible to win when an administrator ignores no consensus and inputs a supervote. Omnipedia (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of content, and I can do anything I could as as an editor , or as an admin. arb has nothing to do with it, unless something connected with it is likely to come before arb in some way, in which case I mustchose between discussing it here & recusing from a related arb case, or not discussing it here and joining in hearing the case. But that doesn't seem likely to me.

I pretty much agree with you about the article, as I have made clear at the various deletion discussions. But it does indeed lack a cohesive focus, and it might be better to write more specific articles, tho I am not sure what they would be called. Using the existing version User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy as a base for discussion, there are quite a few meanings: forced involuntary celibacy as punishment, socially based involuntary celibacy (as for younger men in polygamous societies, about which there is a large anthropological literature), economically based for which there is al arge historical and sociologicla literature) , religiously or morally based as in restriction on sex before marriage (for which there is also a large historical and sociological literature) , psychologically based, as in the personal inability to find a mate discussed in section 3, and the movement described in section 4. All of these are separate topics. It seems to me that it is the material in section 4 which is causing the problem.

I don't think DRV is the best course, but if you want to go there , I would do it on the basis that what the fdiscussion showed was that there was no consensus. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numark Industries

Care to mention why you removed the speedy with this one? I know it's not as seriously promotional as others but it still seemed like speedy material (though I'm willing to PROD if needed). BTW I'm not sure if you caught your old contributions at National Arthritis Awareness Program (another example of an article that should've been attended to long ago). Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numark: Multiple notable products. I think it may even be the world leader in its category. I think it will easily pass afd after some editing. NAAP, I don't see anything in the article history. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look farther and you'll see and you even attempted to advise the author (who naturally never apparently came again). As for Numark, to be honest, I'm familiar with the audio industry as my family works with that area as well, but News was the only one that found a few news links from 2012. At best, it actually seems better merged with parent InMusic (I'm also familiar with that name). Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MoTA

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.

Here a Slovenian newspaper about Sonica Festival and MoTA http://www.delo.si/kultura/vizualna-umetnost/dobitnik-nagrade-hugo-boss-je-paul-chan.html
Here the org is accuratelly described on a Dutch website: http://www.transartists.org/air/mota-museum-transitory-art
This link descibres an activity of the org in Baltimore: http://www.theartblog.org/2015/11/contemporary-art-i-missed-in-ljubljana-the-museum-of-transitory-art-mota/
Here its activities are described on a news site about artists in residence programs: http://news.neme.org/1280/mota-museum-of-transitory-art
ICAS mentions their Sonica Festival. International Cities of Advanced Sound is a global network of independent non-profit organizations dedicated to advancing sound cultures, music and related arts.
SHAPE mentions MoTA and Sonica Festival. http://shapeplatform.eu/festival/sonicamota/ SHAPE is a platform for innovative music and audiovisual art from Europe. It consists of 16 festivals and art centres and aims to support, promote and exchange innovative and aspiring musicians and interdisciplinary artists with an interest in sound. SHAPE attempts to present a variety of idiosyncratic music and sonic art from all over Europe, and provide audiences and professionals with insightful lectures, talks and workshops by experts in various fields related to sound and performance.
A website in Slovenian language about culture announces the festival http://www.napovednik.com/dogodek362261_sonica_festival_druga_obletnica_mota_pointa
A Romanian website (in English) about art mentions MoTA Point, their new building since 2014. https://anti-utopias.com/newswire/mota-point-1st-anniversary-opening/
Here a pic of a collaboratiuon happening in London with A Pairy (based in London) and Sonica Festival https://www.flickr.com/photos/motamuseum/16934953572

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]

Draft:Jean Martapoura

Draft:Jean Martapoura which you moved from User:Havoort has since been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Jean Martapoura. Since you 'adopted' the draft so to speak before moving it to draftspace, would you consider adopting it into the AFC project as well? Otherwise, it could just languish in draftspace forever as well and I think the staledraft concerns are valid. Otherwise, I'd support keeping it if I know that it would at least be subject to G13. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space IS the AfC project. Ihaven't adopted it. If there is nothing more to be found, it will never make an article. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

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]

Deleting personal attacks

While you're at it, I suggest that the following is also a personal attack: "Why could this even nominated except for Muslim hatred?" (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilly Hussain). We're meant to assume good faith after all. Richard75 (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire sequence in the discussion was improper, and I did think of removing it. I decided to just remove the worst part. I'm very conservative when I make an intervention like this. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Richard75 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Equation (Retail Company)

The recent submitted article The Equation (Retail Company) was set for speedy deletion nomination of The Equation (Retail Company). I am requesting the article back for the future.

The argument that it was unambiguous advertising, the truth will be based on the growth of the company. Where the value is failed to understand is because the social position of the company is lower than desired. In truth the article submitted is no more unambiguous promotion than the collection of articles collected under deemed stars, athletes, and other people who contributions to society are less than the drive for self gain. The position taken was bias as facts are available to support the article. If it was incomplete, then then that would be more acceptable than deeming it as unambiguous promotion when people are reflected within Wikipedia as a brand its self. What the article does do is validate the company's existence providing background information of the company. If you drop the external links, then I believe it changes the view.

Thank you,

Clifton Ross Nov.20

Cliftonross, my apologies for not responding earlier, but you posted this in the worng place. We're not in 2016 yet. The article was indeed unambiguous advertising. an introduction like "The Equation meaning "When all things come together" is an American based discount shoes, clothing, and accessories company established in Austin, Texas. With several images supporting the company over the years, the defining symbol of the palm tree represent the developing origins of the company from Southern California in 2005." belongs on a web page, not an encycopedia article."The Equation was founded in 2015 to achieve the mission in delivering quality shoes and products to consumers at reasonable historic price" is pure advertising. The list of "symbolic palm meanings" for its symbol is pure nonsense, from the POV of an encycopedia. The article was written in the 1st person "Our purpose is to enable individuals..." is that of a web page, not an impersonal encycopedia . There is no way of fixing material like this to be encyclopedic content. Every reference was derived from the firm's own website. If you want to try again, I remind you about our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure . DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]