Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I recently posted on this page and it seems to have been deleted. I am new to this forum, so please bear with me. I have spent a lot of time researching sources for Global Action Platform, and I would be very interested to know your thoughts. I posted almost 30 or more sources to prove it's notability, including opening statements by the General Secretary of the UN. I don't know what it more notable than that... Thank you for your review!
Labadvocate, still there, at March 23. I apparently removed several weeks worth of material in error. Thanks to your notice, I figured out what went wrong, and I have now restored it. I will reply to you tomorrow. My apologies for the confusion. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
No worries whatsoever. Thank you so much for taking the time to review this!
Labadvocate (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I've looked again at the deleted article again. As I said, it is essentially an advertisement, and that is why it was deleted. (Examples: " the cousin of the famed American businessman and philanthropist ..." ;"the leading university-business alliance" ; "in the heart of the American Health care industry" ; " engages the world’s top experts and leaders" ; "most notably at" ; " to allow global leaders to converge their ideas". All of these are hallmarks of press releases, not of encyclopedic writing. That's why I asked you if you had any connection, because nobody write that way unless they're a PR agent, or copying a press release, or imitating PR style--perhaps under the impression that's what we want in WP). In addition, the sources there, and in the comment above, on March 23, are most of the m press releases or minor notices of particular projects, not discussions of the organization. There is no point in trying to explain here why the organization should be regarded as important. It probably is sufficiently notable to be worth an article, but there are two requirements: The most basic one is NOT PROMOTION. Besides not being promotional, there must be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements/ Do not rely on of local newspapers, or on anything from biz journals and similar press release sources, or campus web sites. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for taking time to review. I see all your points and they makes great sense. When I wrote the first version it definitely was filled with their own language. I got it from their website and other places like that. And do have some "marketing" in my not so distant career background, so it makes sense it read like that. I have never written an encyclopedia article, still learning... I wrote it because Scott is a great guy, and I wanted to honor him. He gave me a great opportunity a few years ago, and I was searching after their new website came out and realized they didn't have a wiki article. I thought since its their 5 year in review, and they are starting to get really serious about action, not just think tanking, I would write one for them. I think there are a few good sources above that fit the requirement, including some from the diplomatic courier. There are also articles about their projects that I could further source, and articles about scott and fareed.
How should I proceed? Should I try again now that I have a better idea what this is all about? I would welcome any help you or anyone someone you know might offer me in getting this wonderful org the credit they deserve in the zeitgeist. They are curing the world in so many beautiful ways. Labadvocate (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It probably wasn't clear from the way I worded my tag, but I had done searches. I was also hoping that the page creator (who seems to be a SPA whose only edits were to that page) would return to offer an independent source or defend their contributions, which I think most page creators should do. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Right. But the most likely way to see if anyone else can find refs is to take it to AfD. I know we pretend otherwise, but in practice, it is sometimes the most effective way to get an article improved to minimum standards. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I commented there on the general issue of trying to manipulate rules to favor a particular instance. fortunately, we need not do this, for we can decide any AfD by IAR if there is sufficient consensus. I commented on your talk p. over the specific question. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I just read my talkpage comment. Thanks so much! (Now I'll go over to Jimbo's.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC) I very much appreciate your very thorough and thoughtful contribution to that discussion, DGG; thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Because the general notability guideline doesn't precisely define "significant coverage", I would appreciate it if you could answer the following two questions about your Delete comment in the Slate Star Codex AfD, to help me in future.
1. Could you describe what was it about the reliable sources that we cited in the article that made their coverage of Slate Star Codex not significant, in your view?
2. Can you give me an idea of what changes (e.g. more reliable sources, more in-depth coverage in a reliable source) would have changed your mind on this AfD - and what is the minimum you would require to change your mind?
My only comment in the AfD was " the entire notability is dependent upon one posting ". (I meant the posting about the epi-pen). Looking more broadly, there are zero references that are not to the blogs own postings, besides a number of mentions. None of those are substantial coverage. I do not see any prospects for an article until much more is available. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I propose Dnyanopasak College of Arts, Commerce, Science, and Technology be merged into Parbhani. I think that the content of this article can easily be explained in the context of Parbhani, and it is of a reasonable size that the merging of this article will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. —usernamekiran[talk] 16:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
that's normally what we do with schools that are not notable, like primary schools. We've always made separate articles for a college. You're I think in the country--is there really nothing in any news source? The Pressident of the college is a MP--perhaps that's a possible lead? DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Nope, no leads. Usually, when a politician gets involved in colleges/school/educational establishments, he uses them as fronts to launder money (converting black money to white), and/or to convert the students into supporters. So press conference for colleges aren't their priority. —usernamekiran[talk] 22:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
In the other direction, most colleges where "President" is an honorary position do appoint notable politicians. Part of their expected role is to promote the college. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi DGG,
My name is Brandon Grill and I was making some progress on an article titled "The Wisconsin Engineer". It seems that it was deleted recently for not being relevant as a student magazine, which is something I'm not sure I understand. The Wisconsin Engineer has been in publication for over 100 years (archive shown here http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/UW/UW-idx?type=browse&scope=UW.WIE) and is professionally printed and published. This is my first article so perhaps I didn't do things right, but it's also an incomplete article. I was confused with your explanation because I pretty much used student paper Wikipedia pages to guide my formatting. Also, this is amateurish but I have no backup of everything I wrote for the entire page, and do not know how to get it back. How can I improve the page and assert its notability? Happy to hear back from you and glad you're helping out as a moderator!
It is not impossible for a student magazine to be notable, it's just that very few are. The rule is WP:GNG, supplemented by WP:JOURNAL which has some specific requirements that can serve as an alternative. The GNG requires references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements--all the references were from the journal itself or the college, and therefore not independent, or were a general article that did not mention the journal in the text (tho it did include a n illustration of its cover as one of the 3 covers used)
The student magazine most likely to be judged notable are literary, humor, and political magazines, or general magazine serving as the major student publication of the university. The only equivalent article I can find is Tech Engineering News from MIT. The sourcing is equally week, but as the magazine of the premier engineering school in the world, it might be possible to find some information.
If you can find some references that meet the standard, by all means try again. In the meantime, consider additing a short paragraph to the article for niversity of Wisconsin–Madison College of Engineering. You can then make a cross reference from the name of the publication. DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi DGG,
Thank you for the reply! I do believe that this publication is notable and will attempt to work on my sourcing to improve the article. Where can I find the contents of what I wrote? I believe on a page "Why was my article deleted?" it says I need to ask the administrator to send me the source for the page as it was before deletion.
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
User:DGG, it has been pointed out to me the New Guidelines (in the section "Motion: ARBPIA" near the bottom of the page). The key part is the sentence underlined in black. Question: Is this to imply that all new edits made since 26 December 2016 in Palestine-Israel articles can be deleted by editors, and they can challenge the editors who put them there in the first place, without the first editors restoring their edits until a new consensus has been reached? If so, you open the door for "abusive editing," that is to say, the new guidelines allow editors to freely delete areas in articles based on their sole judgment and conviction and which edits had earlier been agreed upon by consensus, and that such changes will remain in force until such a time that a new consensus can be reached. As you see, this can be problematic. Second Question: Do the new guidelines also apply to reverts made in articles where a consensus had already been reached before 26 December 2016, or do they only apply to reverts made after 26 December 2016? To avoid future problems arising from this new edict, can I make this one suggestion, namely, that the new guidelines in Palestine-Israel articles be amended to read with this addition: "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense, or where abuses arise over reverts made in an article where a consensus had already been reached before or after the edict of 26 December 2016 took effect, such editors make themselves liable to disciplinary actions, including blocking."Davidbena (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would tell you to make the comment at the proper place for it, Requests/Clarification and Amendment]], but I see you have already done that. There is no way of wording this sort of thing so it can't be gamed. My personal feeling is that the elaborately we try, the less likely we are to succeed. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank-you for your insight, and perhaps you are correct. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi my name is Teague Egan. Someone just notified me that my personal page on Wikipedia was deleted. I went into the deletion log, and found you as the administrator that deleted it on January 17, 2017. I wanted to look into the reason as it has been up for years, and get some clarity as to why my page got deleted so we can fix whatever problems you thought it had. I was not the creator of my page, but found it very useful when people did background searches on me. All of the information on the pages is sourced and referenced from very credible sites such as Inc., LA Times, Bloomberg, Business Insider and more. Please let me know why the PROD occurred, and what we can do to restore the page back online. Thank you very much for your time.
he might be notable, but the article is so entirely self-advertising that it cannot be restored. For example,"a powerful distillation of ideas that will spark meaningful conversations and lead to meaningful change." , & "Philanthropy is immensely important to Egan along with his accomplishments in the business world". & much more like that. It is almost always a very poor idea to write your own WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY at WP. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the response. Almost all of those self-advertising clauses I didn't write on my own, but I can obviously see how they are outside the guidelines. I had made a few additions after a recent Inc. article came out to reflect what had been reported, but not much else. If the article was combed through to take out all of these inappropriate clauses, would you be open to restoring it? It really meant a lot to me being recognized by Wikipedia, and I worked hard on my business accomplishments and social impact philanthropic endeavors to warrant it in the first place.
Request to undelete article for "Zophar's Domain"edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'd like to request an explanation as to why the article for "Zophar's Domain" was deleted. I did not create the wiki page all those years ago (I would have a conflict of interest), but from looking at the comments, it was deleted because it is not "noteworthy".
Whether or not it is a current booming hub of emulation news and files or not is irrelevant - it was incredibly successful during its heyday and hosted many groundbreaking emulators and files. Even today, 20 years later, if you google "emulation news" on google.com, it comes up as the 10th website on the first page.
This needs to be undeleted as it is still a noteworthy emulation site, even if its founder is/was not. Thank you for your consideration.
Not only is Zophar's Domain a 21 year old cherished piece of internet history known by geeks around the world, the website still gets well over a million visitors a year. The emulation scene has become quiet, but does that mean we should erase it from history? Not sure what wikipedia gains by deleting an article about the world's most famous video game emulation website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.3.194.207 (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Looking at the now deleted article, I see it does indicate some possible notability, so speedy deletion may not have been appropriate. However, it does not in my opinion adequately document it, and there seems to be an inconsistency in whether it completely stopped operating in 2006 or has in some part continued. What I have therefore done is to move it to Draft:Zophar's Domain, where you can improve it, in particular by adding references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. (I recognize sources for subjects such as this may sometimes be relatively less formal than in other areas, but add whatever sufficiently substantial sources you can find from a site other than themselves) After you think it has been improved enough,submit it for a review. If you run into difficulties,please get in touch with me again. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
FYI, I deprodded and added many sources to Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation. I think it's notable, based on the sources. The sources (esp. "Concerned Journalists") that talk about he seminar run on the Auschwitz grounds seemed convincing. 96.127.244.160 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
yes, it seems OK. Good job. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi there, Devopam suggested that I ask you for assistance with the Nikki Phoenix articleedit
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there! Devopam (talk) Suggested that I reach out to you for your assistance, he said that you were both generous with your time, and helpful when asked for you help and advice. I ask you for your help, as the Nikki Phoenix article that has been placed up many months ago by other editors and which has passed review as meeting Notability under WP:PORNBIO (which it does in many areas,) has been subsequently vandalized, and then nominated for deletion by the same editor. Numerous editors have come to it's defense, clearly citing Notability across a broad spectrum, and I would ask you to go to the deletion discussion page, read the history, check the links for yourself to see that she in fact over-qualifies in 2 (not just 1) areas for Notability under WP:PORNBIO and please cast a Vote to KEEP the article so that it can continue to be worked on and grow, and so that it will not be come and example of how to Vandalize and the be able to Delete a page that many editors worked hard on. Any help you can lend would be greatly appreciated, and if you also wish to assist in making the article better by citing notability and references that are readily available on the internet and even listed on the discussion page, that would be great too. Thank you in advance for you help and feel free to reach out to me on my talk page if I can ever be of any assistance to you, I am at your disposal.
unfortunately, I am insufficiently knowledgable in this field. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Can you please suggest someone who would be able to assist in fixing and/or protecting the article? Best Art javier (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello!
My name is David Alves (User:Horadrim~usurped), and I'm an Wikipedian in Residence at RIDC NeuroMat (User:Horadrim). I've reach your contact through the == Wikimedian in Residence BoF at Wikimania 2017 ==outreach:WIR|Wikimedian in residence page]] in Outreach. As you may know, Wikimania 2017 is coming! I am here because, as a fellow WiR, I believe this would be a great opportunity for us to share experiences, discuss difficulties and exchange solutions, creating a community among us capable of supporting in other projects that would benefit from residents.
In that sense, I have submitted a proposal of a Birds of a Feather activity to Wikimania that you can check out here. I hope to count with your support in this project and would like to invite you to join us if you participate in Wikimania. In case of any doubts, please feel free to contact me, either in my talk pages or by e-mail at david.alvesoutlook.com.
But there seems to be sort of glitch occurring there. When I saved my edit, there was an unsigned comment regarding some other AfD. It was like part of my own edit. A few minutes ago from now, there came one more comment which is about some other AfD.
These comments are visible only if one looks at the entire page, if you look at the particular section, then the comments aren't there.
I don't understand. Would you please tell me what's going on there? I apologise for the inconvenience, and thanks. —usernamekiran[talk] 15:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's working now, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latur Municipal Transport. You probably used the manual method,which is absurdly complicated. Fortunately, there's a better way to list for deletion or place notices: go to your user preferences, select "gadgets". then check the box in the "Browsing" section for Twinkle. It will then show up in your menu bar at the top, and there are many things that can best be done from there. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello DGG,
you proposed the deletion of this newly added article because there was "no reason to think it was ever notable". Because of your following note I prematurely removed the deletion tag:
"You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page."
Apparently reverting it to the state with that deletion tag didn't prevent the sudden deletion of my article and didn't restore the 7 day deadline. billinghurst, who deleted the article, suggested taking it through the draft: namespace (Wikipedia:Drafts), what I'm currently doing. Regarding the notability I would like you to consider the following references to the subject of this article over the last 13 years:
https://books.google.de/books?id=yXCtAAAAQBAJ, Todd G.Shipley, Art Bowker, Investigating Internet Crimes: An Introduction to Solving Crimes in Cyberspace, page 163, isbn 0124079296
Therefore I would like to ask you if these references provide enough notabilty, in your opinion, to justify an article for HDClone (of course this bare list won't be the missing content of this article)?
Best regards! Jo (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
though your removal of the Prod did stop the deletion by that method, another admin apparently decided there was so little evidence of significance that it should be speedy deleted, a more drastic process. As fat as I can judge, the additional references are sufficient that it could not be deleted without a formal deletion discussion at WP:AFD. However, to show notability there it is necessary to have independent reliable sources with substantial coverage. Some of these reviews are substantial, the question is the extent to which they are recognized major review sites, not mere blogs. I am not certain that any of the English language ones qualify, but this would depend on the views of the people at discussion. Looking at the German reviews, a few are substantial, (the most substantial seems to be the quite negative one at barrierefreie-webloesungen; I am not personally familiar wisth any of the German sites. As for the books, the third one seems only a very brief discussion. I am not sure how the other two will be evaluated. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hello DGG, Thank you very much for your evalution of these sources. (barrierefreie-webloesungen also is just a blog. However, it seems to have a strong and substantial focus on technical matters.) The German Wikipedia article is already a bit further, though also is suffering through the deletion proposal (it started the same way). Soon I will translate and transfer its content to my English draft and try again one more time. Thank you for your time. Best regards! Jo2root (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I saw this mentioned at WP:BLPN for an unrelated matter. Looking at it (even the article title), I have no idea why it exists other than as promotion for LiveJournal. We don't have a List of _____ users for any other item/brand/website that I am aware of, and the article gives zero indication that these people's use of LiveJournal is in any way encyclopedically notable any more than any notable person's use of any product, blog site, micro-blog site, website, or web host is notable per se. I've tagged it for notability, and someone is edit-warring to remove the tag. I actually think it should go to AfD. It doesn't even have any references. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
That "someone" would be me. Removing your tag once and then immediately asking you to discuss the matter on the talk page (which you so far haven't done) is not edit-warring. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Update for DGG: The article has been sent to AfD by a third party, so you can ignore this (unless you want to participate in the AfD). Softlavender (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
for those who don't follow the AfD, I see that in 2008 I actually !voted weak keep for this. But WPs standards have risen, and my standards have risen along with it. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.
We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants.
We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.
We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.
After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 137 West 14th Street
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey DGG,
I was still hoping I could get the source back for 'The Wisconsin Engineer'; I neglected to work offline and have no other record of what I wrote and would like to keep it. I appreciate the help!
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Justlettersandnumbers has removed much of the Joseph Natoli Wikipedia page. Does this seem justifiable to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CA03:4940:49CF:3324:34A3:C4B0 (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
see iff you can find a source for the biographical section. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just letting you know I removed two A7 speedy deletion nominations you placed on StreetDrone and Tommaso Debenedetti. Both articles appeared to have nontrivial coverage in independent reliable sources. StreetDrone seems a fairly clearcut too soon, given that it was founded this month and has one referenced article: I wouldn't challenge a PROD or move to draftspace since I can't find any other coverage. Tommaso Debenedetti might deserve some expansion or, if nothing else, a full AfD. There are at least two reasonably long independent reliable sources referenced in the article; a brief search revealed further sources in Washington Post and some Italian national-coverage news. I'm not familiar enough with BLP1E to know whether that applies to the article. Regards, Appable (talk | contributions) 08:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I seem to have been too hasty last night. I've listed streetdrone for AfD. I am not sure what to do about Debenedetti DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. I was a bit surprised with your tagging here since the article claims the subject to have been invented by Outkast, a notable musical group. Could you explain your reasoning? Regards SoWhy 08:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
you apparently understand the context better than I. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I saw this mentioned at WP:BLPN for an unrelated matter. Looking at it (even the article title), I have no idea why it exists other than as promotion for LiveJournal. We don't have a List of _____ users for any other item/brand/website that I am aware of, and the article gives zero indication that these people's use of LiveJournal is in any way encyclopedically notable any more than any notable person's use of any product, blog site, micro-blog site, website, or web host is notable per se. I've tagged it for notability, and someone is edit-warring to remove the tag. I actually think it should go to AfD. It doesn't even have any references. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
That "someone" would be me. Removing your tag once and then immediately asking you to discuss the matter on the talk page (which you so far haven't done) is not edit-warring. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Update for DGG: The article has been sent to AfD by a third party, so you can ignore this (unless you want to participate in the AfD). Softlavender (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
for those who don't follow the AfD, I see that in 2008 I actually !voted weak keep for this. But WPs standards have risen, and my standards have risen along with it. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Justlettersandnumbers has removed much of the Joseph Natoli Wikipedia page. Does this seem justifiable to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CA03:4940:49CF:3324:34A3:C4B0 (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
see if you can find a source for the biographical section. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just letting you know I removed two A7 speedy deletion nominations you placed on StreetDrone and Tommaso Debenedetti. Both articles appeared to have nontrivial coverage in independent reliable sources. StreetDrone seems a fairly clearcut too soon, given that it was founded this month and has one referenced article: I wouldn't challenge a PROD or move to draftspace since I can't find any other coverage. Tommaso Debenedetti might deserve some expansion or, if nothing else, a full AfD. There are at least two reasonably long independent reliable sources referenced in the article; a brief search revealed further sources in Washington Post and some Italian national-coverage news. I'm not familiar enough with BLP1E to know whether that applies to the article. Regards, Appable (talk | contributions) 08:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I seem to have been too hasty last night. I've listed streetdrone for AfD. I am not sure what to do about Debenedetti DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I just wanted to comment and say I really appreciate your User page. Thanks for writing that up because I have always felt the same way and couldn't say it better myself. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi DGG. I just noticed the page 'Confident Airlines (India) Private Limited' has been deleted recently. Since there was no notification, I wonder and wish to know if it was deleted by mistake or unintentionally! Bilingual2000 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Did you see the COI question raised by User:PaleoNeonate on my talk page under the heading Of Coii? ThhNks. Doug Wellertalk 05:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have now added an answer (and further questions) to that discussion on the other talk page for the whole thread to be there. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 18:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
They are both what we call promotional interviews--interviews that allow the company representative to say whatever they please--and I notice they are both by-lined by the same person. This counts as PR. There is nothing wrong with PR--it is a necessary part of getting a business started. It doesn't show notability . I could restore the articles to Draft space, but the chances of getting and keeping an actual article in WP at this stage are essentially zero. The last thing a new company needs is a judgment in a discussion here -- a judgment that will remain visible on the internet --that your firm is not yet notable. It would be in your interest to wait until there is some really independent material. Incidentally, if you hired someone to write the article, they did not make the necessary declarations according to our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure , and the article could probably be deleted on that basis also. Very few of the firms offering to write WP articles actually do so in accordance with the rules, and wea re engaged in a continuing effort to get rid of them--and of the articles they write. DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi David, thanks for your response to me on this. Question, what does it mean to restore the articles to Draft space? I would like to be able to see the "Talk" that happened before deletion as well as the code for the page if possible
About what you said in regard to notability and independent material, I think I sort of understand what you mean. However in addition to CNBC, we also had coverage from NYTimes, Travel+Leisure, Business Insider and others. Would those sources not count as reliable independent sources?
About notability, is coverage from CNBC not relevant as a criteria? It was not a paid PR attempt on our end, the reporter reached out to us because they felt there was notability/newsworthiness in our story
I noticed another company in the industry also has a Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MunchPak. I bring them up because I'm wondering what is it about their page that allows it to stay up, versus ours, so I can understand what it is about the content of the Treats page that needs to be improved - Aisinempresario — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aisinempresario (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Please see WP:COI- those associated with an organization or its communications staff are perhaps the least appropriate people to judge whether an article from their organization is suitable for an encyclopedia. But you are right that there are many very weak articles in Wikipedia on people or organizations that were accepted in earlier years when standards are lower, and some similar articles still get through our screening. It will take us a long time to remove the all, but we do make an effort to avoid adding to their number. The particular article you mention is already in the process of being deleted.
When I am asked about the acceptability of an article, or references, or specific content, I try to explain as exactly as I can the standards and procedures according to my understanding of the accepted consensus here. Sometimes my own view is slightly different, but it would not be fair to give advice that would not help people in practice. Whether or not I think this firm should have an article is irrelevant. On the basis of what actually is accepted in discussions here, the interviews is not likely to be considered truly third party, because it is almost entirely in the voice of the firm's executive, and the other references will be considered trivial. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed you deleted the article on Sanjeev Jha. The article as it stood may have merited deletion, but it had been gutted and vandalized (review past revisions). He is actually an MLA in Delhi, or at least he was, so surely the article should be restored. Everyking (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
done. Thanks for noticing. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Hate to bug you, but I came across something this morning during NPP that I've never seen before. Could you please take a look at the redirect, Khazaria? An ip editor has added the wikidata tag. While I don't see any harm in it, neither do I see a reason for it. What course of action would you recommend? Thanks. Onel5969TT me 16:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
photo is a family photo and i have permission from radford to use it freely.
thanks so much for any feedback. i could submit next week if it looks ok.
josephJosephgalasso (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
even if you have permission, you need to follow the formal procedures at WP:DCM. The copyright permission must be made by the copyright owner, and it must be for CC-BY, which permits use not just in WP, but use anywhere by anyone for any purpose, even commercial. And we normally list doctoral students only if they are notable themselves. We usually don't mention editorial board membership, only editor-in chief. Otherwise it seems OK. DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Removed the 'POV' and 'peacock' template on Malvika Iyer after researching on the subject matter and the neutrality of the article. Changed the subjective nature of the article. Added new factual details and new citations. Thank you.
Frankly, you've made it worse, adding yet more subjective material: [2]. I think it needs a fairly drastic edit to remove sentimentalism. I may get to it, but perhaps someone else will get there first. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why in the world would you remove the Wikipedia article on the Erdos-Bacon-Sabbath number when the similar article on the Erdos-Bacon number has been acceptable for quite some time? There was ample evidence that this topic has been fairly well covered by the media and includes a number of notable people with low EBS numbers. You didn't even attempt to edit the article, simply deleting it. I think that was a very poor decision.
Ihave no personal opinion on the article. The community made the decision by its comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath number: every comment was for deletion, and no administrator could possibly have closed the debate in any other way. As I said there, "apparent consensus". DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@CambridgeBayWeather: In the essay - "All replies are directed to the point that was made, and not to the editor making that point. It is not appropriate to precede them with @Someone, or name an editor, unless the editor is the topic of that discussion." :) --NeilNtalk to me 01:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Hello,
I've made a move request here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northern_Illinois_Huskies) and would appreciate a neutral administrator to rule. This request is needed because I am challenging the flawed policy that currently has Wikipedia deliberately disseminating erroneous information.
The issue is not complicated at all and outlined on the linked talk page. Basically, the current titles are incorrect because there are explicit and limited ways to correctly refer to the University and its athletic teams and that is not reflected in the current article titles.
As mentioned, this is not a complicated matter but the current flawed policy prevents an appropriate and corrective solution to be reached since common sense is not being employed and rather blind adherence to said flawed policy is.
I would appreciate your assistance with this matter.
I understand that you are busy but I just wanted to inform you that I have informed the talk page above of your impending review and they are trying to circumvent the system and have the discussion closed prior to your review and prior to the seven day minimum.
Please review the matter at your earliest convenience.
Please review the move request at your earliest convenience. Despite my request to leave the discussion open until you've had the opportunity to review and rule on the matter, the discussion was closed. As an administrator, you certainly can still review the request and rule in favor of the move, which would be a correction of the current erroneous article title. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. AnneMorgan88 (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@AnneMorgan88: Speaking as another administrator, no, DGG can't "rule in favor" of the move. Administrators carry out the will of the community, they don't impose their will upon the community. WP:DROPTHESTICK might be worthwhile reading. --NeilNtalk to me 20:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
NeilN I was thinking of doing the same. AnneMorgan88, the rule is COMMONNAME not official name. This is one of the few things we are fairly consistent about. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@DGG: Thank you for the response. I understand the "commonname" ruling but allow me to (re)state this:
It's important to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and is supposed to merely provide information and not DEFINE that information. ACCURACY should always supersede "commonname" especially when that "commonname" is incorrect. An encyclopedia that deliberately disseminates erroneous information ceases being an encyclopedia and morphs into a propaganda machine.
The bottom line is that current Wikipedia entries are INCORRECT and the suggested changes are CORRECT.
The Northern Illinois University athletic teams are the Northern Illinois University Huskies or NIU Huskies and NOT any other variant.
In cases where many terms are official/acceptable and correct than "commonname" has a place. It can be argued that in cases where there isn't a policy explicitly naming acceptable terms that "commonname" has a place since a term has not been excluded/deemed as incorrect, therefore it can be inferred that it can be correct. However, in specific cases, such as this one, where there is an EXPLICIT policy detailing what terms are acceptable and limiting acceptable terms to those explicitly named, then "commonname" has no place because at that point "commonname" is WRONG.
The issue here is that it has always been "NIU Huskies" and NEVER the term currently being used in the article titles. The "commonname" was until relatively recent "NIU Huskies." However some time ago ESPN decided that it would no longer refer to NIU by the proper name and switched to the other term. So that "commonname" is not actually "commonname" rather "commonname" is "whatever-ESPN-says" and that is wrong. This is exacerbated by having other outlets, Wikipedia among them, pick up on ESPN's misguided move, starting a snowball effect.
The move request has everything to do with seeking an EXEMPTION to the "commonname" policy since in this SPECIFIC CASE, the "commonname" policy is rendered futile.
The bottom line is that current Wikipedia entries are INCORRECT and the suggested changes are CORRECT.
The Northern Illinois University athletic teams are the Northern Illinois University Huskies or NIU Huskies and NOT any other variant.
Your assistance/guidance in CORRECTING this ERROR would be greatly appreciated.
Anne--I consider the conclusion not only correct, but inevitable. Regardless of the correct name we follow the common name. The only common exceptions might be if it is serious misleading, or if it duplicates another name. This is not misleading--there is no other team it could be confused with. There are many better things to do at WP than continue this effort. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Wikipedia editing guild
Pardon, can I ask you to archive a bit more of this talk page? My browser is hanging when I try to post here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I keep intending to. thanks for reminding me. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Which browser and OS, Jo-Jo? Given a lengthy talk page here, with Safari on an iPad I have no problems reading or posting here. With Windows 10 and IE 11 attempting to go directly to a section from my watchlist hangs—but going to User talk:DGG works OK. Surely there should be a computer based solution. Fifty years ago (when I started programming) maybe no, but now? — Neonorange (Phil) 20:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
If I may butt in; I'm using Safari on iPhone, and when I first tried to load this page I got an error message saying something like "An error occurred. Attempting to reload page." I've never gotten that message before. This is quite possibly the most popular talk page on Wikipedia. Lizard (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
actually, it's slowing down even for me, with Safari and 16GB memory. It's my own fault, because I ambitiously set up a system of subject archives instead of doing like everyone else. I will make another try this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The Windows 10 64-bit system and the 80 Mbit/sec Internet connection I use is way overkill for editing and browsing. Your talk page, as it is the moment of my sig time stamp, loads in less than a second when I go to User talk:DGG. When I go to a specific section of the page (from my watchlist) the browser busy pointer appears and after five minutes is still busy. I must reload Wikipedia in the browser to continue, as the page cannot be recovered. Computers should allow a person to be as productive as that person wishes, not the reverse. — — Neonorange (Phil) 00:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
the section editing for me works in just the opposite way--much faster. Anyway, expect some improvements here. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Dear DGG, it seems that you have deleted the page I created Anuradha Bhattacharyya, because there is no mention of a newspaper article. Maybe, being too eager, I created her page too early. Maybe, i can create some other pages of many poets in India.
For the time being, I will be on the lookout for newspaper articles on Anuradha Bhattacharyya. Or there are other poets like Gopichand or Lopa Banerjee who are quite well known to me. Thank you for the discussion.
AtulAtul Bhattacharyya (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)AtulReply
There are 3 sources which say that Anuradha Bhattacharyya has received the Chandigarh Sahitya Akademi Award for best Book in 2016 for her novel One Word. I think this makes her notable. Here are the links:
Atul Bhattacharyya, I merely made the nomination. I did not delete the article. Daniel, the administrator who closed the discussion did, and he's the person questions should be addressed to. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
"content that is written like an advertisement" ATM Industry Association (ATMIA)edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
as inappropriate. But it has already been reviewed and agreed by at least five different editors in the last three months or so. At one point, one of the editors proposed it to be deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ATMIA) but it was then decided there was sufficient evidence of independent notability. These editors helped draft the page. So I do not understand what you find offensive or inappropriate. I will appreciate some guidance in order to remove the legend / page issue.
Thank you
Bernardo User:CIM2014
@DGG: Dear DGG I can imagine you are busy but I am told you are super-responsive. My response to your comment has been sitting here for almost a week. Your assistance will be much appreciated.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for all you do to help keep Wikipedia collaborative. It's a thankless task, on the ANI board.auntieruth(talk) 14:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Summary, modified from my comment elsewhere,
The policy on whether we keep an article is not WP:N. The policy is WP:NOT. The guideline WP:N is the explanation for how we decide on one part of that policy, NOT INDISCRIMINATE. An article might meet that, but fail other parts of NOT. If something is effectually promotion, it fails NOTADVOCACY, and that's enough to rule it out as encyclopedia content, because we do not advertise anything, no matter how notable. There's no justification for keeping advertising in Wikipedia any more than there is copyvio. Unless there is a NPOV version to revert to, or unless it is immediately fixed, it should be deleted, whether by speedy G11 or at AfD. It shouldn't be moved to draft or userified in the hope of improvement, as we might for something lacking in sources for notability but where there's a good chance of finding them. We wouldn't do that for copyvio. We wouldn't do that for BLP violations. Using WP for advertising is just as harmful. "fixable" applies in many circumstances, but not for any of these. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The Wikipedia Library
outlook.com.
—usernamekiran[talk] 15:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
