User talk:DGG/Archive 121 Feb. 2017

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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

15:01:01, 31 January 2017 review of submission by Beckcurran

• Beckcurran (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Anette Prehn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I would like to address some of your comments regarding my article submission - you say it does not satisty WP:Prof criteria, but the article does not state she is a professor or academic.

She is an business woman and author of 5 published books (not 2 as you mentioned) and I have included a number of independent reviews, and have now added more.

You say it fails WP:GNG as one substantial 3rd party reference only - but there are several references to articles & interviews from some of the largest Danish daily broadsheet newspapers including Politiken, Borsen, Jyllands Posten and more. (most of which have their own wikipedia pages).

Please see link to PDF of a main feature in Jyllands Posten Weekend edition which I can include if needed: http://hjernesmart.dk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Jyllands-Posten-31.12.16.pdf

I have addressed all the other reviewers comments and the last reviewer said I just needed to include more book reviews which I have done.

I would appreciate if you can reconsider this for approval.

Thank you Beckcurran (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all, considering that you have worked on one two article, the one on her and the one on her training program, Draft:Framestorm, duplicating much of the content, it seems quite possible that you have some degree of conflict of interest. Please reread WP:COI and our Terms of Use, including the rules on paid contributions without disclosure. Both articles are essentially advertisements. Wikipedia is not intended for that purpose. You are not compelled to respond, but it would clarify the situation. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Flagged article

Hi David,

You recently flagged How (book) as reading like an advertisement. I wrote that article, which I submitted to AfC for independent review, before it was published. I'd be glad to work further on it but I wonder if you could give me some guidance. There's no puffery that I can find; every fact is sourced. There are many sources. But I'd be glad to look at the article again - I just need some guidance.

You also changed the name of the article from How (philosophy) to How {book). The reason I chose How philosophy is because after publication of the book, the philosophy continued to be developed in various other publications - it evolved. I cited a few and could cite more. The point being that the article is broader than the book. Thanks, Ed BC1278 (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)BC1278

Víctor M. Marroquín

Hi DGG. We briefly discussed Víctor M. Marroquín on Tokyogirl79 user talk at User talk:Tokyogirl79#Víctor M. Marroquín a little more than a week ago. I tried to find some better sourcing, but have not had any luck. The article has been drastically trimmed by other editors in the meantime, so I am wondering if it might be inappropriate to bring this to AfD at the moment since there may be others now watching it and working on it. Any suggestions on what might be the best thing to do here? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The Downs Malvern

Can you have a look at this 12-year-old article about an exceptionally notable English school? I don't want to do battle with an obtuse newbie and loose my bit over it. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

iGrad Deletion

Hello Mr. Goodman,

In November of 2016 you "speedily deleted" a page about iGrad. I was hoping to gain access to the deleted article in an attempt to reframe it and try again. Can you help?

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lmdcortes

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eganok (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel it is relevant to first ask you whether you have any conflict of interest (see WP:COI) or financial connection with them--see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure.

I ask this particularly because a number of different accounts have attempted to add promotional material about this organization--it has all of course been removed, and it also seems relevant to ask you whether you have any connection with them -- User:Tae Paul, User:Lmdcortes, User:User talk:Jessica Brodkin Webb, User:Kgonnell, User: Erodr015, User:Albank22 DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Club Car

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Club Car. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello DGG,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 818 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Timothy Langley Deletion

W.r.t.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Langley

I'd like to discuss this deletion further. Your finding at the end was that there was "sufficient consensus;" but this was despite the fact that there were two objections noted.

The other point that I'd like to discuss was whether some of the arguments against the page, were actually about the page's existence, rather than the page's content. The discussion seemed to lose the distinction between "criteria for deletion" rather than "criteria for edit."

Admittedly, I'm somewhat new and un-experienced, I'd like to ask your advice on the matter to reach a fair and informed conclusion. This was my first page and I was proud of it--I'd like to understand why it was deleted.

My comments to the arguments:

1. Deletion: there were two sub-arguments: (i) notability and (ii) Self-promotion.
   1. Notability: I addressed in the discussion page for deletion; this point was never argued against... only that some articles were quoting, rather than about, the subject. That may be true, but it doesn't reveal any argument against notability. I feel that the point of notability is established.
   2. Self-promotion: As an argument for deletion, it must meet the standard of "unambiguous self promotion." Which I would personally refute, as I'm not Mr. Langley--however I have met him, being in the foreign community in Tokyo. I know him to have helped several of my colleagues. I see in your previous discussions that you are concerned about COI, I do not have any problem with stating that there is no COI here.
2. Consensus: I am not quite clear on why you'd consider there to be sufficient consensus when there were two noted objections to it. Can you please clarify this?
3. Editing: About the relevance/appropriateness of certain links in the article, we can very much discuss whether (and which, in unambiguous terms) links could/would/should be edited. This very discussion--about editing--presupposed that the page exists.

Please address the above points, and please advise what next steps are appropriate.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Bourque (talk • contribs) 08:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I ask again whether you have any conflict of interest with the subject? I ask, because the article is indistinguishable from a Who's Who entry, full of utterly irrelevant and pretentious detail. Most of the item's listed in accomplishments, such as "Founder, Rolls-Royce & Bentley Owners’ Club of Japan" do not belong in an encyclopedia article; none of the "honours and awards belong---are you perhaps not aware of the insignificance of "Kentucky Colonel."? Frankly, I cannot see any other motivation except COI for including such material. The basic policy at issue is NOT PROMOTION. As a part of the fundamental policy WP:NOT, it makes questions of `notabiity secondary. But with respect to notability , the conclusion of those in the discussion was that the interviews and newspaper notices were essentially Press releases, I agree; the best of them ended with "Naturally enough, this legal mover and shaker extraordinaire is known as the American who can get the impossible done in Japan". DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response--albeit a bit harsh, IMHO. I see you've done your homework and I sincerely aim to reach a constructive dialogue.

"I ask again whether you have any conflict of interest with the subject?":

As I've stated before, my answer is no. Feel free to ask again.

"the article is indistinguishable from a Who's Who entry, full of utterly irrelevant and pretentious detail":

While I would have appreciated a more constructive form of criticism to my writing, this is still arguing for editing, not deletion. As I've stated before, I'm perfectly happy to discuss editing.

"Most of the item's listed in accomplishments, such as "Founder, Rolls-Royce & Bentley Owners’ Club of Japan" do not belong in an encyclopedia article":

I may be swayed by this argument within the frame of a discussion for editing the page, not for deletion of the page.

"none of the "honours and awards belong":

Frankly this feels unfair, that none of them are appropriate. As I cannot see the page any longer, I can't point them all out, but I would imagine at least some of them belong.... wouldn't his book belong? Wouldn't his Law Degrees? All I'm asking for here is a level of reasonableness of this subject. Again, this feels like an appropriate discussion for editing, not deletion.

"are you perhaps not aware of the insignificance of "Kentucky Colonel."?":

Again, this is frankly unfair and debatably inappropriate. But since you brought it up, please refer to Kentucky_colonel, and the fact that other notable sources mention it as well; e.g. Stephen_Fry as his second (of many) title.

"I cannot see any other motivation except COI for including such material.":

Well, we're both within our rights to have our opinions. I myself cannot fathom how/why you cannot see *any* other motivation. This feels presumptuous of you to assert that you understand my motivations.

"Yhr basic policy at issue is NOT PROMOTION. As a part of the fundamental policy WP:NOT, it makes questions of `notabiity secondary.":

Ok, so we're getting somewhere worth discussing. As I mentioned, this is a learning experience. I now understand your interpretation of the 'notability secondary' having read the rules closely. So I'll concede happily on the point of notability not being the be-all-end-all. But if we continue in this line of thought, let's please examine the WP:NOT-PROMOTION point. I don't see any of these points being a fair description of the page in question either. Can you please state your case as to why this would meet any of the 5 Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion criteria?

"But with respect to notability , the conclusion of those in the discussion was that the interviews and newspaper notices were essentially Press releases, I agree;":

That's fine that you agree with the last poster, but you've ignored the previous two--hardly a consensus, in my opinion.

Which leaves my original post's point #2, which you did not address: consensus; I'd refer you to Wikipedia:Consensus to frame this discussion.

I can accept that we may never agree on all of the previous points, but may all be made moot, considering the deletion discussion page shows objections that were ignored.

Please help me to understand how you reached consensus while staying in the guidelines listed in here: Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining_consensus

An additional ask is that: can you please allow me to review the deleted page's content?

Apologies for the long post; to recap, I'm asking you to please answer the following 3 points:

1. Can you please state your case as to why this would meet any of the 5 PROMOTION criteria?
2. Can you please state your case as to how you determined consensus?
3. Can you please allow me to review the deleted page's content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Bourque (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sam Bourque: I will answer briefly for DGG on #3 as he seems to be engaged elsewhere. He doesn't usually allow WP:REFUNDs of promotional content, but you can request it using the link. Please sign your talk comments with four tildes (this → ~). - Brianhe (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Brianhe, thank you for your reply. I appreciate your help--however, I'm still concerned by the presumption of "promotional content;" as it stands, DGG has yet to make the case for either consensus nor PROMOTION.

DGG appears to have abandoned this discussion. If I don't have a reasonably timely and appropriate response, I'll disappointingly have to take this discussion to another forum.

Sam Bourque (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sam Bourque, just delayed in answering. DGG ( talk ) 10:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have no COI, try to make a special effort to avoid writing in the style of those who do. don't exaggerate. A law degree is not an honour--its a routine part of a career. Writing a book can be significant, but it's not an honor. A book to which a major prize has been awarded is an honor. Frankly, I continue to interpret this as showing the likelihood of a coi.

I determine consensus from the policy based arguments of editors who commented. The people at the AfD did not feel notability was established according to our rules. Notability is a term with special meaning in WP, and is interpreted however the people in the have consensus decide to interpret it. In closing, I accept what they say unless I think it's really perverse. This way of working by rough consensus may or may not be a good way of making decisions, but it's the way we do it. Using a more common-sense definition, I do not agree with your argument that being the first non-Japanese legislative assistant is likely to be notable--it's not a policy making position.

As for promotionalism, it does not have to be self-promotion, we do not at WP promote anything. Promotionalism is partly a matter of tone, and in judging tone, again I follow the consensus unless its absurd, in which case the accepted thing is to relist in the hope of a wider consensus. Whether an article should be fixed or deleted is also a matter of interpretation, and depends a good deal about the perceived importance of the subject. The consensus was to delete it.

But yes, I will email you a copy. It is possible that the subject is notable, and that you can show it: try again in Draft space, taking heed of what I've said is or is not considered appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Roy A. Jodrey Proposal for Deletion

Hi DGG, I saw that you marked the Roy A Jodrey page as a proposal for deletion. I have added more content to the page in hopes of defending the ship's notability. I have also put a comment in the article's talk page with my opinion. I would like to remove the proposal for deletion tag, but because I am new, I don't want to remove it unilaterally. Could you check to confirm that the page currently meets notability requirements? I presume we can continue to discus your concerns on the Jodrey's talk page. Thanks, Djshaw87 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

All the references are local. This therefore probably fails under the NOT NEWS criterion of being an event of more than purely local significance, or of historic importance. That's usually the case with transportation accidents involving no loss of life. You are of course entitled to have a community decision, and it would be perfectly in order to remove the Prod tag yourself. I or anyone can then send it for a discussion at WP:AFD. But the most important thing you can do is to try to find some non-local sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated on the explanation, thank you. I will attempt to source some non-local references. I am attempting to locate a copy of Great Lakes Ships We Remember, as I believe it will be a suitable reference. How local is a local source? I expect that I won't find much reference to the freighter outside of the great lakes, but the great lakes are a large area.

As an aside, would the loss of life with the salvage effort and the continuing fatal scuba diving accidents negate our conclusion that freighter accident is not fatal. No one died when the wreck sank, but the deaths are delayed and due to secondary events. Or would a diver's death not be considered a consequence because of some novus actus interveniens? I do yield that my opinion of notability probably does not satisfy wikipedia's.

Djshaw87 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

We are somewhere between a direct democracy and an anarchy. The details are a question for the determination of the community in each case. We have relatively few fixed rules, but we do have common practices, such as the preferences given to fatal accidents, but these common practices are not at all absolute, and the place to test them is AfD. Basically, the people who choose to participate in any particular AfD can do almost anything they have a consensus to do: see our fundamental rule: WP:IAR. I encourage you to first see what you can find,and then be prepared to make your argument. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Understandable and much appreciated. Thanks. Djshaw87 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

article Institute for New Culture Technologies-t0 marked as considered for deletion

dear DGG. i just wanted to start editing the article again as briefly discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG?markasread=95788448#advert_tag_in_article_Institute_for_New_Culture_Technologies-t0, and saw that it now has been marked as considered for deletion. i will try to finalize editing in a couple of days and hope it will not be deleted in the meantime. thanks. Becomingx7 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Becomingx7, since fortunately nobody had commented yet, I replaced the deletion tag with an "underconstruction tag". If you intend to actively work on it, it can wait a week or so. If it is likely to take longer, it can be moved to draft space. As advice: I suggested earlier cutting to half length--most people in trying to shorten an article of this sort do it insufficiently. I made suggestions there about what to omit--and I think i'd also omit the list of publications, which like the lists of participants at the events, belongs on its website. If one or two have attracted general interest and been reviewed substantially, that's the ones to leave in. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

dear DGG, i just edited the article and it is a lot shorter now. i omitted all the lists of speakers in 2.3.; and in 2.2. i deleted all the sub-chapters and condensed the info to one paragraph. if possible, i think it would be good to keep the list of publications. - i compiled the list because i could not find a list of publications on their websites, so it is not possible to replace it by a link to some other source. could you please have a look at the article? thanks! Becomingx7 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ishall take a look in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

dear DGG, did you have a chance to take a look at the article? the deletion process seems to proceed quickly and a bot has removed the under construction template in the meantime. thanks! Becomingx7 (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Userfication

Hello, you were the closing admin of the Ryos AfD. I would like to request the page to be userfied (to my subpage) so that I can improve the content to make sure it meets the notability criteria and other policies. Thanks. (18:20, February 7, 2017‎ TheMagnificentist )

TheMagnificentist What additional material do you have or hope to have? The consensus was quite clear. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have found some sources about the topic but if I can see the deleted article, it would be easier for me to identify the right ones and remove/avoid the irrelevant ones. The topic has met a criterion in notability for music, the tenth one. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable...", the subject has performed at Billboard 2016 fest, which is a notable festival. Another user who commented in the AfD nomination had brought that up but I failed to see it at first. - TheMagnificentist 12:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Magnificentist: I don't think that being one of many performers at a concert/festival/music series such as Billboard 2016 fest is considered "a work" in the context of the MUSICBIO notability guideline, which gives specific examples like TV themes etc. Also the concert has no Wikipedia article so even if a generic concert can be considered a notable "work", this concert is not. - Brianhe (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientists' March on Washington

Since you didn't provide a rationale for your close on that AfD, would you mind telling me why you came to that decision? The discussion had 12 keeps, four deletes, and five "move to draft" responses based on my count. Simple vote counts aren't everything, but it's important to note that during the time the AfD was open, the date of April 22 was chosen, making this a much more "real" event, and that came with a stream of new sources and a stream of late keeps. Should not those keeps have gotten more weight in your decision? As it is, I figure I can improve the draft in a few hours and put it in as a submission to be approved for moving back to article space as early as today, if I have the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, improve it and either submit it in draft space, That was the intent of my close. Politics moves quickly. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:INCUBATOR

I invite you to comment on as well as to endorse my idea of article incubator. The idea is not new and details of the previous version can be found at WP:INCUBATOR. I would be glad if you enhance it with your experience. Feel free to improve upon the proposal that I have placed. Anasuya.D (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

We already have more than we can handle with AFC and userspace drafts. There could however be a good reason for something like this: to replace userspace drafts, which are at present almost uncontrolled. We need to make the acceptance process simpler, possibly by integrating AfC and NPP, or by integrating AfC with userspace drafts, certainly not to make it more complicated. Another problem is that this can too easily be used for blatant advertising. If we add that to the exclusion criteria, we will be back with the sort of argument we get at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. Your words make sense. It is possibly due to my inexperience that my proposal bears errors. But I was just trying to propose a way to retain and use the ignorant users and to convert them into knowledgeable Wikipedians whose contributions can help in enriching Wikipedia. Not that I have a concrete plan. But could you people think again about what could be done to educate these guys who do disruptive work on Wikipedia? Anasuya.D (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

We rely on new users for new ideas. Those of us who have worked here a long while can easily get into a stereotyped way of thinking. And even ideas (like this one) that have been considered and rejected in the past, may prove to be valuable when circumstances change. And circumstances do change: With the increasing recognition of the perceived importance of Wikipedia, it has become very valuable in the competitive world for organizations to have a WP article, and preferably one they can control. It will be increasingly more difficult to maintain the difference between an encyclopedia and a directory, but maintaining it is still necessary to our integrity. We therefore cannot expect to actually solve the problem or promotionalism, but it will take increasing amounts of time and energy.

To be able to have the time and energy, we will always need new users; the most important thing we can do to attract them is not to unfairly reject their initial work. To do this while still rejecting even honestly-meant but mistaken attempts at promotionalism if the necessary balance. We won't get there by reshuffling procedures; fighting degradation requires work -- and the elimination of obsolete work-consuming practices. Some optimists see a place for AI, and I must admit that even an imperfect AI should be able to do better than some reviewers. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Matthieu Aussaguel

Hi I noticed you marked page Matthieu Aussague for speedy deletetion. Therefore as a new contributor I have several questions. 1.Person is notable enough within his field, there is sufficient amount of high authority source to verify information.However, I did not add exact figures, venture investments etc. so that others could contribute to it. I checked hundreds of professionals via profession lists in technology, art, journalism etc. and there are thousands of pages of people that are known within their field of expertise marked as Orphans and Subs. So my question is why did you marked it for speedy deletion instead of 7 days and giving a chance for others discuss notability(if it has to be deleted at all)? I am planning to contribute on regular basis and I don't want to waste my time writing articles that later will be deleted based on personal opinion and not the community guidelines. For the future I will write even less notable biographies and topics, because there are notable people within their fields. This time I learned the lesson and for less notable living people will start with Subs. Although I joined recently, Wikipedia's guidelines apply from the day 1 to forever and against it you and I are equal despite the fact that you are the administrator. In the future I do expect constructive arguments, reasonable grounds , and useful discussions to help me and others make our contributions better. Thank you for your review! regards (Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC))

I didn't delete it-- another admin, RickinBaltimore, did; I just listed it for possible deletion. I don't think it's right to decide these myself, it really should take a second person to agree and spot any possible errors. Two experienced admins are a little more than "personal opinion".

Stubs are fine, but the stub has to give at least some indication of why the person is significant. Just stating, as you did, that he created several applications (that have not yet been considered notable enough for WP articles) and that he is one of the many people who worked for a notable company does not give the least indication that the person himself is notable--and it doesn't even meet the minimum criterion of showing them important. The minimum stub has to actually say something. We still have a great many inadequate stubs dating from earlier days when standards were not enforced, which need to be upgraded or deleted, but most of the existing stubs by now say something specific that shows notability.

You're welome to try again; you might also consider using Draft space. To see how we actually interpret the rules, take a look at some current WP:AFD discussions. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Combative deletion rebuttals

Hi DGG, I noticed a wave of combative deletion rebuttals on your page lately and wondered if this is a new phenomenon. Would you like me to answer them as able, or just leave them alone? - Brianhe (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

detailed discussion forthcoming tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

In the past, most paid or other promotional editors, when their articles have been deleted, have simply gone away and tried again, generally under another username. For a while now, an increasing number of them have been adopting the practice of arguing. Many admins ignore them; my response unless they are ridiculous altogether is to explain why, sometimes in detail. If they are a good faith but promotional editor who simply has not realized, they usually understand, though it sometimes take a second round of explanation. . If they are professional paid editor with any sense, they realise they;re not going to get anywhere, and go away--and try again usually under another name. Zealots with a unpaid COI have very often continued to argue, sometimes indefinitely. The best thing for us to do here is the traditional remedy, to ignore them. Some paid editors are now doing the same, hoping to wear people down. The best technique here is to block them. If they show up for the same purpose again, they can and should be summarily blocked as behavioral meatpuppets--though we usually run a checkuser for possibly helpful additional information. The danger, as has become clear, is catching a good faith but imitative editor. There are only 3 solutions: accept promotionalism , be able to investigate who people actually are, or accept there will be occasional injustice. I will oppose the first as long as I work here, I will continue trying to change consensus to permit the second, and , alas, be forced to accept the third.

There are of course other factors. I have lately been taking a larger role at AfD, and as I didbefore, I tend to close the ones that nobody is eager to close and present some possible ambiguities. It is therefore natural that there should be exceptions taken to them. ,Unless I were to do only the obvious, it's part of the structure, and I will make an effort to address what I think are reasonable objections. And, unlike some admins who just refer people to DelRev hoping few will brave that extremely specialized process, I will revert a close if I think it may have been in error.,

There is also of course the possibility that I may have been making more errors. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Article -Faisal Farooqui

Hey DCG, I don't agree with your decision & deletion of the article via Faisal Farooqui via this AFD. It was inappropriate for making my, also an admin, comment as 'obviously irrelevant'. I am not the creator of the article, but when I noticed the AFD, I tried to improve the article understanding that the subject is clearly notable person from India. Added more references from notable Indian mainstream media as well. Request to kindly revert the deletion. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tinucherian: Please review WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Arguments against deletion that are not policy-based and backed by evidence are ignored. - Brianhe (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The two keep comments were "The subject is well known personality." and "The subject has presented and spoken at many seminars where I have moderated" There were 2 other comment without a bolded !vote, "There have been many entrepreneurs who have been inspired by him." and "I feel when so many entrepreneurs are listed on Wikipedia, we need more from India too.--" None of these are reasons for keeping. I agree with you that an article is possible; tThe most important comment was the one at the end, to start it again in draft space. That would be my advice also. When you do, emphasize the person; we already have an article on the company, and do not include such non-informative sentences as "He has been invited to speak on entrepreneurship, technology, social media and marketing seminars worldwide. Besides he has been guest lecturer at colleges" and minor awards. Awards for "Young Leaders" in particular are usually nowadays considered euphemisms for "not yet notable". You also might want to remove some of the promotional statements from the company article. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Tinu Cherian, I do, or decline to do , a lot of things here. Once a month or so I end up feeling that I may have made a mistake--sometimes on my own, sometimes when someone write to me. I've learned to wait until the next day, and at that point, if I'm still thinking about it, I often conclude I should have done it differently. I've reread the afd ,and I see that some of the responses I though were negative were not all that negative. One of the dangers of dealing so much of the time with true promotionalism , is that there's a tendency to look at everything that way. Some of it is inevitable: almost anyone who does a lot of work here and thinks they're perfect is deceiving themselves (I say "almost" because I do know one exception who has never to my knowledge been wrong when we disagreed) . I'm going to move the article to Draft: Faisal Farooqui--after you've emoved the puffery, andalsotaken a look at the company article to avoid duplication, submit it, If I think it's significantly improved, I won't nominate for deletion again, but of course anyone else can. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

PROF check?

Hey, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on Dorit Bar-On. It's sourced almost exclusively by primary sources, and I'm not seeing much in the way of PROF notability. However, I know I'm sometimes a bit trigger-happy when it comes to PROF matters, so I thought I'd see what you think first. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Primefac: |Many papers, some in leading journals; one book Speaking my mind : expression and self-knowledge published by Oxford University Press and held by a very high 863 libraries for academic philosophy. It would be at least borderline notable even without that bookwithout that book, but with it, there's enough to meet WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC) . DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for looking. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Remothered: Tormented Fathers G4 check

Since you deleted the last version of Remothered and salted it, thought I would post this here. I know I've tagged it for G4 the past two times, but honestly can't remember what it looked like and can't see the content since I'm not a sysop. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It's shorter, but does not address the problems. Deleted and salted. You might want to take a look also at Forgotten Memories: Alternate Realities and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NightCry. This is not a field where I'm expert, but it looks like a promotional campaign for the creator. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to have been recreated the minute after you deleted it, and the logs don't show the salting. I'll take a look at the others tomorrow. I'm also not an expert in the field, but it seems that you might be correct here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what went wrong, but it is now salted, and editor blocked . I wasn't sure whether it was enough to block last time, but this is over the line. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

User:TorpetLegionary

User:TorpetLegionary is just steadily making poor Good Faith edits, and doesn't seem to grasp Wikipedia very well. I've seen he has been warned countless times the last few months, and now he's blazing through obscure articles related to Roman office holders with changes such as replacing "AD (year)" with "(year) CE", which while not incorrect is breaking from each articles MoS. It's small things like this in everything he does and his lack of communication with the community that I am bringing him to your attention. His edits are vandalism, but they are generally unproductive and then someone else has to come behind and clean up his every edit. Psychotic Spartan 123 12:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Answer; thank you for the post, I am still new as an editor and I'm not especially familiar to the rules and regulations her. Partly it is because I don't know how to get in touch with people who know how the rules works. Thank you for posting this since this means that I will be more circumspect in the future. What is MoS? Where can I find them? Please help me. TorphatLeginary

TorphatLeginary, it does indeed take people a long while to learn our system, which is composed of multiple sometimes incompatible elements, built up erratically and without any real planning during the previous 16 years. The extent to which we follow written rules, and the way we enforce them, have also developed erratically and without any real planning during these 16 years. The best way of navigating this is by extensive preliminary reading starting with accompanied by explanation, and asking for help at any suggestion you have made an error. I see that {{U|P Aculeius} has just explained the meaning of WP:MOS to you, our Manual of Style. One of the purposes of the MOS is avoiding controversy over details of presentation, so we can concentrate on discussing the more important question s of accuracy and reliable sourcing. (Experience has shown that the more minute the difference, the longer the debate, and sometimes to the point of extreme bitterness and people leaving WP. The basic way the MOS is applied is that we try to be consistent within any article, because otherwise it looks very strange to a reader. This means following the initial style if there is no special reason otherwise.

Personally, I disagree with the MOS preference for AD and BC. I have sometimes used the CE/BCE style when I've been working on an article where nobody has done anything else, just as for many other peculiarities where WP has a preferred style but I disagree where I write in the way that come naturally to me. But I've never changed other people's edits on such things, and if they change me, I do not revert. I think that's the accepted level of flexibility. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

NPR questions

Hi, David - I've been making my rounds as a NPR and came across an article that has raised a few questions for me. When I asked Kudpung, he suggested I ask a real expert, so here I am per his advice. The article in question is Kilimall International which was created by User:FrankMwenda. My initial reaction when I first investigated the article was to tag it for deletion, primarily because of questionable notability and my added concern of a potential COI involving its creator. Your advice would be very much appreciated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

when it doubt whether or not something should be deleted, the best course is to ask for a decision at AfD. At NPP, we only need ourselves decide on the obvious. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

James Omura

Back in the day (Nov. 2013), you stated in an AfC comment that the subject is notable and that the page needed cleanup (diff). So, I cleaned it up and published it in main namespace just now. Feel free to improve the article further. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

all it needs now is 1/removal of some adjectives and phrases that constitute puffery, 2/or that could be seen as espousing a political view, 3/removing inserting some links to relevant WP articles, 4/Clarifying 4.1, which implies but does not say that the first generation parents resisted or wanted to resist, 5/ clarifying section 4.2 by saying in the text as coming from the California oral history project & making it an indented quote, 6/ removing or sourcing multiple sentences of opinion and 7/Finding some references that come from other sources than Omura and Toland.

It makes no difference how strongly you or I agree with the his political viewpoint. If we used WP to advocate our own beliefs,we'd end up the same as Conservapedia. You may possibly think that in the current political situation in the US and some other countries, all honest citizens should feel themselves called upon to undertake action, or at least write polemics. I would probably support this as a valid position, but the polemics do not belong on WP. But the role of WP in fighting actual or potential tyranny is now and always to write objective articles in purely dispassionate language. At WP we present the facts, trusting the readers to themselves draw the proper conclusions, not to tell the reader what conclusions they ought to draw.

To avoid misunderstanding, I think the WMF, as distinct from the encyclopedia, can appropriately play a political role in defense of its values, and I support its past and present actions and statements. And, also to avoid misunderstanding, there may indeed come a time when dispassionate reporting is hopeless, and direct opposition is the only possible course. But the two should not be confused. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. I cannot guarantee that I will improve the article more; perhaps you could post the content of your first paragraph above on the article's talk page so others will see your suggestions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Scientists' March on Washington

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Scientists' March on Washington. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I commented there, to the effect that this did not need deletion review. I also said it had the same problem as the article mentioned just above: advocacy; and if it is advocacy for a position I might agree with it, this does not make it the less advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Addition of un-redirected pages to Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed

I'm contacting you because you participated in this proposal discussion. While the proposal was approved, it has not received developer action. The request is now under consideration as part of the 2017 Developer Wishlist, with voting open through the end of day on Tuesday (23:59 UTC). The latter link describes the voting process, if you are interested. —swpb^T 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I will comment there, but I think this require WMF action independent of that process. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Request to restore the deleted page- Happiest Minds

Hi there, I wish to restore the deletion of page, which was deleted on Feb 13th. I was just trying to update the Happiest Minds page of our company.I read the the reasons for deletion but the content was added with references. Kindly help me restore back the page of Happiest Minds and would appreciate some guidance in making my page more valid. Thanks! Vidya (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• In that case, it's absolutely essential you note our policies WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Paid as they are non-negotiable in these subjects, next is the important fact you should show us the sources you have so we can evaluate them, because it's important to note anything published, republished by or for the company itself is instantly unacceptable. Even if the sources are from trade publications, they are still unacceptable, and articles can and will be removed if needed by our policies. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the above, Jimfbleak already responded to you about this at The Help Desk. I have nothing further to add. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

12:30:04, 15 February 2017 review of submission by Veneetieb

• Veneetieb (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:School Communication Arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hello, I submitted a Wikipedia page about School Communication Arts, which got declined by you. I was just hoping for some further help!

You rejected my submission and gave me some very sound advice, which I have now followed. I am however, slightly confused by one thing you said: "who but the students would care about the cute names for the various annual classes? who but they would care about the multiple student awards." Awards to me are throughly fact-based. Each one is substantiated by a footnote. As an ex-history student, if I was writing my dissertation on School Communication Arts I would look to awards won. I would behave in similar way as a journalist, or even just an interested individual.

There are the bigger awards such as D&AD, and then there are the smaller awards such as The Chip Shop Awards. Should I disregard the less-well known ones, or scrap the section all together?

Thanks so much in advance for all your help!

Kindest of wishes,

"Fact-based" is not enough. WP is NOT a Directory.-- see also WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE The material in an article has to be of significance to general interested readers, who, for example, might come upon a reference to the school & want to know what it's like. If you as a history student were writing your dissertation on the school, you would be expected not to base your dissertation of Wikipedia--you would in fact be well advised not to mention it at all. You would rather use primary sources and reliable secondary sources the way historians do. The accepted use of WP in academic work is for general background. The only such list you can properly include is that of alumni or instructors who are notable, in the sense of having a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

TB

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Alysha Boekhoudt.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lenskart and Peyush Bansal

Ajayrwat (u t c m l b p d) created Draft:LensKart in 2014, which was accepted at AFC, moved to main namespace as LensKart, and (I presume) moved to Lenskart at some point in time before ending up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenskart in May last year, with a consensus to delete. SwisterTwister, Tom29739, and Kierzek took part in the discussion, and you closed and deleted on 24 May 2016.

Same editor created Peyush Bansal in main space, an article about the founder of Lenskart, it was G11 deleted 24 September 2015. They then created Draft:Peyush Bansal in November 2015. I assume that they at a date later than 2 January 2016, after the draft had been declined five times, recreated Peyush Bansal in main space, but as I can't see deleted pages and their history, and as no user pages link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peyush Bansal (i.e. no {{Afd notice}} was posted) I can't be sure. The AFD closed as delete with two of the same editors participating, and closing admin on 30 May 2016 was MelanieN.

Ajayrwat recreated Lenskart in June 2016, it was G4 deleted on 27 June 2016. Was this the last edit by the Ajayrwat account?

Amrit6.4james (u t c m l b p d) then recreated Lenskart on 3 October 2016 as (I assume) their first edit, it got db-g4 tagged, and since it was deleted per G7 at 16:00, I guess they blanked it themself. The same morning, they created Lenskart.com, it was tagged and deleted per G11. On 7 October, they submitted Draft:Peyush Bansal, but it was declined for a sixth time.

They returned in November and recreated Lenskart, the first revision looked like this. In January, they recreated the "companion" article Peyush Bansal. The latter looks like G4-fodder, but you Melanie can do the comparison with the deleted version. I'm not much inclined to try sourcing it, given the circumstances. What would you say should be done about Lenskart?

Ajayrwat is, I believe, technically stale in a CU sense, but it is worth noting that the account was created 09:13, 6 February 2014, and that Amrit6.4james was created 12:28, 6 February 2014, but had no edits (that I can see) until 2016. — Sam Sailor 14:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

obvious socking and recreation of deleted articles under variant names; all titles protected and blocked as promotional-only accounts. Ill check if there's anything that isn't stale. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering deleting Museum of Arts and Sciences of Epirus

Hi DGG! Just saw this. You must proceed. As I have already noted elsewhere, Harry Gouvas' so-called Museum of Arts and Sciences of Epirus is a no-museum, no-foundation, no-institution, it is not certified by the Greek Ministry of Cultrure, as the Greek law requires for (real) museums. It is just a vehicle for H.Gouvas to promote himself. It does not house important collections of any king (Gouvas himself has admitted that he failed to gain for his "collection" an official status by the Greek authorities), but rubbish exhibits like this. There is nothing notable about this "museum". On the abovementioned grounds the article has been deleted from the Greek Wikipedia. Thanks for listening. Regards. ——Chalk19 (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Pleasedo nominate it for deletion--you can make astrongr case,; I'll then respond. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I have followed your advise. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A. Barkhudar-2

Hello DGG, I am writing you again). Some time ago you commented on my article - A. Barkhudar. I tried to follow all the comments, also I applied for WP:DCM permission (has been long time I do not have any response from them). On July 2016, you wrote me about formatting the article. I am very thankful for that. Concerning Armenian text, I am ready to work on it whenever there is a need for. Dear DGG, I can understand your busyness, but I need your help again. The article has been deleted, since it has been over six months there were no changes done on it. I have already applied for undeletion, hope to get my article back again soon. Thank you in advance, looking forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairabarkhudaryan (talk • contribs) 10:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for help on editing my father's bio page.

Hello DGG, Thank you for your offer to help. I am working with my mother to compose what I want to post on my father's page (complete with source references), and then what should I do? I think you advised I should post it on the TALK page of his bio, rather than "edit source" tab. Is that correct? I will alert you when I do it, I know you said you were only available before the weekend. Hopefully I can complete it tonight.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Susan Stix Fisher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyc2cents (talk • contribs) 00:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, 10:21pm, Feb 16th, I have posted on the Talk page of Thomas H. Stix, all that I wish to include. And I tried to organize it showing my sources --which are NY Times, etc. Nothing personal -- so being his daughter should not raise the issue of "conflict of interest" for anyone reading my edits. Best wishes. And if there is a way to inform me of other Wikipedia events in NYC, I would like to attend. SF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyc2cents (talk • contribs) 03:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Nyc2cents, I will get to it in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Centipede Press

Much obliged, DGG, for the time given and discerning ideas that improve the entry "Centipede Press," and making its move to "publishing accepted" status.

It currently has a request at top, "Please help by rewriting this article from a neutral point of view."

I have just red the excellent section on "neutral point of view" at WikiHelp, and have adjusted the entry in some ways, hopefully removing some slant, bias, or promo-loaded diction.

But maybe in trying to show whatever distinguishes the nature of this press, its history, and its contributions, still there are slanted lines or arrangement. While the entry is still fresh in your mind, do you see any words or arguments in it that you might sense should be dropped or adjusted?

Also, right now the body of writers/artists that this press publishes is edited out. Could there be advantage in me putting them back in, to show who they publish and from what eras, etc.? What might be the advantages and disadvantages to this in your view? Appreciate your expertise!

Truest thanks!Seekbeauty (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I shall take another llook, but remember, that those associated with an organization are not the best judge of what is appropriate in the article about it. I did indeed remove the list of writers and the like, just as we have done for every publishing house. The place for this is on you own web site. Imagine , please, the nature of the articles that would otherwise result from the famous presses which have prospered for centuries? (If there are a very few especially distinguished of international fame, such as winner of Nobel prizes, they could be included, but that's as much as we include in articles of this sort. After all, you have your own website.) DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion

First, Thanks. It's a complicated thanks. But, since you have a full trustworthy profile, I must serve it. An important thing though - I did use the wizard. I attempted to create a draft - you know, practise and send it for review - yet it got published. [Good that you deleted it - I too want wiki to have notable content only.] My query- Is there no way one can create drafts, when using the visual editor. If you can help me there - I can do more than editing for WP. Thank you again. Fatnred 09:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Fatnred, When you search for a nonexistent draft article name, for example "Draft:sdef", it says You may create the page Draft:sdef. If you click that name, you get a blank page; two of the the tabs at the top are "Create" and "Create Source". Click "Create", and you'll be in the visual editor.

The problem with the page you wrote is that there were no usable references: some of the references were almost all press releases: prweb, for examples, is a source to be avoided, because it's a place for distributing press releases and nothing else. The item in the Economic Voice gives an appearance of being an article, but is a disguised press release: the give-away is the last paragraph "PracTutor is in development right now and we would like to invite users for beta testing as soon as we have it out." Others were general articles that merely mentioned it among other software. This sort of attempted referencing is typical of those trying deliberately to write promotional articles. We try to screen them out when entered, but there are still thousands which have slipped through and not yet been removed. Many good faith editor like yourself see these articles in Wikipedia , and follow their example.

My advice is that before you write an article, first make sure you have at least two good news or magazine or book sources that discuss the subject in a substantial way. And then don't add bad sources just to increase the number of references. It is helpful to practice this by trying to find good sources for existing articles that are inadequately sourced. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Dan Koehl. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Vinos Sofka, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Dan Koehl (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It will be better to fix the tone than to remove the template indicating there's a problem. Another editor put it back, and the article really needs condensing , and decreasing the amount of rhetoric. A plain, dull style works best here. Anything else starts raising the possibilities that the writer is over-committted, or has COI of some sort, or is an uncritical admirer, and even that it might be copied from somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Laura Safran Deletion

Please explain rationale for the decision. Thank you.

CanadianBiographies1111 (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, sorry to bother you, I Just found the discussion page with the details of the decision. I have forwarded the material to Ms. Safran. I may return to this issue, or not, dependent upon her response. Is it too late to dispute the deletion, if that is the choice? Thanks.

CanadianBiographies1111 (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• If at best, you want to improve this later, there's Draft:Laura Safran but it will not be an automatic guarantee of acceptance. For lawyers to be notable, they must be a significantly known figure and the substance to show it. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

CanadianBiographies1111, we decide whether to keep or delete articles based on the consensus of opinion. The nominator and the three people who commented all were of the opinion there was no evidence for notability in the sense we use it, that the subject did not pass the specialized guideline WP:LAWYERS, and that the article was essentially a CV -- The policy on that is WP:NOTCV . I could not have closed the discussion any other way. If you do have substantial additional information to add with reliable sourcing from nationally-known magazines or newspapers, you can either add it to the draft as noted just above, or tell me here & I'll give you some advice. It is possible to appeal at WP:Deletion Review, but I have wide experience there, and I must advise you that unless you can show something substantial that was not considered, the decision will almost certainly be upheld.

I notice that your other articles are generally on people who have received the Order of Canada. That does count for notability, and if you write an article on such a person to emphasize their `notable contributions (rather than their family and similar minutia), the article will always be kept. DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to all concerned parties for the expeditious response to my query, not to mention your voluntary and herculean efforts to improve Wikipedia. I am not an expert in law issues, merely a layman in the area, so I have no doubt you have a substantive rationale for your conclusions. I only would note that Ms. Safran is a Queens Counsel (QC) and in Canada, that is akin to being knighted (within the Law profession). Please see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Counsel> Therein, you will discover more info about the Queens Counsel (which soon will change to a Kings Counsel, should Prince Philip or Prince Andrew become the next monarch), and if you check the Canadian QC list, you will note it is genuinely a "Who's Who" of Canadian politicos and legal notables, so it seems that, for Ms. Safran to be included, that is a genuine honor afforded only a select group of Canadian barristers. Please See: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_Queen%27s_Counsel> Anyway, that is pretty much all I can add to this matter, and, so far, Ms. Safran is not available to input any comments of her own. In conclusion, I would urge you reconsider her removal from Wikipedia, and if you feel her listing requires more elaboration, sourcing, and substantiation, then merely allow it to remain in the Wiki cybersphere with the pertinent labels of censure attached (as is the case with so many multi-thousands of Wiki listings that have somehow managed to avoid speedy deletion). Thank you again for your kind attention to my comments, I appreciate your taking your valuable time to contribute to this discussion.

CanadianBiographies1111 (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I see QC is listed as one of the relevant honours in WP:LAWYER. I will reopen the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC) .

Thank you, DGG, because I must make a confidential confession. I was the person who convinced Ms. Safran that she should have a Wiki listing, since I felt she had sufficient notability, especially since she is a QC. In fact, initially, Ms. Safran was most resistant to the idea, since she stated that she didn't know if it is in her best interests to attract more attention in legal circles than she already has. But I told her I would do all the legwork and aggregate all the info, so she finally assented to the idea. Frankly, DGG, I feel very bad for being the person who persuaded Ms. Safran to enter the land of Wiki, only now to be banished from it. You see, in the end, she seemed to be quite proud of her Wiki listing and now, I just hope she will not hate me for its summary removal. DGG, I suppose I should have done more research into the matter, as far as Wiki guidelines, and so maybe I was presumptuous....and now I feel somewhat embarrassed, if not ashamed, by what appear to be significant errors of judgment on my part. I don't know, lately, it seems I never do anything right. CanadianBiographies1111 (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I see from the user contributions this is not the first time that this has happened to you. This can indeed be a problem, for we usually do not delete articles on request of the subject, tho we do delete them on request of the author if nobody else has contributed. I tell people who want to write an article on themselves, be sure you want to run the risk that your work will be publicly judged not to be notable, because the comments at a deletion discussion will remain visible on the web forever. (we can hide them a little when the remarks are really unfair or insulting, but we don't delete them). My advice to you is to write articles on people in very public professions (like politics) and who are certain to be found notable--anyone who was ever in a provincial legislature or mayor of a large city is an unchallengeable subject for an article, and there is always enough published material--though you will find we have incumbents, we do not have most earlier people.

There's also a problem of tone and balance in articles about people: it's important not to exaggerate, nor include material that will make it seem as if they paid for the article. At the same time, negative material cannot be omitted especially if it's about public individuals. See our page WP:BLP for a discussion of all the possible problems that can come up. You would do well at first to write about those who are no longer living; it causes fewer problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, DGG, when I first appeared on WIki (many years ago), my original contributions (under a different ID) consisted of making mostly minor corrections to existing WIKI listings, typically famous people, both dead and living, and that is how I first began to learn how to maneuver around the WIKI universe. I originally focused upon Canadian celebs since, on the one hand, I was fairly knowledgeable, and on the other, they tended to suffer neglect, overlooked by many of the mostly American WIKI editors. As a Canadian, I suppose I've tended to be timid, and frankly, I've used my relative WIKI fluency as a conversation starter, especially with women. But generally it's not gotten me anywhere as I have been inept insofar as taking it to the next level. WIth respect to the lady in question, I pushed her to get the WIKI listing, she was very reluctant at first, then seemed quite content in its final rendition, other than being extremely unhappy that it revealed her age. In fact, in my last communication with her, she urged that I remove her birthdate, but I regretfully informed her that another editor provided that info and I have no control over the matter. Ironically, despite a vast amount of material that exists about her via a Google.ca search, only the WIKI listing revealed her age. As you know, DGG, that can be a major issue for a woman, and she was none too happy about that.

CanadianBiographies1111 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

misplaced sig

I was trying to figure out who added an unsigned comment to your posting on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swiss_UMEF_University. Turns out it was part of your original post, all with the same timestamp. [1] I'm going to move your sig for clarity. If you intended it to look that way please restore it, and my apologies. Meters (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

L:Thanks--yes, pleasealways do fix errors of this sort--and any of my typoss that you might happen to notice, DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

World Café

Hi DGG - there was a discussion on merging the World Café and Knowledge Café articles, which has now been concluded and resulted in the latter being merged into the World Café. I was a bit late to the discussion about this (although I wouldn’t have disagreed with the consensus).

Since then I’ve been taking a crack at editing the article to take out the promotional elements. There are two sections (‘Features’ and ‘Design principles’), which I thought might be coming across as promotional and I wanted to get your take. There’s probably a balance to be struck between explaining how a World Café event works and having it come across like advertising. Do you think these should be removed? (I brought this up with you because you put the news alert on the page). Fbell74 (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know-- I'll take a look tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll keep an eye on the page and come back to you once you've had a chance to look at it Fbell74 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Operation Red Hat speedy deletion nomination removal

Regarding this diff A WP:POVFORK is a justification for speedy deletion. The below talk discussions confirm that the article is a POV fork. My understanding was that if the assertion is to be challenged then an editor must open a talk page section at the article with the justification to keep it.

• User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Operation_Red_Hat
• User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Userspace_copy_of_Red_Hat

• User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment
• User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_again

• User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review

Johnvr4 (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello DGG,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 818 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

request to consider draft of article about John Cabot University

Dear DGG,

I have been trying unsuccessfully for a long time to update the information about John Cabot University, whose current article is just a stub. Perhaps you recall that you had expressed willingness to review the draft some time ago? I would greatly appreciate it if you could find time to take a look at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Cabot_University

I tried making edits directly in order to correct false and misleading information, but the changes were immediately reverted because I am considered a COI editor. I then suggested changes on the Talk page, but they have been ignored. I recently tried resubmitting the article but it was rejected on the grounds that an article exists already. Please help me since I just want to improve the page and don't know what else to do.

Thank you so much. Berenice at John Cabot University (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Montazeri

Am interested in your thoughts on this AfD, and specifically on the issue I have raised. I have no idea how you are going to !vote on this, and am curious. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Lots of naive discussions of citations from others, but the actual analysis speaks for itself. You did of very good job of editing, btw. For someone of his importance I would have done if it needed, but its great to have such competent help. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words but all I did was clear away the most fetid of the promotionalism. The remaining directory entry ( i will not it an "article") is promotional; this person cannot have an actual WP article as there no sources from which to write one. The directory entry exists because someone is trying to promote this guy. So I have just polished a turd. It should not exist in WP per NOTDIRECTORY and PROMO.

I am going to try to raise N standards around WP. I am trying because a bunch of people seem to think we should and more importantly they undercut efforts to make meaningful changes by pointing to things like changing N.

But everybody has pet projects and is willing to fight to the death to protect notability guidelines and essays that allow fake "articles" to exist in WP, that are really directory entries or worse. The journals people do it, the academic people do it, the radio people do it, the music people do it, etc. It will be a waste of time, but I will try. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm willing to go to some trouble to maintain proper standards of notability based upon objective evidence that shows someone is a leader in their field. WP:PROF is one of the very few guidelines we have that follows a rational approach to inclusion policy. I fell so strongly about objective guidelines that I support them even when I think them overly broad (as for sports) or much too narrow (as for politicians).

I can and will argue as I think appropriate & necessary using the GNG in either direction, but it's a totally useless intellectual activity that I think detracts from the encyclopedia . You may possibly have a case about directory entries (though we have about 2 million directory articles), ut I don't see how the article is PROMO. Anyway, looking at it from your direction, even so you're attacking articles that we do have in a field where we do not have anywhere near enough coverage--if you want to attack directory entries--why not do it a field where e have overcoverage. Or do you really think academics unimportant?

Of course we have information to write an article we have what's important about academics: their position and their published work. In each case that's third party information based on the university authorities and the editor of the journals and the citing authors. The decisions of peer reviewers and peer authors in the aggregate are much sounder basis for an article than the uninformed comments of journalists in most current day newspapers.

one of the differences in what I and most others do here, is that I'm willing to fight even for what other people consider important. Tolerating and supporting each other is the basis of a cooperative encyclopedia. There's real promotionalism in WP that's much more dangerous and compromising than even the original version of this article. You're losing perspective. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I know that lots of people have identified various fields in WP that they think are particularly .... bad. Some people focus on where they believe there is lots of "paid editing", some people focus on where there is lots of COI, other people on various forms of POV or bias, systemic and otherwise. I know people think that what I care about is COI/paid editing. They are wrong but I let myself get trapped too often in that box.

My work is primarily about NPOV - ensuring that articles summarize high quality sources.

NPOV is what my entire Userpage is focused on, and has been focused on, for a long time. (it comes down to finding high quality sources and accurately summarizing them)

Lots of people have said we should address the paid editing problem at least in part (and in some quarters, primarily) by raising N standards.

I agree with that. It would solve lots of other problems too.

I don't understand -- at all -- how anybody can support raising N standards, and at the same time support any guideline that allows automatic green-lighting, even when we cannot actually write a WP article about something because there are not multiple independent sources with significant discussion of it. (In other words, it isn't possible to write an NPOV article about it)

I mean it - this completely baffles me and in my view comes down to special pleading. And each Wikiproject points to the special pleading that other Wikiprojects do. Which means we will never succeed in raising N standards for any field in WP.

If, on the other hand, Guy is correct and NOTDIRECTORY has been effectively abandoned, I need to rethink what a "WP article" is and my approach to NPOV.

But as it stands, in my view, the approach to N that allows PROF and JOURNALs and RADIO to create and keep directory entries, is what allows crap articles about business executives to exist.

(and what is promotional about the article about the guy who is subject of the AfD, is its very existence in WP. It was created as part of a promotional campaign, and upon examination it fails GNG and should not exist in WP at all. It is no different than artIcle about some business executive that gets created, gets looked at, and should get deleted.)

So what do people mean when they say "raise N standards"? How is it coherent and consistent? I really don't understand (obviously). Please explain how this makes sense to you. Please. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I should acknowledge that I made a mess of the discussion at PROF. I did that badly. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Btw, i just read your userpage, and see that your thoughts about GNG and N are completely different. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

yes, they are, and I've made no secret about it. Besides what I do on wiki, I've talked about this at many events. This has been my general approach for about 7 years now--the main difference from then is that 7 years ago the problem of using WP to advertise was not as widespread, and I was much more willing to rewrite such articles than I am now. Under current conditions, I'm very much more concerned about fighting promotional editing than about disagreements on the level or criteria of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

But in making arguments in actual cases here I always give an argument based on the conventional rules. I will then sometimes supplement it with additional reasons. I use my own concepts in deciding which articles I'm going to argue about. I will not personally defend an article that clearly meets WP:N and which I do not think appropriate unless I can find some other policy-based reason. DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Gene Callahan (economist)

Could I get your take on notability for this one? Here's the WorldCat for his two books: [2][3] czar 17:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

trivial library holdings; Google Scholar lows fairly low citations. Contrary to what the article says, he is not a member of the faculty at SUNY Purchase, but a "Lecturer in Economics and Computer Science," at St Joseph's College, Brooklyn. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbess

You deleted the page Daniel J Arbess. This was relied on as accurate information, and the content was not, as you suggest, created by the subject of the page. Please consider restoring or explaining. Purposefulcollaboration (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Are you his PR? That was one of the most obvious advertisements I have seen in recent months. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Fashionista: COI/spambot

Greetings, DGG. You've nominated a number of Fashionista's creations for CSD G11. I'm working through deleting some of these, and was considering an advertising-only block for the creator, but wanted a second opinion before I pulled the trigger. What are your thoughts on this? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I've just nominated The World of Anna Sui (2017 book) for deletion. There is marginal evidence for notability, but on balance, it's just a promotional written-for-hire biography. You might like to take a look and see whether you agree. --Slashme (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG, for the balanced and insightful comments at the deletion discussion! --Slashme (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Slashme, I would suggest not blocking until the articles at afd and elsewhere are all deleted. I wouldn't want to deprive the ed. of a chance to reply. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It was not Slashme asking about the block, but thanks anyhow: that's a good point. And perhaps the various deletion processes will make the editor change their ways, though I am not particularly hopeful. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)