User talk:DGG/Archive 115 Aug. 2016

                                       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

Merger discussion for Italia Independent Group

An article that you have been involved in editing—Italia Independent Group—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Request bu user Jayakumartvm

Hi I have created a Wikipage for Keltron, a Govt of Kerala Undertaking in the following URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_State_Electronics_Development_Corporation_(KELTRON) Unfortunately Wiki catagorised this content for speedy deletion due to copy right infringement and informed me that the content have been copied from http://www.govtjobs.allindiajobs.in/2016/05/keltron-recruitment-2016-08-engineer-technical-asst-vacancies/ its absolutely wrong and this site is not belongs to us, more over they have copied our content and pasted in the above mentioned site. our original content is available in www.keltron.org and in http://ksg.keltron.in/ sites. As I am working as a Govt consultant in kerala, I have been advised by concerned Govt companies or departments to update their information in respective Wiki pages, so I have been following their instructions Unfortunately it has been observed that wiki frequently deleting and restricting us to update the information in Wiki. We dont have any commercial concerns or marketing intention of being publishing contents in Wiki Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation is one of the major public sector company in Kerala. Please advise me how we could publish our information in Wiki. Long back the whole Wiki page relatted to Keltron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keltron was removed by Wiki, stated that it also violates the copy right policy.

Being a Govt consultant, its my responsibility to update the information in Wiki, I can produce my ID/ credentials to wiki if required. in all govt sites we mentioned the content is copy righted one, again we are required to create new and fresh content for Wiki?

Please advise Thanks Jayakumar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayakumartvm (talk • contribs) 05:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Added to own section TheMesquito^buzz 05:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Jayakumartvm, I think I can clear up some misconceptions:

I. We use promotionalism to include any material promoting any cause or any organization, commercial, non commercial, or governmental. All organizations promote their services, including government agencies--and well they should, for it is normally part of their mission to let the public know what they are doing, and explain their approach to public problems. Promotional writing is what the subject would like the public to know about itself. But we are an encyclopedia, and encyclopedic information is information that the general public, having heard about the topic might want to know; there is a difference.. Encyclopedic writing is based upon references to published material from independent sources. Encyclopedic writing avoids judgments or evaluations--we call this Neutral Point of View, WP:NPOV. The organization that is subject of an article obviously does not have a neutral point of view about what they are doing--they have a favorable point of view, or they wouldn't be doing it. They want to explain and exploit their successes. To say " Keltron has in effect triggered a revolution that still keeps churning out its benefits to individuals and institutions in different parts of the world, continuing in its quest to innovate products and processes that would add further value to life and to the industry" is not NPOV. It is a judgement, an unsupported judgement expressing the view of the agency about its activities and their beneficial aspects. It's a press release, not an encyclopedia article.

II. Wikipedia is published under a free license, CC 3.0 BY, that allows anyone in the world to copy and reuse and republish and modify the material, in any manner and for any purpose whatsoever, even commercial, provided that they give attribution-- see WP:COPYRIGHT. Our purpose is to be a free resource, free not just in the sense of free to access, but free to use, and material released into the public domain or under a license that does not permit this is not permitted here, because anyone who wants to use WP material must be sure they may legally do so. Very few governments are willing to release material under such a license; the only one I am sure of is the United States which releases all their publications into the public domain. India does not. Many organizations, public and private, do release some of their works for non-commercial use, or for specific purposes. But this is not sufficient, for material in WP must be available for commercial use also, and for any purpose.

As it applies to you, I suppose you would indeed be able to obtain permission to release this material to WP. But I do not think any Indian official who understood that policy of the government in this matter would be prepared to release it under the necessary free license. There are a few special considerations, such as the relationship of this company to the government, and who holds its intellectual property. If you can show that it holds the copyright, and an appropriately entitled agent of the company will give the necessary license without variation, it probably could be used. There is also the possibility that you, not the company, own the material (some contractors or consultants do, and this is normally stated in an employment contract). In that case you could release it. This would need to be done by the methods explained at WP:DCM, and would be handled by one of our experts.

But I do not encourage you to pursue this route for the following reason: the material is not satisfactory in any case, as I explained at point I. Material prepared in the manner you would prepare it for a web site almost never is. It would be possible for you to learn to write in the necessary NPOV manner, and some people in your position have been able to do so. It's not easy, for your natural inclination as a trained PR specialist is to write in the usual PR manner.

III. In any case you must follow our rules. If you wish to add material to an existing article, you must say what you want to do on the talk page and add a tag reading {{request edit}}; someone will check the material in a few weeks. If you want to write a new page, you should do it in WP:DRAFT space. Remember to declare each time. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Addendum:

IV. I now see the Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) previous explained all this to you. I should have seen this earlier, and then I would not have needed to write so much. He said it all, and he said it more briefly than I. That you did not understand it the first time is quite concerning, and in the circumstances, I will need to give you a formal warning on your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for ping. I've deleted his user page and the copyright/spam Kerala Police, also spam linking. Final warning since clearly WP:Not here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 6:53 am, Today (UTC+1)

Oops, sorry ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Management cockpit

I notice that you deleted this topic recently. Please could you userfy it as, while I didn't get to see the details of the page, I am fairly sure that the topic is notable. For example, see Introduction to Information Systems. Andrew D. (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, I moved the material into draft space as Draft:Management cockpit. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

07:50:58, 1 August 2016 review of submission by Mansidhorda

• Mansidhorda (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Practo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there,

Hope you are doing great.

I'm reaching out to you in the lines of the submission that I made for Practo, before a couple of days.

I did ran over your "Unclear evidence for notability and promotional name dropping" comment but was unable to get your point.

As we already have a live page about Practo Health App with almost similar information and references, I was a bit confused at what is actually missing on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Practo.

Again, while in the process of getting better understanding about the type of content you publish on Wikipedia, I came across a page that has very minimal information and is still live. Here is the link to that page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asklaila.

Having said that, could you please point me the right direction so that I can submit the information as per your requirement?

I look forward to hear from you soon.

Sincerely, Mansi

Mansisdhoda, the article has now been declined five times by five different experienced editors. I see it has been modified successively by Siddhesh1191, Cyrus.neo SearchNexus666 and now you, Mansidhora. Of these, Siddhesh1191, SearchNexus666, and you, Mansidhora, have made no other edits.

Before we discuss this further, I would like to know the relationship between these editors. Are they all the same person, or are they perhaps different people, hired in turn by the company to make the edits?

I call your attention to our rules on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, WP:Conflict of Interest, and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure.

I would also like to know, when we have an article Practo Health App, with, as you say yourself, almost similar information and references, why you think it appropriate to make a page for the company also? The most frequent reason for doing this is as part of a promotional campaign. (and the article on the app, started by Content Queen 667 and subsequently edited by an unsigned-in editor, is tagged for being an advertisement and using promotional wording--since Content Queen has edited nothing else, I wonder about sockpuppettry and COI here also.

As for the other article you mention, I listed it for a deletion discussion. You are quite right it is not really satisfactory; so are tens of thousands of other articles which were accepted in earlier years when we were less careful, or that slip through the net today. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Spam

Kamran Bloach and TopBargains are classic examples of artspam by one user. The sources are typical Internet barrel-scraping and everything too clean to be true. I just don't know whether to CSD them or send them to AfD. In the current climate at AfD they might get kept. It's certain however that no NPPer is going to recognise the for what they are. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG and Kudpung. See my comments at User talk:Voceditenore#Spam. Must dash. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr Ashwin Porwal

Dear DGG i , the article Dr Ashwin Porwal which was been deleted recently had enough proofs , please guide me on how to make necessory changes and make it according to the notable guidelines.182.77.84.126 (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This appears to refer to Dr. Ashwin Porwal, Ashwin Porwal, and most recently Dr Ashwin Porwal. DGG, Dr. Ashwin Porwal might need salting like the latter two. See also Draft:Ashwin Porwal. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree there is no chance at an article. everything is now deleted and protected. 182.77.84.126, please stop. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I Had read the article and now in the draft of Dr.Ashwin Porwal I wasn't able to see the same content , I was in a debate and found that most people were supporting the article but now someone had edited it as I can see something else in the draft . There were many references given as well around 25 of them . I agree the previous articles were not that ok but the one which all were debating for was a good one with all the information to support what was written down there . Then what did go wrong . I have even read about him that he received an prestigious dadasaheb phalke award in 2015 for his work in medical and even JITO - young entrepreneur award 2016 which has been supported with newspaper evidence as well. Franklin10hhc (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Before I go into details, I want to remind you about out rules on WP:Conflict of Interest. If you have a conflict of interest, you must say so. If the conflict of interest is that you are a paid editor, see also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure for the more detailed disclosure which is necessary. After you've responded, I'll continue. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

NPP backlog

Just a few weeks ago the backlog was only a few hundred. 20 days ago it was 7,000, today it is over 9,000. That's an increase of around 30% in just 3 weeks. Where will it stop?The backlog number is totally unacceptable band is almost back to 2011 levels, but I don't know what the solution is. I've sent all day (over 8 hours ) on it today, but it's not made a dent. New articles are arriving faster than I can patrol them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I will get there. Perhaps we need to select a few people for autopatrolled? DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not really you and I who should be doing NPP except for checking on the performance of te oatrollers. I've patrolled about 120 articles and deleted about 20,so that's about 1 article patrolled about every 4 mins. I admit I'm slow but maybe I just do a lot more background checks or it's because the ones I patrolare the more difficult ones. Today's experience does not demonstrate that articles by established uses are the problem - I'm still going fr those that are unsourced and other suspicious articles, leaving the low-hanging fruit and non toxic articles or others to patrol. Is today a special holiday or something in the USA? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I frankly never concern myself about the situation too seriously because we will actually get there (given the certain portion of it being unacceptable and needing deletion); another side of it contributing (perhaps a three-fourths portion of it) is the fact the oldest (from years and years ago) are being filled with results of vandalism moving and other activities. As someone who fluidly went through 9,000 (when it was this number last year) within a few months or so and easily going through at least 1,000 or over a day, I've learned the NPP (no matter what numbers) can be accomplished. As DGG and I both know, particularly what helps alleviate repeated advertising, it is warning users seriously. SwisterTwister talk 16:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I cannot do 1000 a day; in fact, I have learned I cannot accurately do more than 10 at a time, unless I work with ones that can obviously be accepted (there are many of them, which is why I will try to move some of the regular to auto-patrolled). I am currently concentrating on the patrolled NPs, screening ones with what might be problematic titles to see if there is anything wrong.

I do not think it a waste of time for experienced editors to do a little routine work of all sorts, and I try to get to miscellaneous places every once in a while, to keep contact with how they are working and what the current standards are. Or at least that's the excuse I give--perhaps it is just that I am restless. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC) .

Another persistent one

For information only: you may be interested in this conversation. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out how to tell when persistence is indicative of a unsophisticated SPA presumably the person or the company/institution, and when it is due to a particular undeclared paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Chairman of a supervisory board

What is a chairman of a supervisory board and what is a chairman of a management board? Do these positions indicate notability? Is this different from a chairman of the board?

Please see this article here: Albrecht Hornbach. Also see this Reuters listing [1] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea which is which, but the significant post is president of the holding company. I linked to the deWP article. I have almost never rejected their determination of notability -- their standards are usually higher than ours. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A Paperboy's Fable

I wonder if you would unlock this so A Paperboys Fable (which I accepted at AfC) can be moved there. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don not see that it was ever protected; and I see you moved it successfully. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I accepted the Draft without the apostrophe because the one with it is actually locked (see redlink) and it was apparently deleted via AfD as (too soon) but it seems notable now. SwisterTwister talk 15:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

should I move, or make a redirect? DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Move would be best for naming consistency. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Re-created Sabareesh Prabhaker page

Hi, I have re-created the page Sabareesh Prabhaker which was created twice by my friend who is unaware of wikipedia rules and regulations. The page was deleted twice due to that by you and SpacemanSpiff. So please check the page again and verify that the article is OK or not. Thank You. SidhardhRamesh (talk) 00:51, Monday, May 6, 2024 (UTC)

It remains unsatisfactory. Before I go into details, I want to remind you about out rules on WP:Conflict of Interest. If you have a conflict of interest, you must say so. If the conflict of interest is that you are a paid editor, see also our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure After you've responded, I'll continue. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

NO ANSWER RECEIVED: Speedy Deletion of Logista

Hello DGG, I post again this conversation we had because I have not received a final answer and I do not find the draft of the page in order to add the references. Thank you.

Hello, I have tried to create the "Logista" page, a company that is part of the Imperial Tobacco group (now Imperial Brands) and that is listed on the Madrid stock exchange. I had a better look to the Wikipedia rules and I think I have understood why my article was deleted. Could you please remove the deletion and allow me to modify it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88Rorschach (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I will get bavk to you tomorrow on this. 88Rorschach, do you have good references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements ? If you do, I'll move the article into Draft space so you can add them. . DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)DGG, DGG hello, yes I do have good references from third-party independent reliable sources. Thank you for moving it into Draft space again. Sorry DGG , I do not see the draft. Where is it? Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorschach88. (talk • contribs) 09:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

By my standards, the company is probably notable (9 billion euro revenue) ; whether it will be found so in WP will depend on the sourcing. But looking more carefully at the draft article, I find mother problem, equally bad: it is thoroughly promotional. "ensuring specialised and customised service for each client." ; "provide added value to both manufacturers and points of sale" "Thus, Logista becomes the ideal partner to market products and service"

The only usable content is the list of national subsidiaries. I apologize if I've raised your hopes, but the deleted material does not provide a basis for an article.

I also should have asked you whether you have any relationship to the firm; if you work for them or have a business relationship, you must be aware of WP:Conflict of Interest; if you a a paid press agent or contractor, you also need to see the more detailed Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

DGG I don't have any relationship with them and this is not my first article in WIKIPEDIA. Regarding the content of the article, if you read carefully what I wrote some weeks ago in the conversation we had, i mentioned that I had understood what the problem was with the article because at that time I had found some sources that were not careful enough. Now I have new relevant sources such as Bloomberg and Reuters and I would like to review all of it and change the parts that look promotional. Let me know, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorschach88. (talk • contribs) 08:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will look again from scratch tomorrow or this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Page created by a paid editor deleted but the page was legitimate.

I would like to start by stating that I really don't know anything about wikipedia other than using it as a reference. A freelancer was paid to publish a wikipedia article for the topic of "Rome Aloise". All of the content was written by friends of mine and not the freelancer. I now understand that it looks like a violation of the rule BUT I would like to re-publish the page myself. I was hoping to find some advice. How would I go about creating the page and getting it back up? Thank you! Phil Ybarrolaza User:Phil624Phil624 (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil624 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Rome Aloise was one of the articles nuked because produced by the paid sock-farm described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive929#Undisclosed Paid Editing Farm and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunilseth15/Archive. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think the subject may be notable, so an article should be possible. The question is whether you have any personal or business connection with the subject. If you do , you have a WP:Conflict of Interest] and you should write the material in Draft space via the WP:Article Wizard. If you do not, I would still strongly advise doing it that way because of your inexperience, as it is more likely to lead to n acceptable article. For information about writing articles, see Wikipedia:Your first article.

If you are implying that you would like me to supply you with the text the paid editor submitted, I will not do so. It would be the equivalent of what I consider a bad faith manner of editing, practiced by some paid editors, in which they furnish the client the article, and tell the client to submit it themselves. I consider doing it that way to be their obvious attempt to evade the spirit and meaning of the terms of use, and exactly equivalent to the hypocrisy of paid writers of term papers who pretend to be supplying only a research summary from which the student can write the paper.

I regret the situation you have found yourself in. but the basic principle of an honest encyclopedia is that people do not get to write or sponsor articles about themselves or their associates. It is not wrong for them to want articles, but it is not fair to readers, who expect content notbased on individual subject's views of their own importance. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Daniel Romanovsky discussion

Greetings David. I was actually going to make a comment about this subject and ask your opinion on your talk page, prior to your posting. I was mulling it over for the last 24 hours at least. I was (and am) very interested in your thoughts about how the current guidance in academic notability with regard personalities in the humanities could be made more flexible. You will probably disagree, but I believe them to be overly-rigid at this time. I am interested in a new discussion on the appropriate venue that may begin a new dialogue, and new thinking to this aspect of notability as the project currently sees it. I hope I have not made a fool of myself by defending the keep, in my response to your posting. I am trying to interpret the guidance as I see it, with a dash of common sense. I am fairly new to the fascinating topic of AfD and would like to become more engaged in it. I hugely respect your vast experience and insight both in this subject area and in the totality of the project. I must admit though, that I do believe the subject does have good grounds for relisting at least. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

we go by the publications. The key criterion #1, impact, Academic impact in the 20th/21st century is almost always by publications in any field except some of the applied sciences. The current WP standard in practice is essentially the extent of publications that would qualify for a full professorship at a major university. (Myself, I'd just go by the professorship on the grounds that the university is a better judge than we are, but that's not the consensus). (Myself again, a little more radically, I'd support the lower standard of associate professorship, but again, this is definitely not the consensus). The requirements for even associate professorship in a first class research university is two academic books by major publishers known to do peer review--either university presses or the few relevant commercial publishers. Nothing else matters, except that at least the 2nd books should not be based on the thesis. but show an independent line of research capable of attracting graduate students and other faculty. At 2nd rate research universities this has been watered down in recent years to one academic book, and three substantial research articles in major journals. That's not our standard, that's the standard of the field.

there are a number special considerations:

1/the creative arts, but our standard makes special provision for them.

2/people in some humanistic specialties where publications other than books count: the most common one that causes problems here is archeology.

3/people working in research institutes of some sort, who publish in other than academic book or journal format. These can be hard to judge; often we end up using the GNG instead of PROF here.  :::4/people in geographic areas that do not fully participate in the US-WEuropean academic system--these can be almost impossible to judge here, as almost nobody has the expertise.

5/people in disadvantaged groups whose actual output is less than would be merited by their actual quality of work--there is no consensus about how much to take this into account. My own view is to take this only slightly into account for 2000+, increasingly more in earlier generations. What happens in any given case depends upon who appears and how hard they fight.

6/people in what are considered here to be weird. These are usually judged nonnotable unless there's a lobby overwhelming the discussion.

7/people in fields not considered rigorous here: education, home economics, library science, etc --fields that often are heavily populated by women at least in past generations. We've been very dismissive in the past, less so now.

8/there's an alternative that sometimes applies : some people who publish relatively non-scholarly books can be foudn notable by WP:AUTHOR.

Actually, the real problem has been the opposite of what you seem to think. People in the humanities can be dealt with quite easily, because they publish books, and the criteria for books & authors is very flexible and exceedingly broad. The difficulty has been with scientists. It took years here to get WP:PROF and citation analysis accepted as a basis for notability. At one point I started saying I might argue on the basis that if someone was cited at all, each citation would be a RS for N. (and the argument would then be on whether each of them had substantial criticism or discussion, which can be a very long argument--if there are 10 papers with 10 refs, each of 100 referring papers would need to be examined in detail.) The net result would be to extend notability down into the assistant professor category. I like to think that this ended the matter, for the people who thought only famous scientists were notable then accepted WP:PROF as a compromise.

It is a very poor idea to take one particular case where the rules don't show notability for someone that you want an article on, and use that as a basis for changing the rule. Argue rather that the particular case should be an exception. WP:IAR is fundamental policy and therefore can over-ride anything that might be provided by any notability guideline. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate your detailed and informative response DGG, and the brief history of the matter, and the advice at the end of the post. I will take it all very much on board. Thanks for taking the time. Simon Irondome (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)I wonder if point #5 ("people in disadvantaged groups whose actual output is less than would be merited by their actual quality of work") may apply to Romanovski? The 1980s weren't the 1950s, but studying Holocaust in the Soviet Union at that time was definitely a career limiting move. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This actually occurred to me, but it's not the usual meaning. But there's a limit to how far we can stretch. It would have to be someone who's almost notable, and I don't think he's anywhere near it. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:S&P 500 Index

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:S&P 500 Index. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The Isobar company article

Dear Sir, I am working on an assignment at University. My assignment was to choose an article at risk for deletion and improve it. Yesterday I added two references to the article with proper citations. Now I have found that a lady made a report about me at a place called SPI. I explained on there that I am working on an assignment. Am I not allowed to work on improving this article? I also left a note on the discussion page explaining my plan to try and improve the article. Also a second lady put a huge posting on my talk page about COI. Can you please assist me sir, and explain why improving an article is not proper? Thanks. Donald1659 (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've commented at User_talk:Donald1659#Student_assignments as I'm perhaps in a better time zone than DGG. PamD 10:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

this is a very interesting example (if true, as it probably is, and as we must assume it to be true for now) of someone in perfect good faith making edits that are indistinguishable from promotional edits, by following the existing pattern in the article and other articles.

It's the sort of edits where our ability to see who someone is would clarify the situation. In this case, a sockpuppet investigation would be reasonable (it might indicate the ed. is correct if it comes from a school IP, and even identify the school; or indicate likely sockpuppettry if it comes from the same ip as before; or indicate nothing either way, if it comes from yet another place or the place can not be determined.) But assuming the person is actually doing the edit on an educational assignment, he and the class need some focussed advice. I think it an extremely poor idea for a teacher to give an assignment like this to beginners. An assignment for beginners should be one that is certain or reasonably certain to be accepted, not an article that may well end up deleted. Donald1659, PamD gave you the proper advice about having the teacher contact WP for assistance with the course. DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD review for Daniel Romanovsky

Thanks for opening the article back up, Daniel Romanovsky. I have added some material, which seems to have had the effect of putting the article back in public space. This was not my intention. I have never taken part in a deletion review before so I am not sure what is supposed to happen. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

What was supposed to happen is that you weren't supposed to edit it, because it confuses things. You should have just listed the additions at the deletion review. (This is unlike during an AfD, where you can improve the article during the discussion) I can't recall this happening before, which is why we may not have any specific rules written about it, but in the future I will deal with it by protecting the page against editing after restoring it. I did that now. I hope the note I put on the page is clear enough. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, yes. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Pier Alessio Rizzardi‎‎

I don't necessarily disagree. But have a look at the history. This was a single edit from a new account... --Randykitty (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Rohini Sindhuri (IAS)

Dear DGG,

This is regarding the article ROHINI SINDHURI (IAS) which was recently deleted by you. I think the original author of the page is not active anymore so she could not respond to the deletion nomination. The person concerned is notable and meets the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. She is a junior officer but done significant work in her field and was recognised be the Indian Govt also which was covered in various mainstream newspapers( given in references) . And also there was nothing in the article which was promotional or exaggerated as said by the people in the deletion discussion. we could have improved the article but it was not fit to be deleted. Let me know what steps can be taken going forward. Just being a junior level doesnt mean the person is not notable, its the work she has done which makes her notable. Thank you Contrib1977 (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Isobar company article

Dear Sir, I am working on an assignment at University. My assignment was to choose an article at risk for deletion and improve it. Yesterday I added two references to the article with proper citations. Now I have found that a lady made a report about me at a place called SPI. I explained on there that I am working on an assignment. Am I not allowed to work on improving this article? I also left a note on the discussion page explaining my plan to try and improve the article. Also a second lady put a huge posting on my talk page about COI. Can you please assist me sir, and explain why improving an article is not proper? Thanks. Donald1659 (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've commented at User_talk:Donald1659#Student_assignments as I'm perhaps in a better time zone than DGG. PamD 10:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

this is a very interesting example (if true, as it probably is, and as we must assume it to be true for now) of someone in perfect good faith making edits that are indistinguishable from promotional edits, by following the existing pattern in the article and other articles.

It's the sort of edits where our ability to see who someone is would clarify the situation. In this case, a sockpuppet investigation would be reasonable (it might indicate the ed. is correct if it comes from a school IP, and even identify the school; or indicate likely sockpuppettry if it comes from the same ip as before; or indicate nothing either way, if it comes from yet another place or the place can not be determined.) But assuming the person is actually doing the edit on an educational assignment, he and the class need some focussed advice. I think it an extremely poor idea for a teacher to give an assignment like this to beginners. An assignment for beginners should be one that is certain or reasonably certain to be accepted, not an article that may well end up deleted. Donald1659, PamD gave you the proper advice about having the teacher contact WP for assistance with the course. DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Nothing either way" was the result. MSJapan (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Pier Alessio Rizzardi‎‎

I don't necessarily disagree. But have a look at the history. This was a single edit from a new account... WP:PAID? --Randykitty (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 22:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark J. Perry

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark J. Perry. I saw an edit summary from you from 2009 saying that he is notable, so I wanted to let you know I've put this up for AfD. v/r - TP 23:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

AfDs

As I was cleaning my watchlist, I noticed Jo Street and Imprima, where the AfDs themselves were deleted instead of the article itself. Thanks again for your continuous AfD work, SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks. I've fixed it. DGG ( talk ) 14:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I found Devikumar Ramalingam which certainly seems notable, but as I was about to nominate the book, The Celestial Hunt, it seems the book article was in fact deleted in October 2014 and restarted after that AfD. Is it substantially the same as before? SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Another thing is that I wonder if you would lock Emerald Brand, as it's been deleted 4 times now? Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Same text reposted Reposted

13:16, 6 August 2016 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Yoris Jarzynski (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, Speedy deletion as G4, Repost, is only applies when the previous deletion was the result of an Afd, but in this case it was a speedy G11. The current version is not as promotional and I do not think G11 would apply to it. I am not sure about notability, so i suggest AfD. (If you want to see the previous version, it was a translation of the version currently in the esWP.) DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orange County

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Orange County. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion for Varun Manian Page Deletion

Hi DGG, Wanted to check the reason for Varun Manian's Wiki Page. Manan49s (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It was deleted as an article on a non notable businessman. The first reference is just his web page at his company; the second seems to be about his mother, though the site has 4 social-mention articles about his engagement, where the interest is about the person he is engaged to, the third is his profile on a business web site, where anyone can had a profile about himself, the 5th is about his real estate company. The article seems to have been originally written by his company, and then worked on by an editor who has edgited on nothing but his real estate and media companies. DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Manan49s (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Reading Well Books on Prescription

David, can you perhaps have a look at this? Not sure what to do with it. Also pinging Doc James. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes undisclosed paid editing. Have removed their editing privileges until dealt with and tagged the articles in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I listed for G11. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, I would of course like to know why you are confident it's a paid editor. Naturally, under our current rather absurd rules, you can't tell me on wiki. But since I'm on arb com, you can email me. If it looks interesting, I'll forward to my colleagues as an example of the problems we have, DGG ( talk ) 20

33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well it does look like it. I have my evidence plus it is definitely promotional for the organization.

Anyone can find the evidence if they so wish. I am concerned that arbcom may use privately submitted evidence as justification for a ban. So am a little hesitant to send them anything unless they request it and I have assurances of no retaliation.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Posed the Q here[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher)If anyone paid for this article, they were robbed. Sloppily written (incorrect hyphen in "which was set-up by ", and "the scheme reached 275,000 people and libraries seen a 113% increase in loans" presumably intended either "saw" or "have seen"). Inappropriate to include the full reading lists. Nonetheless I've unspeedied it and will work on it - I've heard of it already (notice in local library I think, or possibly in doctor's surgery), and it seems worthwhile and I've found a couple of newspaper sources about it. PamD 20:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Randykitty: @Doc James: I've trimmed the article (no need to include the reading lists), found a few new sources, showed the extent to which library systems are using it, and hope you'll agree the article is now OK, whatever the motives of its original creator. PamD 21:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:PamD Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too, to both of you! --Randykitty (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Rohini Sindhuri (IAS)

Dear DGG,

This is regarding the article ROHINI SINDHURI (IAS) which was recently deleted by you. I think the original author of the page is not active anymore so she could not respond to the deletion nomination. The person concerned is notable and meets the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. She is a junior officer but done significant work in her field and was recognised be the Indian Govt also which was covered in various mainstream newspapers( given in references) . And also there was nothing in the article which was promotional or exaggerated as said by the people in the deletion discussion. we could have improved the article but it was not fit to be deleted. Let me know what steps can be taken going forward. Just being a junior level doesnt mean the person is not notable, its the work she has done which makes her notable. Thank you

i had posted the same in the archive section 2 days back sorry.

Contrib1977 (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the articles because the 4 people participating in the discussion all said it should be deleted; I must close according to the consensus of the discussion. Looking at the article, it was clearly promotional: "She is fondly remembered by Tumkur people" for example. As for the references, one of the news articles says about her only "Mandya Zilla Panchayat Chief Executive of Rohini Sindhuri, Superintendent of Police Bhushan Gulabrao Borase and nearly 600 ASHA and ANMs were present."Another says only "ZP Executive Officer Rohini Sindhuri, who chaired the meeting, directed the Health and Family Welfare Department to book criminal cases " This is not what we mean by substantial coverage. And similarly for the other references. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Oddtest 2

I am very curious as to the "function" of Oddtest 2 and Oddtest 4. Would you enlighten me, please? Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• DGG, All three pages show up at Special:NewPages as well as Special:NewPagesFeed. [3] [4] - NQ (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Set namespace to "all" in the box to show pages originally created as "Draft:" or "User:". - NQ (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

aha! I didn't realize it was the original namespace that mattered! thanks. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

NQ,Kudpung But the normal way of searching in NPP is just article space. I know that's the way I always use, and I suspect its's the way most people do also--Looking at the conventional NP feed with the filter set to "all", I see not just user pages but a great deal of clutter from categories, user talk pages, article talk pages, files, etc. As there is no way of saying "user + article", the unnecessary material cannot be removed. (compare with the flexible namespace choices in the Search function.) Using the Article Curation new pages feed, I see there is no "all" setting -- one can select either mainspace, or user, but , again, not the combination. We should be able to do much better than this.

And, looking at these , I seethat article space drafts is a truly horrible morass, and I am beginning to think we should insist that all drafts go in Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Double Mountain Brewery

Is this still too promotional for a stub? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Double Mountain Brewery

Is this still too promotional for a stub? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It is better; I'm not going to decline or accept it, but leave it for another editor; it's ok to resubmit it. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Charles Robinson

In this edit to Anthony Charles Robinson, you tagged the article for speedy deletion as G11: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I shouldn't have to remind you that WP:CSD is for pages with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Equally, you surely must be aware of what G11 says?

• This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.

Are you trying to assert that either (1) the subject is not notable; or (2) that the content could not be plausibly replaced with neutral content? The subject is clearly notable, given the number of articles about him and the awards he's received - not least an OBE. Even if the content were exclusively promotional (which it isn't), with 32 references about him, a monkey with a typewriter could transform it into a neutral article.

I am astonished that an editor of your experience and inclusionist tendencies should make such a fundamental mistake, particularly with the first efforts of a new editor. I see you haven't even noted the CSD nomination in your log yet, so if there is another agenda at play here, I think you should be upfront about it. --RexxS (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

A bio based mainly on very minor awards & trivial references is promotional; there is no reason for it except to advertise his speaking career--in fact, quite a few of the paid editors use thie trick of adding a great many not very convincing references. To analyze the G11, let's say he were notable, for example it his award were higher than the OBE, It would need to be fundamentally rewritten because almost all the content is trivial awards , & sourced to local notices about his speeches. The potential G11s that should not be tagged are those that do not need to be fundamentally rewritten and can be easily fixed are, for example, where it's just a matter of adjectives, or a specific section that can be removed. Sot notable or not I do consider it a reasonable G11.

Now, G11 is not an exact criterion, and can be interpreted in many ways. The check on the tagger's interpretation is that I don't delete the articles myself, and anyone else can remove the G11. Even if the speedy tag stays there for more than a day, I take it to mean no other admin is comfortable deleting it, & remove the tag. It is true that I have usually been interpreting G11 more broadly in a sort of desperate response to the increasing promotional editing; it is possible that it has been too broad, and I must look to analyze the results of my CSDs. I'm always re-analyzing something or other from my logs, but this month I'm doing my deletion log, to see which recreations are reasonable and which not. I suppose I should check CSDs next. I like everyone else can drift in interpretation, which is why I do regularly look back. And if I do go too far, I;m glad when someone tells me., so I thank you. I will probably AfD as not notable, but not immediately. DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The "new editor" who created this gem, also produced Arthur Charles Evans, which has the same whiff of undisclosed paid editing. Similarly deceptively sourced. Once you look at the sources, like the Robinson article, most evaporate (dead links, trivial mentions, blogs, etc). --Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

At least Evans is notable , because he has the CBE. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of having criteria beyond the WP:GNG is that folks who have, for example, received significant awards are very likely to have press coverage and it becomes a short-circuit for the notability debate. It's not a question of how many awards are given out; it's a question of whether receiving that award would most likely imply significant coverage. Now the OBE is "a well-known and significant award or honour", but you may feel it doesn't guarantee that someone will have received coverage. OK, but even leaving aside the OBE, Robinson has significant coverage in an article in The Guardian - that's not a passing mention - and a whole article on him in the The Press (York), which isn't just some local rag, it covers a large chunk of Yorkshire and has a circulation of 25,000 (that's half the circulation of something like the The Washington Times for comparison). Having read the earlier parts of your talk page, I can appreciate your concerns over paid editing - and personally I'd see it banned if I could - but I'd hate for us to get so paranoid about the problem that we start to catch good-faith editors in the net. Now, I have no clue whether LazyLilac is a paid editor, but I can't see an easy way to determine that, and if there is significant coverage in independent sources, we're probably best off just making sure that the content stays neutral, IMHO, as I'd rather "ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", don't you agree? --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) Interesting statements by LazyLilac at TeaHouse hereI am a freelance virtual assistant, so I am not his employee and the copywriter has been editing the text and I have been updating it on here, he doesn't know how to create pages on Wikipedia, so yes it's just me doing the editing on here. Time to delete and salt? PamD 21:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS:@Randykitty: for info. PamD 21:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

first step is to take it to AfD and get it deleted. Iff it gets sufficiently edited, it is possible that it might pass, despite the paid editing. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, PamD, that clarifies things quite a lot. I'm not sure that's quite enough to block LazyLilac for TOU abuse, but she/he ought to have worked out what COI means by now. As for salting, I think we'd need to run the article through AfD first, and I still think it's more likely to be kept than deleted, given the press coverage. --RexxS (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: for info, as the editor who moved the draft into mainspace. PamD 21:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Interesting that none of the Teahouse hosts seem to have picked up on what looks like a declaration of paid editing! PamD 21:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Paid editing goes to the editor, not the article, which stands on its own merits. Montanabw^(talk) 08:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, as I understand it personally, while declared paid editing certainly is judged article by article; undeclared page editing does go by the editor, just as other TOU violations like sockpuppettry. I certainly will ban undeclared page editors until they declare, though so far I have used the related reason of advertising-only account. The question of whether we should remove all contributions of detected undeclared paid editors is still open, but in some cases we have done just that, when the nature of the editing is reasonably certain-just as we do with sockpuppettry. DGG ( talk ) 13:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I have sympathy with your intent, DGG, but we don't actually "revert on sight" the contributions of sockpuppets, per se. That draconian step is at present reserved for those evading site bans, as it has been agreed that the loss of possibly useful content is outweighed by the message sent to the ban evader that their contributions are not welcome. Nevertheless, I feel that the same message would also be appropriate to send to paid editors deliberately evading TOU. It would really best be agreed via community debate and consensus, rather than one person taking up the campaign, but if you felt up to raising it at VPP, for example, please ping me and I'd be happy to support you there. --RexxS (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we ban them first. but we ban on the basis of convincing behavioral and editing evidence, as well as CU. UPE are a little more difficult, because there are a surprising number of good faith new editors who write promotional articles, because that's what they mostly see here in some areas, and they think it's what we want. As discussions at various places have shown, it is quite hard to be sure, unless it's obvious or omitted. But we can and do block people who persist in writing promotional articles, after a warning, and at present the TOU are best used as a supplemental argument--it seems to sound more official. It is rather rare for a paid editor write anything else, though it does happen.

In my personal opinion, the only real reason for trying to identify a UPE is when we reasonably suspect a ring or an extensive commercial operation. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup of AfC submissions

I've recently noticed Cornelius Johannes Barchman Wuytiers, in which you didn't remove some remaining tags and categories. I've now fixed it for you, but don't forget it. Also, AFCH is an excellent tool that makes it significantly easier. Cheers, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

for unknown reasons, AFCH is not working reliably for me. When it does , I use it. (though I dislike its inflexibility, it does clean up the misc. nicely.) DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Damage_done_by_declining_AFC. I believe we have yet another example where, except for a tiny minority of truly dedicated reviewers, AfC is a broken process and which also the controls I introduced and which were adopted by the community are not working. Around 10% of new enrollments to the reviewer list are reverted following scrutiny, not to mention the others on that list who are blocked, banned, or while hovering until they scrape through the numeric requirements have quickly demonstrated that they nevertheless do not possess the required knowledge or skills. It's pretty much the same problem that we have at NPP. aybe 90/500 isn't enough and it should be 180/3000 as for Page Mover. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

that's longer than we used to require for admin! And, just like admin, the numbers aren't what does it. There will always be the need for scrutiny of the new reviewers. WHat we need is to get it organized, instead of random. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Salting

I believe you salted Talk:Yolande Milan Batteau, not the article page...? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

fixed; thanks. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Mayliewan-Ozerna, Edmonton for Speedy Deletion

Hi. I am a longtime editor, but new to "deletion" requests, so I appreciate that I may have used the wrong reason. Based on your greater experience, I'd appreciate your help in assigning the proper reason, rather than the switch to the rather lethargic "unsourced" that you replaced it with. If you'd looked at the "Talk" page at the article, you would have seen that another user had already provided further (better than mine, I admit) background to the issue for this meaningless article (I couldn't find a "meaningless" reason amongst the Speedy Deletion reasons), which has been sitting dormant for 4 years for the specific reason that the other two articles (Mayliewan, Ozerna) fully replace this one-time placeholder article. Hope you can help. Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no speedy deletion reason for problems like this. The claim that a neighborhood is or is not notable needs to be discussed at AfD. But the first step before that discussion is to try to find some sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

But what is "a problem like this"? That's the advice I asked you for. The claim being made is NOT that the neighbourhood is not notable - the claim is that the neighbourhood does not exist, the original article was created WITHOUT SOURCES, and the original editor even states that he/she created the entire "Mayliewan-Ozema" concept out of thin air:

"The City of Edmonton formally divides the area into two neighbourhoods, Mayliewan and Ozerna. Because the two neighbourhoods are sometimes collective referred to as if they were one neighbourhood, they are discussed here together. As of 2006, the two neighbourhoods have a population of about 8,075, with 4,069 in Mayliewan and 4,006 in Ozerna."

The editor admits that two neighbourhoods exist, admits that the City, who created the neighbourhoods, refers to them as two neighbourhoods, but then adds his/her own decision that they should be 'discussed here together despite all those facts'. The entire concept that "Mayliewan-Ozerna" is an actual thing was created in the mind of the original editor, who openly admits it in the article!!!

This is not a discussion of notability, because there is nothing to note, there is nothing to source. The items to note and source are the actual, seperate, independent, fully sourced wiki-articled neighbourhoods of Mayliewan, Edmonton and Ozerna, Edmonton. I even thought that this discussion you and I are having here is exactly the discussion intended for the "Talk" page of the article, which the original short-lived "deletion" request directed people to do.

Actually - I think I realize now that I failed by not putting all these points in the original "Talk" entry after initiating the "deletion" process. (I've already admitted that I'm new to deletion). Do I reenter that request, and fill out the "Talk" with:

"The City created two neighbourhoods, the city produces seperate and distinct data for the two neighbourhoods - which has been used to fully source the two SEPARATE articles that exist under the names of the two neighbourhoods. The editor who created the original "Mayliewan-Ozerna" article years ago stated IN THE ARTICLE that he/she had singlehandedly chosen to make up the non-existent neighbourhood "Mayliewan-Ozerna", while admitting the fact that the City refers to them as two neighbourhoods. The two actual neighbourhoods of Mayliewan, Edmonton and Ozerna, Edmonton, which the original editor admits were the actual entities, have their own fully sourced articles and this admittedly (by the original editor) made up neighbourhood of Mayliewan-Ozerna, Edmonton has never existed, thus can be deleted."

To be fair, someone already added part of this explanation at the "Talk" page, before you removed the "deletion" tag, but perhaps I should go back and add the heavier detail shown above? Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking back at the "Speedy Deletion" guidlines, I realize now that I should have used "A11", which is Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A11. Obviously invented, which is in keeping with the creating editor's actual statement that they invented the concept of "Mayliewan-Ozema" in opposition to the facts at hand from the City. Jmg38 (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Jmg38: Speedy deletions have to fit into quite narrow categories, and I'm not sure A11 is appropriate for something made up, but 9 years ago. How about using WP:PROD: designed for uncontroversial deletions, but gives all concerned (if anyone is indeed concerned) a week to object, amend the article, remove the PROD, etc. In the case of this article it looks very likely that no-one would object, so after the week the article will be deleted. Job done. Because Speedy Deletion only needs one nominator and one admin, with no time delay to allow input from others including the article creator, it's healthy to restrict it, even though frustrating when an "obvious" case doesn't fit into any of the boxes. This article has been around for 9 years, just give it a PROD and a week. PamD 10:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, WP:SOFIXIT: I've PRODded it for you. PamD 10:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - clearly a better place for this, and a good addition to my learning curve on deletions (not that I anticipate this being a regular event for me). Jmg38 (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

123RF Page Deletion

Thanks DGG. I'm one of the 123RF contributors. Submit images to 123RF to sell it. Hence, I'm not working for them. So, do I need to put COI on my page although I am only the contributor? If yes, how should I go about it. Please retrieve the deleted material to me for future reference or improvement. Do provide few examples of the acceptable Wikipedia content.

And, please advise whether these fulfill WP notable guidelines and TOU {Conflict of Interest}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IStock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockfresh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_%26_Lion Angelina Lee (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Angelina Lee, What you say is interesting, because it confirms my feeling that the article was written from the perspective of a contributor. If I sensed that , then there probably is to some degree a conflict of interest, though not a paid conflict of interest, and the best course is to simply declare it. There's no reason why you shouldn't try to rewrite in draft space. Remember that details of pricing or submission, beyond a general statement, are of interest only to prospective purchasers or submitters, not the general public. encyclopedia articles are addressed to the general public; a firm's web site is where one looks for the details. The main problem , however, is the references: PRWeb is a place for reprinting press releases, and not a Reliable source for anything. The Stockindexonline item is a press release. written by their VP of marketing; stockphototalk is similar; The photobuyerguide reference is essentially a catalog page; the microstockman review in my opinion is usable, as a comparative review, though based on the various company's own information. But you will need additional references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources.

as for other articles, there are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower or that have gotten in despite our vigilance that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. But specifically, iStock has better references, but the catalog information should be removed, and it needs updating; Stockfresh probably needs removal. Lion & Lion is a different type of business & is fairly straightforward for its type compared to many that we have, tho it needs some promotional sentences rewritten.

Our practice with pricing information is to generally not give exact pricing, though we sometimes indicate the range because that can be the clearest indication of where the firm is positioned.

Since it seems t that you do indeed not represent the company with a paid COI, I shall move the material into Draft space, as Draft:123RF. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DGG! Can you proofread my 123RF draft in the coming future before publish? Angelina Lee (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

to make sure AfC reviews are not prejudiced, normally we review at random. But I can certainly look at something I deleted and undelete it, so I can do this also, if you notify me. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DGG! Angelina Lee (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

knrbeats page deletion

Hello DGG. A developing article was posted up on a production team by the name of knrbeats that you deleted. If your going to delete it, can you please also kindly remove it from the google search engine entirely. Once new information is added, it will be reposted meeting the acceptable guideline. If you can't do it, please kindly notify the administrative people who are privileged to do so. Knrbeats (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)User:Knrbeats

(talk page stalker) I have explained to this user on their talk page that we do not control Google, but that now deleted this will drop off their search results within a few days. JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

MicroVision, Inc.

David, regarding the deleted MicroVision Inc. article--I might understand the reason code. I initially posted a bare-bones summary of the company. The earliest submission was flagged for lack of importance. In response, I added the paragraph about patents. The next recommendation was to generate outside links--which I did a fair amount of. In doing so, I was surprised how many technical concepts pertaining to MicroVision's work are discussed elsewhere, but without a reference due to MicroVision as a legitimate source. I began to feel my effort was useful in tying up loose ends. Where I think this comes off as advertising is in the page's references. For example, references to consumer products were often derived from digital media. Regardless, those references were intended to validate the existence of a product where no other reliable source exists. With emerging commercial technology, in many cases there are no third party references outside the digital media domain. If a consumer product lacks a neutral third party reference or link to academia, should that make it irrelevant? Should a sole third party review be dismissed as promotion? I would add that the foundation of MicroVision's IP was spun off from research at University of Washington's Human Interface Technology Lab. The story to be told is a complex one that also touches on controversy. All in my opinion. --Dave H — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenious monk (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Eugenious monk (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

it is a little complicated to figure out how to handle this; I've re-read the various relevant pages, and read the references, now I need to think about it. Idon;t want to make a snap judgment. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the high standards sought after, and more often catch myself crossing the line. I am prepared to overhaul the article and strive for more reductive language and commercial-free references. The history portion might help offset the otherwise corporate inclination. For example, in terms of social welfare, one of the earliest proposed applications for the retinal scanning display was as an aid for the visually impaired--where those with various forms of macular degeneration might one day wear glasses equipped with an optical device that projects visual information directly onto unaffected areas of the retina--thereby enhancing vision. In the 90s a US company, Telesensory, developed an early prototype retinal scanning display for this purpose. Further development was constrained by cost and immature technology. Only this year, QD Laser (a Fujitsu spinoff) has announced the availability of such glasses. I should disclose that RP runs in my family. My knowledge of MicroVision mainly relates to my interest in this possible medical breakthrough.--Eugenious monk (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The questions are how much of it should go in the general article on the method, and whether there should be a separate article on the company. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The company a footnote to the method. This describes the company's current relationship among licensees--as they have recently adopted an ingredient brand business model. But wouldn't the absence of a company article seem conspicuous? Why the omission while it's peers show up here? How otherwise to validate it's existence? Eugenious monk (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

What we do in such cases is make a redirect from the name of the company, and we can make it specifically to the part of the article on the method that mentions the company. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Declined speedy on Canton Drop Forge

Just out of curiosity, why did you decline this speedy? The only sources that I found were local human interest type news stories in a local newspaper. I personally don't consider the length of time a business has been open or how big it is to be "claims of notability" for the purposes of A7, but maybe I am wrong. Thanks, shoy (reactions) 18:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I do consider it an indication of possible historical significance. A7 is " important or significant", not notability.--see WP:AFD Actual notability is a higher standard--A7 is deliberately set at a lower level. Notability is judged at AfD, so first check for sources; then, only if not found, nominate for deletion at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please enforce the word limits

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence#Please enforce the word limits in the interest of fairness --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

the clerks do this. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox organization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

John Travis (physician) - Neutrality of tone

Hi DGG - I saw that you had placed an alert on the John Travis (physician) page regarding the tone, indicating that it came across more like a news release. I'd like to try to rectify this and can see parts that might be at fault, such as the 'Work on parenting' section. However, I wished to check which areas you felt were causing issues?Fbell74 (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You are right that the parenting section is altogether inappropriate, as almost all of it is not about his own work. Asides from that , take a closer look at the section on wellness, and the claims to be first or among the first. the claims here contradict the discussion in the WP articles on the subject.

Beyond those generalities, you are writing as a paid editor for the subject. It is my position that anyone doing so should know in advance how to do it properly, That is, if it can be done, for it seems that almost nobody can make satisfactory article with that degree of conflict of interest. I am always glad to give volunteer editors as much help as necessary, even to the point of personally rewriting articles if the subjects are notable, but I cannot be expected to do extensive work for free, but for which someone else will be paid. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you - the pointers help and I'll work on those accordingly. Of course, free assistance wouldn't be expected when the contributions aren't of a voluntary nature. I appreciate any help, in light of this.Fbell74 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG - I think I've tackled the areas that were causing issues with the neutrality of tone, mainly by removing some details that might be seen as promotional and also paring down the content to focus on the subject (rather than connected parties). I haven't forgotten what you said about not doing extensive work in this kind of situation. I wondered if you might take a look though, as you had raised the alert originally? I appreciate you're probably quite busy with other Wikipedia work Fbell74 (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG - you're probably inundated with other work on Wikipedia. When you have a moment perhaps you can take a look at the article? I haven't made additional changes to it, since the time you were looking at rewriting it. However, if it's easier I can have a go again, with regards to the areas you highlighted in the recent posts on the Talk page Fbell74 (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Fbell74 I looked again. I decided to reorganize much further, and I have done so--see my comments on the talk page, which is where this should be continued. Basically, I removed material sourced only to his own site or a blog. I removed claims for first and one of the first. These need good third party documentation, and in any case "one of the first" has no specific meaning.

The connected contributor tag should remain on all paid articles where the paid editor wrote a substantial amount of the material. . I will remove the press release tag after its been sufficiently improved. The problem with paid editing is that a paid editor is typically not willing to make sufficiently radical improvements, because their client would not actually approve of an appropriately length NPOV article--they normally want the article because they want publicity, and this is an inherent conflict with the fundamental policy WP:NOT.

Here's my problem. It is easier for me to rewrite this than to coach someone else how to do it. Six years ago I would routinely rewrite, but I no longer am willing to do work for which other people are being paid. In this case I'm so much involved already that I'm making an exception. (Ideally, a promotional article should be removed, but in practice there's sometimes a choice between rewriting it and having it stay promotional) Most other other editors working with paid articles have no conflict--they simply won't work with a paid editor at all, and generally think that the only solution is to eliminate paid editing entirely. Unfortunately, in a system with anonymous editing permitted, this would simply drive it underground. So an argument can be made for helping the ones who declare, to encourage the undeclared ones to follow the TOU also. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

[Ashwin Porwal]

• i have read the COI as you had asked me to. I would even like to know on what grounds you have done the speedy deletion as i have not come towards anything that fits the criteria for speedy deletion .

The page was been discussed by the users and if changes were required it could have been asked for it on talk page or edit page . If COI is the issue even though i haven't ever met him personally would get a permission for uploading his data on wikipedia . Another issue is that when he has won the Prestigious Dadasaheb Phalke Award which has been giving a proper reference and even JITO award has been added into his favour . All this information i have gathered together as it was my first article and i do understand as i am new to Wikipedia i require your and other users help and guidance to get it straight . Now there would be a question Why only Dr Ashwin Porwal ? I was reading about Dadasaheb phalke award and read about Dr ashwin Porwal recieving it .I then looked into his work so thought of writing about Dr Ashwin Porwal as my first article so COI wasn't an issue. Franklin10hhc (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

this page had previous been deleted 6 times by different administrators. It was created under the Dr. Ashwin Powal title to evade the block upon further creations as Aswin Powal placed by two different administrators. The article met none of the objections at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashwin Porwal and speedy deletion as G4, re-creation of a title deleted at AfD was appropriate.

In the circumstances, you can see why I am a little skeptical of a claim of no conflict of interest. But it does not matter, for the article would be deleted no matter who wrote it

The article is totally unsatisfactory on several grounds. I cannot see how an award for health care given at a film festival is relevant. nor do I think that an award for young entrepreneur by the Jain International Trade Organisation is significan, especially when by checking the reference I see it is only "one of the categories of the pride of Pune awards, " --an award for a particular city. The papers are insufficient for notability by WP:PROF. The references are almost entirely press releases, republished press releases, or his own work. And is is basically an advertisement for him. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I do understand what are you trying to say and the reason behind your act , but why exaggerating things by saying that the page was been deleted 6 times previously . As per the Deletion Log of Dr Ashwin Porwal it is clearly to be seen that it has been previously deleted 2 times and this was the 3rd time which it was considered for speedy deletion . So exaggerating things on Wikipedia by an experienced Wikipedia editor like you really sounds bad as you know it wouldn't help as Wikipedia has its Deletion Log . And upto the point of why he got the Dadasaheb Phaleke award which is for an Flim industry . I will research more about it personally and find out what it was actually given for . And surely we would consider press releases , His work and his Published work and wouldn't seek for what he hasn't done . And advertisement for ? Well if I am as a editor, writing on Wikipedia about his deeds and work , thats after knowing he has done something really which has bought change or improvement in the medical field . I will dig more into his work and answer the situation of Dadasaheb Phalke award for a medical field .Franklin10hhc (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Franklin10hhc: If you look at the public logs for Ashwin Porwal - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Ashwin+Porwal - you'll see it has been deleted 6 times. Add that to the 3 deletions for Dr Ashwin Porwal and you get 9 deletions so far. I think you owe DGG an apology. --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

ok , I apologize for that . And as I have done my research , I came across that every year Dadasaheb phalke award is even given to someone outside from flim industry in addition to flim industry awards. For example . you could refer to 2016 edition of the awardee list. P.S : Dr Ashwin Porwal was awarded in 2015 for the same. Franklin10hhc (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

In fact I realized that. It still doesn't mean that a Film organization award to a health care professional for being an health care profession implies any conceivable importance. DGG ( talk ) 15:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

ok. But why would they award a medical personality ? Surely due to some excellence achieved in medical field as achieving DadaSaheb Phalke award in India is a very big achievement and JITO award as a young entrepreneur award is been achieved from the hands of Padma Vibushan Awardee Hon. Mr Anupam Kher which is indeed not a joke . He is the founder of Healing Hands Clinic , which is India leading proctology Clinic in India. As per the information and references given in the article , He has preformed STARR highest series in India , which has even been published in worlds number one colorectal journal. Addition to that he has innovated MCDPA , which is considered a big time innovation which has saved thousands from surgery . DLPL : His innovation which is a ray of hope for those who have recurrent fistula cases which is spreading now all the references are been given in the article. It was just today that i had an interview with him and I asked him the permission about the same for sharing his information on wikipedia and he had no problem with that . I even got to know that Dr Ashwin Porwal recently delivered a lecture on smart health option in Health Sector for India in presence of Hon. Smt Pratiba Patil the former president of India . I got some photos of it which has been provided and shared By Dr Ashwin Porwal himself.

Photo Links : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByPTppKtC0EfQ3kxU3p0cGxPODg/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByPTppKtC0EfVmlUNHREbzlyV1U/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByPTppKtC0EfLXdMUWpiYkVzUlE/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByPTppKtC0EfcDc0cWlzYXhDTkE/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByPTppKtC0EfQXllcUlYLTYyVFE/view?usp=sharing Franklin10hhc (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

PROD

Hi, I've noticed that you removed expired PRODs from several articles that cover questionable Knight's Cross winners. The notability of Knight's Cross recipients has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles, with practical recommendations in the subsection here that these specifically not brought to AfD. The related project (MilHist) has been notified about these PRODs (see for example Proposed deletion of Heinz Jürgens (SS officer), etc, with more discussion here PROD notifications, etc). I believe these PRODs are not controversial and should be allowed to proceed. Please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

then you should have no problem at afd; but a/c the discussion, prior results at AfD were variable, and I do not see the consensus you state. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The original set of AfDs took place before the discussion that I linked to. The resulting proposals, broadly, were: "Ok, here's a stab at a set of suggestions that may not make anyone particularly overjoyed, but could hopefully find some slightly less miserable middle ground than repeated AFDs or MILHIST discussions". The editor who originally objected at the AfDs stated: "I agree broadly with the above. Peacemaker67" The editor in questions (Peacemaker 67) has reviewed and objected to two of my PRODs, which I did not contest. They did not object to these other PRODs. We are both members of MilHist and the project was notified. So I believe the dePROD was unnecessary, since the project impacted does not want to see these brought to AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Projects do not decide notability ; only the community as a whole; the community can adopt the project's criteria, or not, depending on consensus. MILHIS is part of WP, not autonomous. It's beneficial to both a project and to WP as a whole, for the project's decisions to be confirmed in the broader forum. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

What is the reason to decline the PROD? From the previous AfDs, it can be seen that editors outside of the project supported deletion and that only MILHIST members objected. This has now been resolved. I've stated that these do not pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, they do not meet WP:SOLDIER as the Knight's Cross cannot be confirmed. These are essentially of lower notability than those brought up at the AfDs. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You may indeed have consensus, but there is only one way to find out . Myself, I have no fixed opinion. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The Movement for Black Lives move

Please explain why you moved The Movement for Black Lives to Movement for Black Lives? The official name of the organization is The Movement for Black Lives Is this a Wiki policy? Thank you. KamelTebaast 06:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

seemed obvious to me. If I was wrong, move it back. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It didn't "seem obvious", I'm dumb as a post. I'm really trying to learn if it is a Wikipedia style or policy to remove "The" from official names or if that was simply your decision? (I notice the was deleted from The Ohio State University but not from The Hartford.) Thank you for the clarity. KamelTebaast 18:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

References

The guideline is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). The relevant section is 1.2. The general rule for titles is that we use the common name rather than the official name. For articles, the default is to omit the article if in doubt. The main rule for including the article is where the organization itself always include the "The", and the common name generally does in formal sources such as newspapers. "When a proper name is almost always used with "The", especially if it is included by unofficial sources, the article "The" should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia page as well." In discussions of which name to use, the question is also what name is most likely to be used by the public in searching WP.

Myself, I think it doesn't much matter; other people think it very much matters, and we have had very long and even very bitter disputes over some titles, especially when there is no clear basis for deciding. DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your assistance with the recent research mess that I bought to ANI.

Stuartyeates (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for the temporary restore

Filmfan655321 (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

AFC redux

Rather than clog up ANI, I'd like to offer some responses to your last post there, specifically the Some things can never be done section:

• Consistency in reviewing standards, any more than there is consistency in AfD. Every editor at WP is basically free to do what they like, and we have no way of asserting authority except in gross deviations. I fundamentally disagree. Without some consistency, we might as well pack up the AFC project and go home. We should not need to assert authority to ensure some consistency: this isn't a schoolroom. Editors who see reviewers diverging too much from a standard ought to be able to raise a concern in a collegial way, and discuss it. It works for CSD, closing discussions, etc.
• Since we make the rules, we can interpret them however a consensus may please ... The only alternative is deciding content by a top-down hierarchy, or a dictator. Both can be done, but neither would be Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines, many of which have been sufficiently refined to admit of little interpretation - no local consensus will prevail against those in the long run. As for top-down/dictatorship, WP:FAC was run like that for years.

More importantly, we somehow need to get greater engagement of reviewers with new editors if AFC is going to be successful. I just saw an exchange between a new editor and a reviewer that prompted me to look at the history of the draft in question. The draft is about Music rehearsal spaces, a topic that will never be a huge article, but ought to be sufficiently sourceable to either create a new article or to make a decent section of a parent article.

The draft starts with a load of references and not much content. It is declined for the first time because "You have added too many references for a short paragraph. Read WP:CITEKILL for more details. Also, you need to demonstrate notability of the subject involved".

So the editor sets about trimming out some of the references and adding more content. Eventually it is declined for the second time because "This article seems to branch out to too many topics. Listing individual rehearsal spaces is definitely out of scope. What it means to musicians does not belong here because that is WP:SYNTH. Music education is an entirely other topic. Think about what you want to say about rehearsal space and only the space."

First, too little content; now too much. So the editor asks the reviewer for help: "I have recently edited my declined submission following reviewers' reasons for not accepting it. I am new to wikipedia so hope I have done the right thing. I was wondering if reviewers could simply remove passages they felt did not meet the criteria."

Here's the response: "Bandspace, sometimes it is possible to just remove some extraneous paragraphs and "fix" an article, but often it would require a whole re-write. Given that there are often around 600-800 articles waiting to be reviewed, we wouldn't get far if we spent hours on each article. So the work reverts to the creator -- it's discouraging, but we hope it also is a good learning experience."

But the editor isn't learning anything, good or bad. They chop the draft down by 90% to address the "too many topics". It is now declined for the third time because "Submission is a dictionary definition".

How is the AFC process intended to terminate? As far as I can see, the 600-800 draft backlog will just recirculate the same drafts among reviewers when the editors aren't given sufficient help to improve the draft, either by a reviewer or by other editors who may have the expertise to help out. The only way that terminates is when the editor becomes so discouraged that they give up. Surely that's not the experience we want for new editors? It's little wonder we have had so much difficulty in recruiting them. I wonder if I could ask Kudpung, who was one of the originators of AFC, and Dennis Brown, who has spent so much time looking at editor recruitment and retention, if they concur with my concerns here? --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I certainly do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've published a version of it, at Music rehearsal space, so that the community can work collaboratovely to develop it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• I could have said it more briefly: reviewing articles requires human judgement. All humans are imperfect, Therefore there will inconsistencies and errors.
  

To elaborate on this: My estimate of the current error rateat AfD is about 5 % in each direction (this doesn't just mean ones I disagree with, but probably erroneous results) Any process for accepting articles based on whether they will passA fD, even if done perfectly, will have at least an equal error rate. But if it is done as imperfectly as AfD, the error rate will be double, presumably 10% in each direction. But reviews are done by individuals not group consensus, so the rate will be higher yet. I would be surprised if we could ever do better than 20%.

Fortunately there is already in existence effective ways to reduce that rate: articles improperly accepted should be caught at NPP just like article inserted directly. Article declined incorrectly, if submitted multiple times, get different reviewers. I think we are already at about 10% error in the overall process, and there no real possibility of ever going below 5% , because that's the error of our final decision making process.

Anyone can easily find individual errors; I find some every time I look (but when I review I am primarily looking for errors). They do not prove anything about the overall process. Their analysis however can often correct specific faults. The purpose of my checking reviews at AfC is both to rescue or delete individual articles, and to identify reviewers who are not doing it properly. Many simply need help, or reminders, and I provide it. Some need a warning, and if necessary to be told to stop working on the project until they know more,. This usually works: I do it, and so does Kudpung. Instructing people is a slow process and can take years. People improve slowly, not by a radical conversion. The difficulty is when experienced people insist on doing it wrong. It is very difficult here to challenge them on this, but even a challenge where they are defended usually does influence them to change a little. WP has no real defense against stubborn experienced people who do things wrong but with technical skill.

• As for other points.

It is not a circular process: eventually a draft will either get accepted, get speedy deleted for a reason other than G13, get deleted for G13, or submitted so many times without improvement that it will go to MfD, where it will either be deleted or get some attention. I can prove it works: we did clear out a backlog 10 times the current size, so we will eventually clear these also.

It does not take hours to rewrite an article so it passes AfD. For anything ordinary, it takes me between half and hour and an hour, provided I can find references in available sources. What does take hours is bringing articles to G, let alone FA., which is why the overwhelming majority of our articles are not at that standard. The justification for fixing them just enough to pass afd, is that they will get improved further in mainspace, as does any other article, , unless they are too obscure to interest anyone. This is the normal and desired method of working on articles in WP.

The problem of giving advice to new users will be greatly simplified when we remove those giving bad advice to new users. To clear that up--to explain to the user, to explain to the reviewer, to rewrite the article because the user is getting pretty frustrated by that point--that;swhat takes the time.

There's a related problem making this all worse: the majority of incoming AfCs are from undeclared promotional editors. If we could deal with them effectively, there would be much less trouble. This will take multiple approaches: one is to get agreement about what articles are not worth rewriting or defending, so we don't have to fight over marginal situations. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for such a comprehensive reply, DGG. I must say I don't disagree with your observations, but I'm not sure I can be so optimistic about the efficiency of AFC. Perhaps some 'blue sky' thinking might help? What are the chances of building in a 'second opinion' referral system for the reviewers (not the submitters)? What if a reviewer had a way of quickly alerting an active WikiProject to an article that they could help with? Anne Delong regularly drops a note to WT:WikiProject Medicine by hand, asking for advice or help on a draft she's found. I hope she would tell you how useful that has proved to be. Could we semi-automate that and roll it out to reviewers? What if a reviewer could call on another experienced editor - maybe an admin - to confirm a decision to delete a draft, if it was judged irretrievably lacking in notability (like Dr Ashwin Porwal above). That could potentially short-circuit the "eventually a draft will either get accepted, get speedy deleted for a reason other than G13, get deleted for G13, or submitted so many times without improvement that it will go to MfD, where it will either be deleted or get some attention". There's always REFUND if the submitter found some new sources. Can you think of other ways we could involve more reviewers in the process? Categorise drafts by subject area (like GA?) and invite subject specialists to join in on the reviewing process? --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, Andy and anyone else following here, I didn't actually have any part in the creation of AfC. I registered in 2006 but didn't start actively editing until I retired in 2008. I got interested in NPP when one of my very early articles was wrongly deleted and WereSpielChequers and I were discussing the monumental 70,000 backlog at NPP. AfC was started in 2007 ostensibly as a reaction to the January 2006 rule restricting the creation of articles in mainspace to registered users (proving, BTW, that WP is organic and that future necessary controls are theoretically possible).

DGG and RexxS are both correct from their different angles. I've worked for years now with DGG on the issues surrounding AfC and NPP, where his focus is more on the problems of AfC and mine more on NPP, but the two systems overlap significantly. I also share RexxS's experience in didactics and therefore enjoy every opportunity to facilitate or co-facilitate editathons. We all realise however, how challenging it can be to instruct new users whether on or offline, and to do so without losing one's patience. The fundamental difference between NPP and AfC is that NPP with aroud 1,000 articles a day is front-line triage where AfC with 150 a day is more of a field hospital. I won't say that at NPP we are callous, but the 'patients' at AfC get a bit more LCA - at least until they just become exasperating. A couple of years ago, DGG and I also worked on the project to rewrite all our warning and deletion templates in a move to make them less bitey.

Knowing RexxS's interest in editor education, I was disappointed that he could no come to Esino and share my efforts to convince the WMF that it is time the Foundation agree to investing in engineer time to complete and perfect some core MediaWiki systems that were already under development 5 years ago, but which the Foundation now regrets having not followed through. Unfortunately the Foundation has (or had) a policy of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted but the volunteer community is now sick and tired of cleaning up after their mistakes for them.

The good news is that (tentatively) the foundation is now looking at ways to improve the methods that are used throughout the movement to control the quality of new content, but obviously we can't expect anything to happen overnight. Very basically, the goal is to merge the functions of AfC and NPP and demand higher levels of knowledge and judgement of those who do he reviewing. More detailsaAt recent threads at WT:AfC, and I may be soon offering the Signpost an op-ed on the broader subject. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged...... I still see the one of the problems of draft and AFC is that they are not mainspace and therefore they don't attract the collaborative editing that can make Wikipedia enjoyable. This is exacerbated by AFC patrollers being able to decline articles in effect because in their judgement they would fail AFD. This is the equivalent of making "in my judgement would fail AFD" a speedy deletion criteria and then unbundling deletion to everyone who is autoconfirmed. My solution would be to combine draft, AFC and NPP together and have unpatrolled being "no index", better still make unpatrolled articles only visible to those who are logged in. That way you take the urgency out of New page patrol, reduce the speedy deletion criteria to just G3, G7, G10, G11 and G13, but you can reasonably start requiring every new article to have an independent neutral source before it gets patrolled and is visible to those not logged in. ϢereSpielChequers 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As I understood the WMF response to ACCTRIAL -- Kudpung please confirm if I have it right -- they insisted that all new logged-in users must be able to immediately create articles. I do not know whether this implies that the articles must immediately be visible to to everyone, even if not logged in. I hope they did not mean to prohibit limiting new users to creating articles in DRAFT space, where they would be NOINDEX, because this is exactly what Kudpung and I intend to propose.And your suggestion of combining the NPP, AFC, and DRAFT processes is also our intention, though I do not know which of us came up with this obvious idea first. There's also a problem with userspace drafts, where all sorts of junk is hidden. (Personally, I'd eliminate them or automatically move anything that looks like an article to DRAFT space) )

As a separate issue, The community in the past rejected requiring new pages to have a reference, except for BLPs, and not even they are now required to have an independent neutral source--and I do not see how we could enforce that before patrolling, rather than as part of patrolling. DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(Also Kudpung) The ticket in question. My experience with Phab indicates that to tell the difference between a WMF veto and a developer veto is not straightforward. Some of the concerns raised would be adequately addressed by an auto-redirect of the added article to AfC space and some may not. Probably the best way would be to establish clear community consensus and then see if the developers are willing - we probably won't land in trouble for merely asking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Jo-Jo, and all the others who are perhas now asking rhemselves the same questions, WP:ACTRIAL, to give the Phabricator (Bugzilla) ticket its more widely used code name, was probably one of the most contentious treatments of Wikimedia/MediaWik/WMF policiy ever handed outby the Foundation. The proposal was the result of months of careful reasearch and preparation for the RfC by a team of experienced volunteers whose aim was to address a very critical situation. Although they never retracted their decision, the Foundation ended up being so embarrassed by it, they hatted parts of the discussion at Bugzilla where they had been most rude, condescending, and patronising to the volunteers, and even today refuse to discuss it. At meet ups and conferences, even though there is no one left among the staff who had anything to do with it, mention 'ACTRIAL' and people suddenly have another 'pressing engagement' or a need for a natural function. One just does not unilaterally dismiss one of the most heavily attended RfC in en.Wiki history, and an overwhelming consensus, with 'I'm not doing this bug - I don't see a clear consensus.' The fact of the matter is, that we the community should be interviewing candidates for their jobs in San Fransisco and not the Foundation itself.

5 years further down the line the situation is far worse and exacerbated by the fact that competing factions among he newcomers in the MFF want to start all the research all over again instead of listening to the empirical evidence and taking a heuristic approach. Although it was my own, one of the key comments at Bugzilla was the one I reproduce here to save looking it up and searching for it:

Wikipedia is indeed the encyclopedia anyone can edit. There has however, never been a policy that anyone can create new pages. If the trial delivers the expected results, it will solve a far greater number of perennial problems than simply that of over 1,000 pages per day (80% of all newpages) that have to be deleted through one process or another, and which are largely patrolled by a loose group of extremely inexperienced, and partly very young and/or non native speakers of English - NPP is already widely recognised as a broken process.

I believe there is every urgent reason to implement this trial now without further delay. The consensus was reached by a debate involving around 500 users and a clear majority in favour, and based on examination of the problem rather than straight subjective 'support' or 'oppose' !voting. A further centrally publicised RfC on the actual terms of the trial has also received practically unanimous support.

I realise by now that the WMF may not in favour of this new user right change, but they should accept a decision arrived at by the very kind of consensus that they insist is the way to get things done at Wikipedia. By questioning the authority of the self governing Wikipedia community, any devs who would refuse this request for a trial, will be rocking the very foundation of a pillar of Wikipedia policy.

[...] Rather than protecting a perceived user right for anyone to create new spam, attack, autobio, and copyvio pages, ultimately such action will result in the loss to the project of mature, established users and administrators who dedicate their free time to striving for improvement in the quality of Wikipedia, and its credibility as a universal knowledge base.

As a result, we did lose some mature, established users and administrators over it and what we got were the IEP catastrophe, Orangemoody, and a few other disastrous hiccups requiring monumental clean ups that the volunteers are getting sick and tired of having to do. Hence the two reasons why in spite of its excellent softare, NPP performs badly: the tiny handful experienced patrollers such as I dream of horses and montanabw see it as a never ending battle due to the Foundation having refused to provide enough ammunition, the apathy sets in (don't I know it after spending 60 hours on it this past week) and the rest are newbies who see yet another unrestricted opportunity to play MMORPG and SN with the world's 6th biggest web site site which isn't really a web site a all, but a webserver based reference work.

The fact that in 2006 authority for creation of live articles was removed from IP users clearly demonstrates that Wikipedia is organic, change can be made if and when it is expedient to do so, and now is the time to do it again. And if the community is allowed to have a hand in the development (as ther actually were with Page Curation), we'll get it right. Although the list of tweaks is long, they don't need community consensus (except for the right to patrol new pages), they are mostly minor but together they build a powerful package of measures that will give us all more breathing space, fewer needs for complaints such as the one RexxS as obliged to make at ANI, fewer need for me and DGG to ban another 200 users from NPP, fewer paid editing crises, and above all, fewer good faith newbies being bitten. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't really NPP much anymore. I mean, I'll inevitably go through a spat of patrolling a lot of pages in the future, and I do patrol pages I see on Huggle, but after a while, it seems futile. The backlog is neverending.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That's how I'm starting to feel about deletion/AfD – nearly every day I come across another actor BLP of questionable notability, and I simply can't take them all to AfD (PROD'ing them is usually pointless, because drive-by editors will stop by with a "Hey! I saw this person on TV! So OF COURSE they should have an article!!1!" and DEPROD it. [sigh...]) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You know, You can write content or patrol content. There are only so many hours in the day and WP is a very big place. I'm hearing a lot of fatigue (ironically, IJBall and I seem equally tired, but for opposite reasons; I get tired of challenging bad PRODs and bad AfDs) Frankly, I sometimes wonder if there's something to the idea of implementing 30/500 before being allowed to create or move articles. Don't know if that's yet been proposed, but people could earn the right. If they aren't there, such as at a class or an editathon, they can sandbox articles and ask a more experienced editor to do the move. Montanabw^(talk) 05:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, IJBall, et al, WP:ACTRIAL which we proposed almost exactly 5 years ago to the day, was a lot less radical than that and even came with a set of features to help the new users. As we all know, the Foundation summarily dismissed the massive consensus without even properly investigating what it was in fact all about. With an almost 100% turnover in WMF staff since then, there might be sense in asking the new Foundation line-up to implement it now. The situation requiring it has gotten so much worse since that it certainly doesn't need re-debating.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That's funny – I just suggested that unrestricted new article creation should be limited to Extended confirmed users over at WP:VPP! As to Kudpung's point, I'm dimly aware of what happened in the past with ACTRIAL, but I make it a habit to try and avoid thinking too much about the WMF and the ways they fouled up (sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally) the project – it's just too depressing to think about... As for "fatigue", it depends – I am tired out by PROD/AfD, but luckily I still love referencing content and generally sprucing articles up, and I'm going to be entering a busy working period from about now until Christmas, and I suspect simply referencing and article cleanup is all I'm going to have time for over the next few months anyway! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

:Unfortunately {{fix linkU|IJBall}}, when we have to go to [[MediaWiki}} for any core software changes, it means going through the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, one question is what can be done withoutcore software changes. I think we need another round of looking at the AfC templates, just to start. Another is wether we should push for ACTRIAL, or for Draft space Only, or invisible except to registered users, or even just for NoIndex. DGG ( talk ) 14:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me joining in this discussion. I would say that AfC definitely demands a level higher than simply "good enough to avoid being deleted at AfC" before the article is passed- which means that we lose some editors who simply can't be bothered to jump through these hurdles of the AfC catchphrase "needs more third party reliable sources". There's also editors who resubmit drafts that will never be notable enough for a Wikipedia article again and again trying to meet whatever generic template message is given, and so the cycle ends when they give up- but reviewers need to be more willing to simply state outright- "subject X is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia at this moment in time, sorry" to avoid disillusioning editors, as AfC is probably their first look at "behind the scenes" Wikipedia. Then there's the case of the reviewers getting tired- as said, editors fall into this culture of demanding too much, and rejecting drafts that are very much AfD-survivable, or just needing a little work or copyediting- like LaMona at that rather saddening ANI thread. So how do we fix this? Talking about combining NPP and AfC (perhaps incorporating ACTRIAL) is very much the ideal thing to do in the long term, but in the meantime, we do need more userfriendly templates. By virtue of the AfC helper script, reviewers often only expand beyond the generic templates with a short comment, and so the end user (the editor) simply sees a wall of rejections saying the same thing. We need to personalise the generic templates and encourage reviewers to leave more meaningful comments. Perhaps within the AfC script, there could be an easy lookup tool, where editors could search notability guidelines from a dropdown list or something, so the newer editors that tend to do AfC reviewing are more accurate, reducing the number of disillusioned editors? Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me focus on where we agree: Certainly we need to say "Subject X is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia at this moment in time, sorry" -- unfortunately we need to say this outside of the system, which make no provision for saying the right things directly. I do this by modifying the "decline" template after it has been placed, to change it to a non-routine color so it doesn't look like the usual, and say some variation on "Please do not resubmit the article again until you have some really good 3rd party substantial reliable sources. If the sources aren't there, there is no chance of an article. To get the draft deleted..." and I add something specific to show I've actually read their draft. I've notice many reviewers don't seem to have actually read it, so the contributor takes whatever they say as so much boilerplate to be ignored. (You can see some of the similar necessarily discouraging advice I give to people who ask here after I've deleted their articles). I've learned that if I say the right thing strongly but politely, people do take advice--even if they are a COI editor. So I also agree about templates: after many years struggle, people can in fact add comments, but they don't show up on conspicuously on the draft, and they don't show up at all on the usertalk.

But I do not agree about the quality necessary of a submitted article, because quality is improved best in mainspace--there are many editors, including myself, who would rather fix articles than write them. But the standard I use for accepting is in fact much more than the minimum--at least about notability,I doubt more than 1 or 2 of my acceptances have ever been deleted. What I don't insist on is categories or reference format or section headings or sufficient links, because I know for sure that there are hundreds of editors who like adding these things--and they can mostly do it better than I, and some of it is rather hard to teach except by example. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Centro Universitário da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro

Hi DGG. You commented that this is a notable subject. I tried to find some substantiation, but I haven't had success. There's an article in the Portuguese Wikipedia (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centro_Universit%C3%A1rio_da_Cidade_do_Rio_de_Janeiro) but none of the references there seem appropriate from what I can figure out. I am not going to work on it any more. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

All universities are notable, and that's what this is. We can get the necessary details from their web site for the specifics, but w do need an outside source that it isn't imaginary--and, in thiscase, provides some needed NPOV The observatoriodaimprensa is about the head of the university; http://sindipetroalse.org.br has a section about him . "O Grupo Delfin" about 2/3 of the way down; ltimosegundo.ig.com.br is about this university, in para 5; Agência Brasil. is about the withdrawal of its autonomy; http://portal.mec.gov.br is about the withdrawal of its government accreditation

the enWP article mentions none of the last two items, so some work is needed, DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia mirror mention on my talk page

Hi,

I cant find the mirror link in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Mumbai_landslide. Am I missing something? I see you posted on my talk page regarding it.Brownweepy (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

it has since been fixed, it was on this earlier version [5], ref. 5 DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53

Hi there,

I was looking through the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53 and noted that you commented "kk Bus routes are significant geographic features of a city...". Is there any meaning to "kk" or was it meant to be a bullet point, a "keep", or something else? Sorry if this seems a bit dumb. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks for notifying me. It's a keyboard macro I use that didn't get expanded properly because I forgot the necessary space after it; I have a number of them, to try to compensate for my bad typing. BTW, I use the built-in facility of OSX rather than a commercial program. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

About: Republic Metals Corporation page deletion

Hi David, You deleted the page "Republic Metals Corporation" a little over a year ago. It was deleted for G:11 and A:7. The company at this point, and definitely at the time of deletion, is a growing refinery and private mint that is the biggest silver refiner in the western hemisphere and could be credibly indicated as important and significant. I think that through careful, deliberate research and strict adherence to Wikipedia article guidelines and rules, the article "Republic Metals Corporation" can be either un-deleted and fixed, or made anew. Thank you for your consideration.

SilverStacks (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I was the third of three successive administrators who deleted the 2015 article. Re-creation in article space was blocked by yet a 4th administrator, You can try again in Draft space, but accepting it for moving it into mainspace would have to be done by an administrator.

I suppose it is likely that you have some association with the company. Please read our policy on WP:Conflict of Interest and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. Declaring the COI is not optional.

It has been relatively rare for a representative of a company to write an acceptable article--they generally write it like a web page, directed at the potential client or investor. In addition to writing in a neutral fashion, you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. There was nor a single such reference in the previous article. In particularly, be sure to have reliable independent documentation for the claim to "largest". And be aware that we usually regard claims to "growing" as equivalent to "not yet notable".

And remember that even in draft space, promotional drafts for articles are deleted. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your succinct and helpful response. SilverStacks (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Help, I need a Do-Over

In my haste and ignorance I somehow submitted an article too quickly. I wasn't near finished and would like more time to edit and revise. My article is/was on Davis Chocolate. I was advised on another talk page to gather my resources and put them on my user page for you to review and maybe give me another chance to write the article. Is this the best practice? I've added some of those references on my user page. What do you advise for my next step? Thank you. Shelton2267 (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

By now, not just myself, but 3 other very experienced editors, have either deleted or recommended the article for deletion. The version you submitted was entirely promotional, complete with a list of all the certifications and variations. You will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. I've looked at the references on your sandbox page Most of them are about the use of the chocolate by a sculptor--this is not substantial coverage. The others are essentially press releases or disguised press releases in local newspapers--these do not count as sufficiently independent sources to show notability. Unless you have much better, there is no point in trying to writean article, for it will not be accepted. If you do, and you are prepared to write an article different from what would be used as a web page or an advertisement, you may try, but only in Draft space. Even there, promotional articles are deleted.

It is possible that you have some association with the firm. Please see or rules on [[WP:Conflict of Interest] and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. Inpractice very few people with a conflict of interest ever do succeed in writing adequate articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A little help please with RevDel or Oversight (not sure which)...

Hi DGG:

Would you please look at the history of my talk page regarding the Your Peter Davison (composer) articles for deletion post section starting with the following edit:

• (diff) 00:48, August 15, 2016‎ Pdmus (talk | contribs)‎ . . (55,699 bytes) (+2,923)‎

A newbie user put external dropbox links to copyvio scans of text materials and I have redacted them but I am pretty sure our rules are that the page versions with the links are supposed to be revdel or suppressed? Also, what is the correct warning template to put on the user's talk page? I put {{cclean}} on my talk page and tweaked the text a little but I think there may be a more appropriate tag to put on his page. Thanks Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 22:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is sufficient to delete the content from the articles in the usual way, ; it is better not to place a conspicuous Redacted label, which just calls attention to them. I don't think revdel is normally used either, though I know that some admins use it more broadly than the actual copyvio policy requires. Let me take a look and try to fix the pager as best I can (Unless one of my talk page watchers gets there before me). DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. Looks like there is now a formal process for this which I just used. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup/RD1_Requests. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 00:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Recreation of Varun Manian | Help

Hi DGG, As per our earlier conversations on this particular page. I have understood my mistakes in the page. I would be writing a new page on him based on your feedback. Since it is locked for creation by a user like me, it would be great if you can help me share your views on the rewritten page and also help me submitting it to Wikipedia. Please suggest how we can take this aheadManan49s (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Mittal

Hi there, I saw you had reviewed my article on Sumeeti Mittal and shared comments on the same. Could we discuss the issues raised by you. 07:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noopur Anand (talk • contribs)

COI & POV Flags On An Article

Hi there, I came across an article Richard B. Hollis that you have contributed to in the past. The article now has COI & POV flags on it. It appears that since the flags have been added, the article has been edited and refined. As a new user I wanted to help clean up the article, but do not know where to start. Since you have vast knowledge of the wiki world and have worked on the article in the past, I was hoping you can take a look at this article and see what needs to be cleaned up before removing the flags. I am just trying to learn the ins and outs of Wiki! Thank you!

Ventanas144 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Ventanas144

first thing I have to ask, is whether you by any chance have a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. If so, please see WP:COI for out guidelines on how o contribute. And if financial in any way, you will need to declare it: see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure

second, I need to tell you, that if you are the same person as any other editor who has worked n the article earlier. such as the editor who worked on it earlier his week, you must choose one single account and use it only.

With a COI, the way to add material is is as follows: Add the material to the article's talk page, not the article page itself, and place a {{request edit}} tag on the talk page, after your suggestion. (include the double curly braces on each side)

As for the article, we need dates and exact permissions for the various firms. We also should not be describing their products unless he persona;ly had a role in developing them, and there are goodthird party references for this. Is the patent in his name? Did he sponsor the project within the firm, or did he just invent the improvements himself.

I know I originally accepted the article, but I need to examine it again to see if he actually meets the notability standard--most of the references seem to be aboutthe firms. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up the sourcing and content so that it is about him and is neutral, in my view. I think it OK and meets notability now. I also removed the POV tag. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I can a little more. DGG ( talk ) 13:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Official links

Hi, could you clarify for me the use of official links on a company article. I removed it from External links with edit summary "already provided in the infobox -- pls see WP:ELMINOFFICIAL", which states "Normally, only one official link is included." This was reverted citing: "This does not apply to infoboxes. See also WP:ELOFFICIAL".

I would appreciate a clarification. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

could you help me by linking to the discussion? DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It was not really a discussion; we "discussed" through edit summaries: Edit history. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Certainly it applies within an infobox: we would normally not list multiple social media sites in a infobox any more than in EL. But that is not how I see those edits: you were objecting to that the infobox repeated the single correct social media link in the EL section. as I understand it, we usually do that. I can see many justifications: after all, it's at the other end of the article, and it is basic information that people are very likely to want. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hi, the the article went live in this url (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_analytics_360_suite) so, we simply removed it from our wiki draft Thank you. (Barath Rajendran (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC))

sure DGG ( talk ) 12:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

August 18 2016

Hi, regarding Finance Magnates a new page I tried to create which was deleted. I included a number of credible references from reliable published sources such as Bloomberg and Huffington Post to indicate the significance of Finance Magnates. Furthermore, Finance Magnates is a similar company to FXstreet and Investing.com. I believe a Wikipedia page for Finance Magnates offers similar encyclopedic value as these two companies' pages. I would appreciate your feedback. Thankyou Juanparve (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The references were essentially press releases or mere mentions.

Please also be aware that you might perhaps have a conflict of interest, especially in view of the articles on various small companies you have submitted. If so, see WP:COI for our rules, and also, if applicable, see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

RiskAoA review

DGG, would you mind reviewing RiskAoA it has been nominated for deletion in something of a whirl-wind. Thank you. GESICC (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Anita Mai Tan

Hello. I have come across one of the most creative jewelers or jeweler creators (imho) - this is the article entitled Anita Mai Tan. A number of the references' links may be inappropriate per external link guidelines. However, the art of this jewelry is stunning. I am surprised there is not mainstream press about this person or her work (Google News). Uh oh, I just realized the topic is actually related to BLP, but the content strays away from being a biography and featuring her jewelry. So, now I have no idea how to handle this article.

I considered AfD but looking at the art involved in the jewelry, I am thinking there must be some way this person or jewelry is notable. Anyway, I would appreciate your opinion on this matter or about the article - and I would appreciate anyone else's opinion who comes across this post and is so inclined. I am asking right now that the references and their links not be removed right now. If need be this can be done a few days from now and I will be glad to do it. Thanks in advance for your efforts. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I will probably take this to AfD. I don't think it can be salvaged. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

I see you are looking at it/ working on it. I'll wait for your opinion. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As for the artistic quality, tastes vary. But it can't be salvaged until some real publication reviews her work. I don't think any did, because if they had, the company's PR would have found them for its reviews page. I m cleaned up a few of the ref. The refs in an article don't have to follow WP:EL; the question is whether they are in any way RSs. (except that I have no familiarity with most of the publications listed and I have no idea of their standards--tho it is a genre where one expects the worst. You could always move it to Draft or userify it. The reason to go to afd is that if anyone can source it, AfD is the place they'll see it. But if they don't, you can still ask that it be userified. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks very much for your help and analysis - that was truly above and beyond. I agree about the genre where the worst standards are to be expected. And, I have some food for thought. Can I unilaterally move it to draft or userfy or do I need permission? I know I could present this option at an AfD - but would it be appropriate without AfD? Also, I am not sure about either draft or userfy at this point. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I use an edit summary: "moved to avoid inevitable deletion" Then, if it is moved back, take it to AfD. It can help to try to explain this to the editor. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Eyes/opinions/help needed

I think I originally saw the article Robert Perless mentioned on Binksternet's talkpage, in a thread opened by Eperless, and the identical names caught my eye. This is how I found the article: [6]. It looks like a giant advertisement to me. I took out the Bibliiography just to trim it down a little, and Eperless is edit-warring to add it back even though there is an obvious COI there. Need some sort of help in deciding what to do with this article, which looks more like a personal webpage than a Wikipedia article. Any help from anyone would be appreciated. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, he is notable, based on the museums. I have considerably more tolerance for naive articles written by the subject that for the work of paid editors who make a business out of it. The general guide for dealing with material like this is to cut radically; I see you started, and I will continue. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Eperless did not write the Robert Perless article (nor has she done more than a tiny bit of editing on it: [7]) -- at least she didn't post it, although conceivably since (editors have discovered that) she's a poet and an advertising writer she could have ghost-written it. The article was created by Jmoskowitz via AfC. (I'm not sure what or what sort of COI is involved there if any, but information in his and her talk-page posts indicate they are in communication and that he possesses non-web articles on Robert Perless, and as mentioned Eperless could have ghost-written the article.) Eperless has written a different article, Joseph Fuller, which is in fact a much better article (whether or not she has a connection to that person). Anyway, thanks very much for your help; I just wanted to clarify the authorship of the article. Softlavender (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Contest speedy deletion of Globaltherm

On 8 July, 2016, OnionRing nominated the page I created for Globaltherm for speedy deletion.

I have since been in contact with OnionRing to find out why my page was deleted and how I could edit it to make it appropriate.Please see my message below. I would appreciate your help with this.

"Hi, I noticed you nominated my page Globaltherm for Speedy deletion because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person.

The page is modelled on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therminol.

Could you please let me know what makes my page promotional and the Therminol page acceptable?"

Please let me know if you have any advice.

Thank you, Oana Stroe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oana Stroe (talk • contribs) 10:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Globaltherm articles was essential a catalog of the 30 or so separate products on sale, along a list of applications, and information about the available quantities and delivery methods. This is not material for an encyclopedia . The other article you mention is a general discssion, though it could use more and beter references.

It is possible that you may have a conflict of interest--see our rules on this at [[WP:COI] andalso our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure In short, you must declare any COI and write the article on draft space--but pure advertisements will be deleted even there. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sumeeti Mittal

Hi there, I saw you had reviewed my article on Sumeeti Mittal and shared comments on the same. Could we discuss the issues raised by you. 07:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noopur Anand (talk • contribs)

now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumeeti Mittal DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

COI & POV Flags On An Article

Hi there, I came across an article Richard B. Hollis that you have contributed to in the past. The article now has COI & POV flags on it. It appears that since the flags have been added, the article has been edited and refined. As a new user I wanted to help clean up the article, but do not know where to start. Since you have vast knowledge of the wiki world and have worked on the article in the past, I was hoping you can take a look at this article and see what needs to be cleaned up before removing the flags. I am just trying to learn the ins and outs of Wiki! Thank you!

Ventanas144 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Ventanas144

first thing I have to ask, is whether you by any chance have a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. If so, please see WP:COI for out guidelines on how o contribute. And if financial in any way, you will need to declare it: see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure

second, I need to tell you, that if you are the same person as any other editor who has worked n the article earlier. such as the editor who worked on it earlier his week, you must choose one single account and use it only.

With a COI, the way to add material is is as follows: Add the material to the article's talk page, not the article page itself, and place a {{request edit}} tag on the talk page, after your suggestion. (include the double curly braces on each side)

As for the article, we need dates and exact permissions for the various firms. We also should not be describing their products unless he persona;ly had a role in developing them, and there are goodthird party references for this. Is the patent in his name? Did he sponsor the project within the firm, or did he just invent the improvements himself.

I know I originally accepted the article, but I need to examine it again to see if he actually meets the notability standard--most of the references seem to be aboutthe firms. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up the sourcing and content so that it is about him and is neutral, in my view. I think it OK and meets notability now. I also removed the POV tag. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I can a little more. DGG ( talk ) 13:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Official links

Hi, could you clarify for me the use of official links on a company article. I removed it from External links with edit summary "already provided in the infobox -- pls see WP:ELMINOFFICIAL", which states "Normally, only one official link is included." This was reverted citing: "This does not apply to infoboxes. See also WP:ELOFFICIAL".

I would appreciate a clarification. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

could you help me by linking to the discussion? DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It was not really a discussion; we "discussed" through edit summaries: Edit history. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Certainly it applies within an infobox: we would normally not list multiple social media sites in a infobox any more than in EL. But that is not how I see those edits: you were objecting to that the infobox repeated the single correct social media link in the EL section. as I understand it, we usually do that. I can see many justifications: after all, it's at the other end of the article, and it is basic information that people are very likely to want. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Finance Magnates

Hi, regarding Finance Magnates a new page I tried to create which was deleted. I included a number of credible references from reliable published sources such as Bloomberg and Huffington Post to indicate the significance of Finance Magnates. Furthermore, Finance Magnates is a similar company to FXstreet and Investing.com. I believe a Wikipedia page for Finance Magnates offers similar encyclopedic value as these two companies' pages. I would appreciate your feedback. Thankyou Juanparve (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The references were essentially press releases or mere mentions.

Please also be aware that you might perhaps have a conflict of interest, especially in view of the articles on various small companies you have submitted. If so, see WP:COI for our rules, and also, if applicable, see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

RiskAoA review

DGG, would you mind reviewing RiskAoA it has been nominated for deletion in something of a whirl-wind. Thank you. GESICC (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your review. I must admit, you struck me quite in the Achilles Heel, despite the 'keep.' Non-the-less I greatly appreciate the feedback. GESICC (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Anita Mai Tan

Hello. I have come across one of the most creative jewelers or jeweler creators (imho) - this is the article entitled Anita Mai Tan. A number of the references' links may be inappropriate per external link guidelines. However, the art of this jewelry is stunning. I am surprised there is not mainstream press about this person or her work (Google News). Uh oh, I just realized the topic is actually related to BLP, but the content strays away from being a biography and featuring her jewelry. So, now I have no idea how to handle this article.

I considered AfD but looking at the art involved in the jewelry, I am thinking there must be some way this person or jewelry is notable. Anyway, I would appreciate your opinion on this matter or about the article - and I would appreciate anyone else's opinion who comes across this post and is so inclined. I am asking right now that the references and their links not be removed right now. If need be this can be done a few days from now and I will be glad to do it. Thanks in advance for your efforts. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I will probably take this to AfD. I don't think it can be salvaged. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

I see you are looking at it/ working on it. I'll wait for your opinion. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As for the artistic quality, tastes vary. But it can't be salvaged until some real publication reviews her work. I don't think any did, because if they had, the company's PR would have found them for its reviews page. I m cleaned up a few of the ref. The refs in an article don't have to follow WP:EL; the question is whether they are in any way RSs. (except that I have no familiarity with most of the publications listed and I have no idea of their standards--tho it is a genre where one expects the worst. You could always move it to Draft or userify it. The reason to go to afd is that if anyone can source it, AfD is the place they'll see it. But if they don't, you can still ask that it be userified. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks very much for your help and analysis - that was truly above and beyond. I agree about the genre where the worst standards are to be expected. And, I have some food for thought. Can I unilaterally move it to draft or userfy or do I need permission? I know I could present this option at an AfD - but would it be appropriate without AfD? Also, I am not sure about either draft or userfy at this point. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I use an edit summary: "moved to avoid inevitable deletion" Then, if it is moved back, take it to AfD. It can help to try to explain this to the editor. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Probably do the deed tomorrow, too tired at this time. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Eyes/opinions/help needed

I think I originally saw the article Robert Perless mentioned on Binksternet's talkpage, in a thread opened by Eperless, and the identical names caught my eye. This is how I found the article: [8]. It looks like a giant advertisement to me. I took out the Bibliiography just to trim it down a little, and Eperless is edit-warring to add it back even though there is an obvious COI there. Need some sort of help in deciding what to do with this article, which looks more like a personal webpage than a Wikipedia article. Any help from anyone would be appreciated. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, he is notable, based on the museums. I have considerably more tolerance for naive articles written by the subject that for the work of paid editors who make a business out of it. The general guide for dealing with material like this is to cut radically; I see you started, and I will continue. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Eperless did not write the Robert Perless article (nor has she done more than a tiny bit of editing on it: [9]) -- at least she didn't post it, although conceivably since (editors have discovered that) she's a poet and an advertising writer she could have ghost-written it. The article was created by Jmoskowitz via AfC. (I'm not sure what or what sort of COI is involved there if any, but information in his and her talk-page posts indicate they are in communication and that he possesses non-web articles on Robert Perless, and as mentioned Eperless could have ghost-written the article.) Eperless has written a different article, Joseph Fuller, which is in fact a much better article (whether or not she has a connection to that person). Anyway, thanks very much for your help; I just wanted to clarify the authorship of the article. Softlavender (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Contest speedy deletion of Globaltherm

On 8 July, 2016, OnionRing nominated the page I created for Globaltherm for speedy deletion.

I have since been in contact with OnionRing to find out why my page was deleted and how I could edit it to make it appropriate.Please see my message below. I would appreciate your help with this.

"Hi, I noticed you nominated my page Globaltherm for Speedy deletion because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person.

The page is modelled on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therminol.

Could you please let me know what makes my page promotional and the Therminol page acceptable?"

Please let me know if you have any advice.

Thank you, Oana Stroe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oana Stroe (talk • contribs) 10:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Globaltherm articles was essential a catalog of the 30 or so separate products on sale, along a list of applications, and information about the available quantities and delivery methods. This is not material for an encyclopedia . The other article you mention is a general discssion, though it could use more and beter references.

It is possible that you may have a conflict of interest--see our rules on this at WP:COI and also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure In short, you must declare any COI and write the article on draft space--but pure advertisements will be deleted even there. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sumeeti Mittal Article for deletion

Hi DGG,

I have drafted the article on Sumeeti Mittal. I believe the lady has been contributing significantly on various social issues majorly on the education of children living in slum areas of Jaipur. The school has been able to educate about 3000+ students till date. Apart from this one of the student is now an engineering graduate, all thanks to Sumeeti's efforts. Apart from flexi timings, the school has also collaborated with government agencies for other skill development programs.

Regarding citation of awards is considered, the 100 women achievers award has been given by Ministry of Women & Child Welfare, Government of India.

I request you to suggest ways to improve the article instead to deleting the article. Her story is definitely going to inspire others.

Noopur Anand (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not up to me; ifthe consensus thinks heer sufficiently notable, the article will be kept. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Reinstate "Crownpeak" Page

Hi DGG -

Hope you're well.

I work with Crownpeak, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrownPeak. The page was deleted by you on August 13.

Can you please advise on what sections you had an issue with? I will work to address them immediately in the hopes that you can reinstate the previous content you did not have an issue with.

To the most recent updates, I was not aware of any terms of service violations. The company recently merged with another company and rebranded. My understanding is that the executive team was updated among other company information, nothing PR related.

I look forward to working with you to reinstate this page and better add to the Wiki community in the future.

Greenwave215 (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I was contacted on OTRS about this matter, and suggested they initiate a discussion with you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat relevant. —Cryptic 16:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

S Philbrick, since I am also a UTRS agent, what is the link? DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ticket:2016081910013541 (FYI the ping did not work due to the space)--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Greenwave215, let's first talk about conflict of interest and the terms of use. If you are a member of the regular staff of the company, then the declaration of COI you have just made is sufficient, though you should make it not just here, but on your user page and any eventual article talk page. But since you said "with Crownspeak" it is however possible that you are an outside condultant or press agent, or one of the many people trying to write WP articles for payment. In that case, according to our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure , you must also declare the name of your company, and any other intermediates. This is not optional.

In either case, the the proper way for you to make an article is to do so in Draft space, using the WP:AFC system. This way there can be at least some preliminary screening before you submit an article that will inevitably be deleted. Our experiences is that it is extremely uncommon for someone who has a financial interest in an organization to be able to write a satisfactory article: At least 90% of the attempts at this are deleted, and at least half the remainder should have been deleted also They are almost always deleted on the grounds of being press releases and very often about companies that do not meet our notability standards. Either reason is sufficient for deletion. An encyclopedia article tells the general user what they might like to know about the company if they encounter its name somewhere; a press release tells the readers what the company would like them to know: there's a difference. The article was devoted not to describing the company, but saying why it ought to be considered important, and relied upon references that were either mentions or Press releases.

And as Cryptic notes, an article using the company name Crownpeak was previously deleted several times, as well as the version under CrownPeak. Quite a few experienced editors were involved. We're not likely to have all been wrong. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Question about the speedy deletion of the page 8D Technologies

Hi DGG, Could you please tell me why exactly you deleted the aforementioned page? I am not sure I grasp the Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance criteria entirely so any clarification is welcome. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grouchiest (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

first question is whether you have a Conflict of Interest with respect to the company: if so, please read WP:COI for our requirements. If the conflict of interest should be financial, see also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure . This disclosure is not optional.

The article asserted the technology was used in a number of bicycle sharing systems, but said nothing further, nor were there any third party sources. Thus, there was no basis to judge its importance.

If you have available references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, there is the possibility of an article. But, as our rules require, if you have a COI you must write it in draft space, so it can be screened before going into the actual encyclopedia == we require this because very few people with a COI have proven capable or writing anything other than press releases. If you have no COI, then you may proceed in main space--but if you do not have the 3rd party references, the article will not be accepted. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and detailed reply. I don't have a COI and I do have 3rd party references for this article, but I expected to add them later. I can create the article in my space (i.e. User:Grouchiest/8D_Technologies then submit it for review instead of just putting it out there, is that a better way to go about it? Grouchiest (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are permitted to do that as an alternative. But even there, be careful not to write in a promotional manner, and do not copy or closely paraphrase any other publication. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC) �

Great thanks again for your help. Grouchiest (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

On historians and notability

In general, of cource you are correct about historians and notability, but beware grand totalizing statements, they can always be invalidated by a counterexample. Like The Significance of the Frontier in American History, which was a paper, not a book. This sort of thing does still happen in history, although the particular historian we were discussing is a more borderline case than Turner. Hope you're somewhere nice for the last weekend in August. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

quite right. I should have put a normally or almost always in there, & I will go back and do it. What I had in mind was the current tendency of second- rate universities to accept a group of journal articles instead of a second book for tenure. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Article Deletion

I would like an explanation as to why you deleted the article "Gab_(social_network)", which was authored myself. The article itself contained three significant citations to support its significance. All information provided about the website itself was truthful and observable. I would have appreciated if you left a message on the Talk: page before doing so. Please explain. (You may delete this message after doing so.) SaintSummit (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

3 refs--one from its web site, and 2 from unreliable sources. None of them gave any indication it was currently important. The notice was placed on your talk p. earlier when the article was listed for deletion by another editor. Incidentally, upon reading the references, there seems to be some NPOV problems with your version in draft space. Also, since this is the only article you've worked on, do you perhaps have some conflict of interest? If so, please se WP:COI, and, if it is a financial conflict of interest, also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC

A very new user (only 2 weeks egisterd) has jumped the gun with an RfC for a user right for NPP.Very poorly formulared, and in the wrong place. Details on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

seems under control. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right

A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Marc Straus

Please feel free to continue deleting the trivia and other cruft. I'm a trained scientist, and this man annoys me so much I'm not sure I could be objective. Narky Blert (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Anita Cobby

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Anita Cobby. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Article Deletion

Hi David, I sent you a message earlier today about this draft: Draft:Coalition_Technologies because you tagged it with G11 tag, I expressed my concern about the draft that I agree with you to a point but will need help of editor to improve that since it just have one problem which can be resolved by rewriting with neutral point and without any further comments you deleted the draft & talk. However I just want to know, if you remember which particular section do you have found promotional in nature, so I can rewrite or update and let you know or proceed further.Skdwived (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The first question is whether you have any connection with the company--if so, please see our rules abou WP:Conflict of Interest--and, if the connection is financial, also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure

As for content, the entire article is written as an advertisement: "Due partly to the positive impact of internal, software-based business management resources, Coalition Technologies operates a thriving business that is poised for growth in the West Coast and beyond." or "as a result of its exploration into marketing solutions on the cutting edge of online marketing technology,..." I excerpted two, but almost every individual sentence in the entire draft is of that nature. This is a language appropriate for a promotional webpage, not an encyclopedia article.

Additionally, there is no evidence of notability, because lmost every reference is either the company's own publication, or something their director or management team has written; the exceptions are those which are mere listings and notices. Wikipedia articles require references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements.

 DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Alberto Gorbatt

Hi, DGG. You removed my PROD BLP from Alberto Gorbatt with the assertion that there were sources in the External links section. These links do not actually mention him. Doesn't the article need at least one source that verifies a fact about the subject of the BLP? ubiquity (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

their pages are a mess, but I found &added an exact link for director of A-A. Thanks for lettign me know of the problem DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:SwisterTwister. Thank you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for taking the time to share your experience and perspective on the AfD process, particularly here. Reading it was so illuminating for me on questions like how best to navigate the discussion process, and the context for policy on nominating for deletion. Greatly appreciated. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Article deletion - MX1 (media)

Hi DGG. You deleted the article, MX1 (Media), on August 1 citing “Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)”. I did not create this article but did make some contribution to it a few days before deletion. Yesterday I went to add some more to it and found it not there (!) I do believe that MX1 is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (not least because the company is the result of the merger of two companies which are themselves each the subject of an article) and it was partly to demonstrate this that I was going to add more material to the article.

So, what do I do now? Can you restore the article so I can flesh it out, and so make it more worthy of inclusion? Or should I start from scratch with a new page and new content? Or should I move the article for one of the merged companies from which MX1 is formed to a new title MX1 (media) and add MX1 content to that? Whichever is the solution, could you give me an idea of your criteria for significance of a company so I can make sure a ‘new’ article meets these? Thanks Satbuff (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Satbuff, I think the best approach is to consider it a rebranding of SES, taken place as a result of its acquisition of the much smaller company RR media. This is normally the way we handle such situations. The problem with the new article is that at this opint the sources are mere notices describing the acquisition--because, I'd venture, there is nothing much else to say yet.

You might want to take a look at the SES page overall--it would give a less promotional appearance by removal of adjectives and similar rewording. The RR page is much worse, and if you wantto attemto to fix that, please do. (I should mention I'm aware of the the COI discussion on your usertalk, and I recognize that you are a good faith editor.) ' DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)