User talk:DGG/Archive 109 Feb. 2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                       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


Karalyn Brown[edit]

I noticed that you deleted Karalyn Brown with the note "sufficient consensus to show that what is demonstrated is not notability". I left 3 comments and nobody answered them. Could you please read my comments and tell me how a consensus has been reached? --Siavash65 (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stavash65, I don't see how I could have closed otherwise, since nobody agreed with you. In general, not as a judgment but to give you the best advice I can on the basis of my experience, being a contributor to a top tier publication has not usually been considered here as notability. Again, in my many years of experience, very few AfD discussion have accepted being not quite notable in several different careers as being a sufficient argument for keeping. But you are indeed right that to show notability in one country is always considered sufficient. You are not prevented from trying again, in Draft space, but my advice is that there is no point in doing so until she has more substantial evidence. A national-level award is ideal, or being the author of a best-selling book from a major publisher with multiple third party reviews. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DGG for clarification. I think it would be a good idea that I build the page in draft. But it seems that only admins are able to view deleted pages. Is there any workaround that I access the contents? --Siavash65 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Moe - notability template[edit]

May I remove the template that says "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline" from Marty Moe, or have I not established notability with the 16 sources? Thank you. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped the speedy deletion, saying that as the head of very important companies there should be good references. There should be better than the ones there now. Remember, anyone who chooses can still nominate it for regular deletion, and the result will be a community discussion at WP:AFD to see what the consensus is. I predict on the basis of experience that it will probably be kept, but it needs to be improved. It is highly advisable to make the article as strong as possible. This is not done by number of references, but quality of them. TRefs like the businessweek profile are not 3rd party references, but can be used for facts, such as where he went to school. Minor mentions, like an article about someone notable who is in a relationship with him, do not contribute to his notability, Minor mentions like the businessinsider reference do not show notability. I wonder a little about the reliability of allthingsdigital, which seems to cover gossip as well as news. You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your response. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

on me…. Padudarrific (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign to Keep It an Encyclopedia, not a Business Directory[edit]

Can you take a look at these two: Stellar (payment network) and Pure Storage? I don't think they warrant being in an encyclopedia. What's the criteria for a company having an article in Wikipedia? It has to be remarkable in some way, right? Chisme (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not exactly. It has to meet the WP:GNG, as explained further at WP:CORPDEPTH, but any individual case is decided at WP:AFD according to the policy-based consensus of the Wikipedians present. The general view is that the GNG is not met by routine announcements and Press releases, but the interpretation of this is often disputed. I personally sometimes take a stricter requirement for this than does the consensus, and the consensus is what decides.
In the two cases you mention, Pure Storage is on the main board of the NYSE and therefore almost certainly willl be considered notable enough for an article; Stellar seems to have gotten a good deal of technical press about its algorithm, and would almost certainly qualify also. Both articles are however quite promotional , and in need of major improvements.
I see you have been trying to fix articles on some similar companies. I consider AppDynamics borderline; Shyp borderline at best though there is some recent material that might make me think otherwise; I listed Stripe (company) for AfD as not notable; Sidecar was never notable, but it did get some press; I'm going to try to merge it. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all that. I don't think Wiki should be naive. There is a certain cache about having your company written up in an encyclopedia, but I don't think Wiki should be used that way. Chisme (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My strategy in raising our standard, is that the key step is to deal with the material which clearly does not meet our current standard,and that will clearly be deleted at AfD. In my experience, AfD rather than policy pages is where the action is, because it's how we interpret the rules that makes the actual difference . Removing that raises our average, and we can also proceed with trying to convince the community to raise it further--that is best done by trying to see with a few AfDs just what the consensus is, and how fast it is changing. In arguing, I try to lead a little; in judging, I stay with the mainstream; in giving advice, I try just to say what the current practice is and try to emphasise that it is not I who makes the decisions. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was at a business meeting in Silicon Valley a couple months ago as part of a freelance PR team. I was the writer. The subject of Wikipedia came up. "Can we get an article for our company?" This kind of thing goes on a lot. Wiki really ought to lay out criteria about when a company or business belongs and when it doesn't. Chisme (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, but Wikipedia goes by consensus, and unfortunately consensus has been to rely primarily on the GNG. I've been trying to convince people of the absurdity and inconsistency of this for 7 years now (my first year here I was naïve enough to believe in it). The way to do it is to argue in that direction at enough AfDs that people accept the idea. Perhaps it will only take a few years more. I'm a librarian--librarians think on that time scale. DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:14, 4 February 2016 review of submission by MrSmooth31[edit]


Hi Dave, I did not mean to re-submit to AFC and apologize. I intended to submit to Onel5969 after making the changes that Onel5969 directed and was currently awaiting further instruction. The article is not intended to be a promotional bio as it is factual and no plagiarism has occurred on the subject, but I greatly appreciated your feedback. The subject does meet GNG and WP:ANYBIO criterion given the independent, reliable sources that are listed in the article to warrant encyclopedia inclusion. Also, the National Association of Electrical Distributors (NAED), a notable trade association for the electrical distribution industry, covered the subject in depth and issued the subject a national award additionally satisfying GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Further, the third notable piece of the subject is the Siena Heights University award. The subject possesses a communications degree from that university, and that university gave him a prestigious award based upon his communications career that was outside academia but in his academic capacity. That specifically satisfies criterion #7 of WP:ACADEMIC evidenced by independent, reliable sources. I will take a hard look at the draft and improve WP:NPOV based on your constructive criticism.MrSmooth31 (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is generally considered here that an alumni award from one's own university shows notability--and this is onlyca junior award to a "Recent Graduate." And I have some doubts that any other of the awards will be considered a top-level national award. To some extent we have difficult judging notability in many applied fields of industry. Please note that the most extensive coverage, the Yahoo Finance article, is from Market Wire, which is a press release service, and is not reliable for notability or anything else besides uncontested plain facts. But the even bigger problem is that you need to remove the material that might appear more suitable for a webpage or press release: pictures of him with dignitaries, removal of adjectives of praise and other puffery,avoiding an extensive list of see also's, which constitute link-spam. When the article is no longer promotional, it will be easier to judge notability.
Anyone may review an AfC, & it is often desirable that more than one person does so. The purpose of reviewing AfCs to to avoid the wasted effort of having articles rejected in mainspace, as this one surely would be in its current state. But even after an article is accepted, anyone who thinks it promotional or non-notable can list it for an AfD discussion, and the decision is made by consensus.
Although your intention may have been to write an encyclopedic article , the nature of this one seem to make it only fair for me to remind you that if you have a business or professional connection, you must declare this, according to our policy on WP:Conflict of Interest, and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am very sorry and I would like to be honest with you. I do not have a business or professional connection to the subject, I am a student and heard him give a speech about energy efficiency at the University of Michigan about a year ago. I don’t actually know him. This is my first time writing a Wikipedia article, and I’m trying not to be a pain for you guys. I thought he would be a really easy subject because he’s been in so many articles and his work is notable in the electrical industry. I am sorry if it came across as promotional. I do not have any relationship to the subject. On my first draft, I basically copy and pasted everything I found in articles because I thought that’s what I was supposed to do, and the main task was to assemble the information in Wikipedia. I found out that that was not the case after I read WP:COPYPASTE, so I re-wrote it. That’s also why I had a million sources and Onel5969 put WP:CITEKILL. I thought I was supposed to list everything he was listed/mentioned in to be verified.

I understand what you mean now after re-reading it and reading WP:NPOV and WP:WBA. There were basically “peacock phrases” everywhere. I just want you to know that while I know my article sucked to begin with, it was in good faith and not intended as spam. The See Also links are in the article because that is what he writes/talks about. I will delete some. Induction lighting technology (i.e. Electrodeless lamp) is a controversial lighting technology that competes with LED lighting technology. Amongst lighting people, it’s a very important topic. That’s why his studies have been published in industry publications and by other universities like the University of California, Davis. Title 24 (in the article) is a California Law that was mandated a little over a year ago, and the subject helped write a how-to guide that was distributed by the University of California, Davis so that commercial buildings could become energy efficient through the use of induction technology and meet the state building codes. I unfortunately don’t have an online source for that guide, but someone else might be able to add it later. That’s also one of the reasons he was given the award from the NAED and SHU. You are right, it was an alumni award, but with all due respect DGG, WP:ACADEMIC doesn’t specify that for #7. It says that for #2 but I did not claim #2 because it was an alumni award.

WP:ACADEMIC says: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Number 2 says: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The alumni award does not satisfy that. Number 7 says: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. • Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. • Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. Books on pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories are generally not covered by this criterion; their authors may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.

Regardless of his communications degree, the subject is a professor at Jackson College, and holds a seat on the Advisory Council for Jackson College which further adds to academic capacity, and his notable impact happens to be outside of academia, ie #7. The only criterion needed to satisfy this is reliable sources, which he has, such as an award from a university. The subject also has widely distributed applied science studies in national publications and studies that have been distributed by other universities such as the University of California, Davis.

I personally have no idea if the award he received from the National Association of Electrical Distributors is notable or not. But what I do know is that he got one from them, too, and I assumed that they must be notable because they happen to have their own Wikipedia page. So I couldn’t possibly understand how an organization is deemed notable, but a national award given by them is not notable, too. Being that the NAED is the governing body of the $72 billion dollar electrical industry, and they gave the subject a national award, and said that he was a "leader" is why it's in the article.

The article has been substantially reworked, reworded, and the promotional links, and commercial links (I didn’t know those shouldn’t be in there either) have been removed. I’ve also deleted all of the photographs except for the profile pic. I have re-read WP:NPOV and WP:WBA and removed content I believe that could have been promotional in nature or even have been promotional in “tone”. I have not removed the Yahoo! Finance articles because they’re relevance to the article is not the subject’s notability, although he authored the articles. However, a different subject’s page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Long_(producer) has an article from Yahoo! Finance included in it that also originated from a press distribution service. On the subject’s talk page, two editors specifically state that that article can be used towards the subject’s notability. I will remove the Yahoo! Finance articles if you would like me to, but the bottom line is that my subject still authored case studies that were featured on Yahoo! Finance and it cannot be used to satisfy one subject’s notability per one group of editors, and not for another subject’s notability, i.e. my subject. Regardless of Yahoo! Finance, it is not my opinion that my subject has met GNG criterion by satisfying WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC with verified independent, reliable sources (at least 3 in depth articles about the subject) and should not be excluded from the encyclopedia. It is a fact.

I will also humbly admit to you that I still have no idea if my article is ready for AFC for not, but I’ll have you both know that I worked very hard on this, and I tried very hard to stay within the integrity of Wikipedia guidelines of WP:NPOV and WP:WBA and GNG. And, I took both of your comments very seriously. And for the record, I do applaud your tireless criticisms, because without it, Wikipedia wouldn’t be what it is today. I look forward to your thoughts. Please see Saved Draft.MrSmooth31 (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Yes, the article is enormously better in terms of NPOV. One of our problems is that promotion and advertising are so prevalent in the world, that the manner of writing they use has become very natural, and it take effort to avoid it. It can therefore be difficult to tell from someone's first article whether whether they are or are not trying to be promotional, so the only thing to do is to make sure all contributors who write material that might be considered promotional are aware of our rules. I therefore try to never accuse anyone of having COI without very good reason, but just suggest the possibility as I did here.
When I give advice I try to say what is likely to happen on the basis of my experience here, not what I think ought to happen. The way WP policies and guidelines work depends not only on what is written, but on how they are interpreted. I've seen many thousands of AfDs using WP:PROF and WP:GNG as a criterion, and in [articular I've probably looked at more than half WP:PROF AfDs nominated in the last 8 years , and I have never seen a "Recent Graduates Award" award ever accepted as sufficient for notability. Nor is it likely that "one of the top 30 electrical industry professionals under the age of 35." would be accepted as a sufficient distinction. In terms of the WP:GNG, I think all the publications reporting his awards would be considered either not independent or press releases.
But --and it may sound a little contradictory--I also advise you not to go entirely by what is accepted in other articles. There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. There are several hundred thousand others that contain individual references that are not really reliable and should be removed, & will be if we ever get to them. The least we can do is not add to the problems.
I hope you continue to work at WP: my advice to you is to start by writing on subjects that are certainly notable, rather than borderline. For example, I think it would be accepted that each successive President of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America is notable. I am also prepared to argue that the chief executive officer of a company with more than $1 billion revenue is notable, though this argument is not always accepted. Note that each case this includes everyone all the way back, though it can be very difficult to find online references for business professionals earlier than about 2000. Print, of course, is fine, but relatively few libraries hold non-current technical or business material. We are also very badly in need of material on technical subjects in most fields of industry, current or historic. For such subjects, current books are usually the best sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for helping me with a clear set of eyes now that we have gotten any pre-assumed bias of COI out of the way. I am grateful we are past that.

DGG, I appreciate your opinion on my subject and I value it, but I disagree with you because not only have you not previously seen something like my subject’s notability pass as notable, you likely never will. Each notable WP:Academic is unique. Criterion #7 for WP:Academic is not a single award of notability like a "Recent Graduate" or NAED award or even 3 measly articles. The other criterions of WP:Academic like #2 are for that and so on. A "person to have made a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" isn't defined as a single event. Debating whether or not one award is more notable than the other is irrelevant to criterion 7 which is what you have focused on. All of my subject’s awards and facts count towards criterion 7 because criterion 7 is a criterion that has been met with totality, or in other words, “substantial”. My subject is a professor and an electrical industry leader. And, in my subject's case, he designed an initiative about lighting adopted by the state of Michigan. He has published at least 13 studies nationally and internationally about lighting applications in 7 different publications, and has also widely distributed work independent of those pieces by other universities such as University of California, Davis about lighting laws and lighting education. Articles about his work and career has appeared in at least 8 different reliable sources referenced in the article. He received an international award for a video that explained lighting technology. He received 2 additional awards from 2 notable institutions about his research and commitment to lighting technology. All of these facts including the subject are about the same thing: lighting science. It is a substantial academic impact and evidenced by independent, reliable sources and I'm not just talking about articles that you think "might" be press releases. I'm talking about his studies that are referenced in the article that include the actual studies of his work. While I understand the interpretation of notability is broad, and not everyone may share your view or mine, we can both agree that every notable impact or notable act could be different. No two criterion #7's will likely be satisfied the same way by either a single thing or a combination of things so it's OK if it comes in a form you haven't seen. It does not mean that the subject is not a notable lighting science academic just because you haven’t seen it in your years at Wikipedia. I have significantly altered my original article for WP:NPOV based on your directions. It is a fair, and honest article about the subject's academic notability and within it is the subject’s unique totality of satisfying criterion 7 as evidenced by a "person to have made a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" with awards, references, studies, news articles and videos, lighting science, education and university publications needed to support that. I believe in the facts of my subject, sir. You're a tough crowd to please DGG but WP:Academic #7 is not borderline, it is undeniable regardless of how it is interpreted or what side of the fence you're on. There is not one thing.... there are simply too many things to negate it. I, too, would love to continue working for WP: but I wrote an article that at a minimum has met notability criterion WP:Academic as honest as the day is long and if it is excluded, then I'm not sure why I would want to continue. I could go on about WP:ANYBIO #2, but I don’t think it’s necessary. Respectfully, are you willing to move my article to mainpspace for other users or may I resubmit my article in its current state?

And PS that article with the Yahoo Finance piece I referenced in my last post wasn't from years ago. Those comments from the editors were posted last week. Just an FYI.MrSmooth31 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not me you have to please. You have to write an article that will pass AfD. I will comment on it there, but others will comment also, and my view is not always adopted by the consensus. The consensus decides, and some other admin who does not participate in the discussion will look at the discussion and decide what the consensus is. All I am doing is providing advice on the basis of my experience about what will or will not get consensus. (ie, some types of things I think ought to get consensus to pass nonetheless usually do not; some types of things I think should not get consensus to pass usually do). The advice I give is based on what I think will happen, not what I want to happen. I assume that's what you want to find out. I do not think this will pass, but of course it might. The rule at AfC is just the same; not whether the reviewer thinks it ought to passAfD, but whether it is likely. I will not approve it because I think it is not likely to. Someone else might think otherwise, and pass it. It is also possible that someone who doesn't think it will might decide it ought to have a chance. It is not me who makes the decision at AfD; it is not me you have to please. There's no point in arguing it here further. If it gets to mainspace I shall list it for a discussion, on the basis that he is not an academic at all, and that it fails the GNG. Th argument will continue there DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naive paid editor with mystery contact[edit]

Please see User talk:Simonefortiarchive. She writes there "Hello - I am an archivist and I am updating Simone Forti's wikipedia page - about 75% of the article was factually incorrect before I started this edit. I informed David Bernard of the Wikipedia Information Team about wanting to start this process of editing on December 19, 2014, and he wrote me back on January 18, 2015, saying to go ahead with this editing."

My question is who is "David Bernard of the Wikipedia Information Team" Maybe somebody at the Help Desk? Probably not since they gave a "real name." Wild guess - this is somebody who runs a paid editing service masquerading as an "official Wikipedian." Somebody with some experience should look into this. I'm not concerned about User:Simonefortiarchive, though I asked her the obvious question - who is he? The user could be a real information source for us. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikipedia Information Team is the name WP:OTRS signs its emails with. Bernard is likely a VRT volunteer who doesn't want his name publicly associated with his username. FourViolas (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know who that person is, a regular Wikipedian. Even those of us who use real names at WP generally prefer not to use them there. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

I'll just note that the article Montoya, New Mexico (different from the draft of the same title) has existed since 2013 and has a photo of the Richardson Store, which is listed on the NRHP. So obviously the draft should be deleted, but not the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG/Arabic-Persian literacy relation[edit]

I boldly moved the above page to your userspace, per consensus at the AFD. The initial move contained a mistake, which I have now cleaned up. Courtesy pings: @Eperoton:, @FreeatlastChitchat:, @Coffee: Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solutions Marketing[edit]

Hi. You created this afd. The three-times creator of the deleted article has created a new one called Solutions Marketing. My guess is that it's much the same thing. Andyjsmith (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sir, 

sreehari is an actor and doctor and hypnoanesthetist, he is a most famous person in india, so many wikipedia readers try to watch his article in wikipedia , many new editors also trying to create an article of him, with my knowledge i can say definety y.srihari , a deleted article is deferent form article *sreehari*,
  • sreehari* PAGE VIEW STATESTICS VERY HIGH 6000 PAGE VIEWRS IN LAST 90 days, please verify the page view statistis of y.srihari. you can catch the point very easily thanking you sir///thanking you sir , i am requeting please recreate the article *sreehari*,

Deleted page Element Lifestyle Retirement Inc.[edit]

@DGG: I saw that you deleted a page I was creating. I made a number of changes while you deleted it so I ended up recreating the page. Please look at it. I hope it is more acceptable this time. ScottH2016 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ScottH2016, I see you did re-create it, and another administrator deleted it also. The editor who listed the page for deletion is also a very experienced WPedian. There were no substantial improvements. I will not restore advertising to Wikipedia. As you appear to be here only to add advertising to Wikipedia despite a warning, your account has been blocked. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Schoeben[edit]

I'm not going to untag it, because I loathe this sort of article as much as you, but there's previous revisions that are at least sort of neutral (example). AFD might be a better route? —Cryptic 20:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic: You are right, I had not noticed that version. I AfD'd on grounds of notability: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Schoeben.

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted page Mangold Dangling[edit]

Sir, I was looking for a reference to Mangold Dangling, a long-standing game akin to human skittles enjoyed within the engineering community of the Royal Navy; I can see that there was an article which you deleted in 2012 as a hoax. The game exists (I can probably find some reference to it, or even pictures if I look hard enough), but do not wish the page to be deleted if I write a new page. Alternatively, is it possible for the old page to be restored (I do not know the process well enough)? Thanks, Jon F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.130.70 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to this tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Seth Ginsberg on January 30 2016[edit]

Hi DCG,

I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia up to standards and would love to consult with you on the 'Seth Ginsberg' page that was speedily SometimesIWriteThings (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)deleted by you on January 30th 2016 for having too much promotional language. I would love your opinion on whether you believe it could be rewritten without promotional language, maybe with some extra scrutiny from another editor (I am a marketer by profession so I may need to work on my neutral writing style but it was never my intend to be anything but neutral on wikipedia), or if you think there is also a lack of notability in this case.[reply]

In brief, Seth Ginsberg is a thought leader in the world of autoimmunity and patient access to care. He co-founded a non-profit organization called CreakyJoints to bring together people with arthritis and bring more awareness to the community. As the co-founder of the umbrella organization GHLF that CJ now falls under, he now works on patient advocacy, community building, patient-powered research, policy and regulatory reform in the field of global health care.

I just think that he did so much for patients with chronic illness that it's worth mentioning.

Here are some of the sources that I think could be helpful:

Please let me know what you think. Thanks so much, your help is really appreciated! SometimesIWriteThings (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

almost none of the references are conceivably usable to show . Nothing he wrote is,the speeches he makes are not , the biosimilars and legal case material is mere mentions. The NY1 article is essentially PR, and probably the Boston Globe is also. because it is published only in their Home/Local edition, because that;s local, not regional coverage. Your explanation about why he is worth covering is irrelevant. Your contributions so far have been two now-deleted articles for people associated with creakyjoints. I remind you of our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seen the updated survey report?[edit]

They no longer mention how many respondents reported each type of harassment. That way they don't have to admit their mistake. Instead they give the average number, which is a useless number, since the large standard deviations show that, for hacking and revenge porn, a small number of respondents (15 to 30) entered values of 70 or more, making up probably more than 90% of the average.

You may also have noticed that Community Engagement had 3 people resigning this week, with one of them (Siko Bouterse) writing:

Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain deeply important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent those values in a volunteer capacity at this time.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/679170 Prevalence 11:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen the update yet--thanks. You are referring to the discussion on meta at m:Research_talk:Harassment_survey_2015, based on which which I expect further revisions. This at least demonstrates that they know its wrong; at this point,even that is something.
Yes, I saw the resignations, and yes, I wondered. The most important job of an executive is the hiring, training, and retention of staff. In my experience it doesn't matter if the CEO is incompetent, if the people one step down are strong enough.
But we should not judge WMF management too harshly, because the fundamental problem cannot be cured: no self-aware person who was truly committed to the goals of our movement would really want to work in a hierarchical organization. The problem can however be diminished by keeping the hierarchy as flat as possible and the formal organization as small as practical. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comparison of online brokerages in Hong Kong[edit]

Can you userfy this plus talk page for me? I don't know what there is but I did find this source [1] maybe AfD would be better. Valoem talk contrib 22:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User:Valoem/Comparison of online brokerages in Hong Kong. The talk p. was empty. Unlike the US page, most of the firms or potential firms do not have WP articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, Duke of the Romans question[edit]

The response is that Peter is notable - but I thought notability is not inherited and the page gives no other reason for Peter to be notable other than members of his family being notable..There are not sources. (I've never heard of him, doesn't mean he isn't notable of course - just that I'm not familiar to know even where to look for him). Can you explain why so I don't do this again? Plz :-) 🍺 Antiqueight chat 01:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs sources, but they exist--a few primary sources, and some commentary, some of it in English, mostly in scattered places. They will mostly be in discussions of medieval Roman history in general, in academic print sources. I can do some of this in a cursory fashion on my next trip to Princeton, but I am not especially eager to, as someone who can read German and Italian more fluently than I could do much better. Unfortunately, our coverage in this entire area is very weak and based primarily on obsolete secondary sources. There are much more sophisticated treatments in the late 20th and the 21st century -- especially by continental European historians. One has to go beyond textbooks for these topics. Fortunately, there is no deadline. As for notability, he was the temporal ruler (in at least a military sense) of the City of Rome, and thus is covered by our general rule on politicians. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AH! that makes sense..I remember not finding him at the time but also not knowing much on how to find him as I hadn't the faintest who he was and the article only said he was someone's son. But I get it. Mostly I was just curious about what I didn't know about him. Thanks :-) 🍺 Antiqueight chat 22:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lightbulb finally went off[edit]

In the beginning, I had a bit of a problem latching on to your concerns over "puffery" in the Gabor B. Racz article, but I think your efforts have finally paid off. To better understand the message you were sending me, I studied some of the articles you created and edited. I learn better with a hands-on approach. The first BLPs I reviewed made the lightbulb go on -Carl Joe Williams, Philip Needleman, H. Boyd Woodruff. By the time I got to Theodore Rappaport the light was much brighter and I saw exactly what you were trying to teach me. It appears as though other editors went in to that article and added all kinds of puffery and peacock words that I know you deplore, so I deleted them, and added citations needed templates as needed. Hopefully you will realize that I really am trying to learn to be the "encyclopedic" editor you envision from what your experiences have taught you. Thank you for helping me see the light. Atsme📞📧 01:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Very glad to have the help. But the process of improving articles is never complete. What you did at Rapport was quite good. But consider the need is for proportion: he's a IEEE Fellow, so he's very notable. But he's not a member of the National Academy of Engineering, or any comparable distinction, so he doesn't count as famous. The article is 2 or 3 times the length it should be, and minor material needs to be removed. And it wasn't "various people" who added the puffery, it was one particular promotional editor, with a lot of further tinkering from an ip. Now contrast Woodruff. He is in the NAS, and has received a further --and very exclusive--distinction. The article should be 4 times as long. It needs a more detailed personal bio, and some details about his work and probably a considerable number of other honors. Ditto with Needleman. Williams is OK in proportion, and has been added to appropriately, but needs a little more detail and clarity;
In my own editing, I usually do by successive rounds (tho sometimes i will remove whole sections), and there is so much to work on that I tend to leave an article to work another as soon as I've done the bare essentials. I don't generally recommend that, & I've been criticized for it, but we each have to figure out how we can be most effective. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I think the article is where it should be now. With collaboration from Derek R Bullamore, who is a citation fixer deluxe, the references/citations are fixed. I'd like to nominate Theodore Rappaport for GA promotion and would very much appreciate a PR from you as the article's creator if you wouldn't mind? Atsme📞📧 15:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further good work from both of you. But some more is needed: 1/ a little more bio: place of birth, high school, undergraduate degree, free photo if available 2/the books should be cited to worldcat, not to book dealers. Alternatively the {{isbn}} format template should be used 3/Strictly speaking each individual award needs a reference. But at least the list needs a link to his CV 5/ Many of the citations are a little defective., Press release sources should be minimized. Probably a single link to his cv would replace many of them. 6/the papers selected for citing merely show he worked in a field. They do not show he did significant work in a field. You can fix this by checking citations and listing them. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG thank you. :-) If it's ok with you, I'm going to copy your list of what still needs to be done over to the article TP with hopes of recruiting some help. I'm currently helping prepare another article for FA promotion, and as soon as I've completed that chore, I will start back on this one. Atsme📞📧 22:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of Nevin, Los Angeles[edit]

I respectfully request that this article be undeleted. It is far too narrow to say that the ThomasGuide and MappingLA are the only means of defining neighborhoods. Also, the nominator of the PROD failed to notify me as article creator of the existence of the PROD. pbp 15:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89/Crestored, as (almost always) for a prod. The key objection was that it was not referred to as a neighborhood except in real estate advertisements and the like. What you need is some newspaper references outside the real estate context. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Michigan State University School of Journalism[edit]

When I tagged this for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, I was rather pessimistic that it would be deleted. The subject itself is obviously notable. I had felt that whatever administrator reviewed this would turn it down based on topic notability alone. That would have been an incorrect conclusion, but it was one that seemed the most obvious. Earwig's copyvio detector found quite a number of copyright violating hits, but across many sources. As such, it's overall % was below 50%, but the number of hits was large. There was no single point source for the copyright violating content. Had an administrator turned down the db-copyvio, it would have taken a considerable amount of time to cleanse the article of all the copyright violations. Even so, it would be uncertain if it was 'clean'. Deleting the article was the most expedient course of action. Nevertheless, I think few administrators would have done so. I applaud you for your actions. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well, I almost didn't; the copyvio is fixable, but I decided not to try because the article is also pervasively promotional,and I gave it as an additional reason. University websites almost always are promotional: it's one of their proper andintended purposes, and material copied from there is often unusuable, even if they do give copyright permission. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Prices[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Prices. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Raymond Allen[edit]

Hi, DGG. This was an AfC fail. Some time ago, you commented on its probable notability. At some point, I started to look at it and I am still working on it. I pushed it to mainspace today. FeatherPluma (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article Melik Barkhudar A.[edit]

Hello,

Thanks for the comments. I have just submitted modified version of the article considering your comments. Unfortunatelly, there is no english version for the first four books. It can be found and I read them in the National Library of Armennia. But the last book (Ghulyan Artak) has english resume of the material. Also, there are other related sources. Some are in english. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairabarkhudaryan (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Defense Labs 1[edit]

Why are you recommending a draft article that is under development for speedy deletion?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Cyber_Defense_Labs>

The entry on microsoft [1] is unambiguously self promotional, it includes content lifted directly for its investor reaction page. Firehouse (Armor) has an article in the main section that is obvious self promotional [2] are you going to delete it for the main encyclopedia?

I'm trying to profile a group of companies that actually defend critical infrastructure, I'm not getting anything out off this. Why recommend for deletion from DRAFT SPACE!!!!!

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor,_Inc.

--DrSchlagger (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darien EMS – Post 53[edit]

Last July you prodded Darien EMS – Post 53. Just notifying you that I restored it following an OTRS request. Huon (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Markpedia1 - Naima Ressier Draft[edit]

Hello DGG thanks for recently reviewing my work and telling me where I have erred. Really appreciate it. I politely wanted to ask if you can help me fix the problems you cited in your last comments. I'm new at this and a little help would really go a long way. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpedia1 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{U| Markpedia1}}, the fundamental problem is that the company will be notable if they actually produce their proposed super-milage automobile,, or even actually produce their engine, but is not very likely to be before they do so. the basic policy at issue is WP:CRYSTAL. As Wiae said at the earlier review, too many of the sources are press releases--which is almost inevitable in a product not yet on the market.
There are also problems that most of the material about anything else is still uncited. Your ref. 12 does not mention the matter discussed in the paragraph it references.

And you can not use Wikipedia as a source for a wikipedia article.

ry to rewrite making the status clearer. Ask me and I'll take a look. ``

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP keeps reverting[edit]

DGG - an unregistered IP keeps adding information about the history of wireless technology and promotional company material to Theodore Rappaport which is supposed to be a BLP. It's not unlike attempts to discuss surgical procedures and devices in a BLP about a doctor. There is no way for me to discuss the situation on the IP's talk page because there isn't one, [2]. Suggestions? BLPs fall under DS and I'm certainly not going to edit war with an IP who is proving to be problematic. Atsme📞📧 04:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did some editing there. And I left a warning. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG - they're back and the added call numbers which I deleted thinking that's personal information not unlike adding somebody's phone number, right? I don't know if I should contact oversight or just advise you so you can redact the numbers. I'm concerned about posting the diff here but I think something needs to be done ASAP. Also, can you semi-protect the page so I can finish editing without worrying about personal information being added again? Thanks in advance. Atsme📞📧 02:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Defense Labs 2[edit]

Why are you recommending a draft article that is under development for speedy deletion? Draft_talk:Cyber_Defense_Labs

The entry on Microsoft is unambiguously self promotional, it includes content lifted directly for its investor reaction page. Firehouse (Armor) has an article in the main section that is obvious self promotional Armor, Inc. are you going to delete it for the main encyclopedia?

I'm trying to profile a group of companies that actually defend critical infrastructure, I'm not getting anything out off this. Why recommend for deletion from DRAFT SPACE!!!!! DrSchlagger (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


North Texas Crime Commission[edit]

How is the North Texas Crime Commission Draft talk:Cyber Defense Labs#Contested deletion</ref> fundamentally different than the page about Infragard? Or when someone disagrees is it standard practice to delete other articles by that author? DrSchlagger (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:North Texas Crime Commission From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Contested deletion[edit source] This page should not be speedily deleted because... (The NTCC is an public safety organization that works to meet the needs of millions and has been noteworthy over its 50 years of operation. It is well sourced and nonprofit in nature. It functions much like Infragard but is considerably older and better established, it also solves more of the day to day crime problems than Infragard. ) --DrSchlagger (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


Some how an organization that serves million and puts criminals behind bars for more than 50 years has to be more notable than 1 person who agitators for smaller class sizes. (Leonie_Haimson)

DrSchlagger (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responses[edit]

  1. First of all, I myself do not delete any articles by myself (except when I see vandalism or obvious copyvio). I either look at articles other people have listed for possible deletion and see if I agree, or at those where there is a discussion and see that the consensus is to delete, or, like now, I list them for possible deletion and let another administrator or the community judge.
  2. I do pay attention to complaints and requests. I removed the speedy tag from your CDL draft as soon as you asked, because I concluded that there was certainly the possibility of an article, and the promotionalism was fixable. I saw that after 18 hours no other admin had confirmed my view and deleted it, so I concluded that I was perhaps too hasty to apply it, and . It's taken me another half day to explain, and I apologize for that. %there are others of your articles that have some serious problems, and I put off dealing with them for the moment, because I do indeed not like to over-concentrate or challenge too many articles from one person at the same time. But the content of the 4 times rejected Draft:GE Oil & Gas is so exactly that of straight advertising that it does attract unfavorable attention--see my comment there.
  3. When I see articles that seem to have problems, I certainly do look for others by the same editor.. Some of them seem fine, and I accepted one or two of your AfCs, even ones other people have previously declined to accept. Others seem to have problems--The key problems with some of the articles as I see it is that some of them read promotionally . By promotionalism, we mean any sort of advocacy, not just commercial promotionalism. It does not matter the intrinsic merit of the subject, or the worthiness of the cause. The arguments about one being crucial infrastructure and the other affecting millions of people are therefore irrelevant. The only indirect connection is that the more important the subject, the easier it usually is to write a non-promotional article. One of the key signs of promotionalism is in fact a discussion of how important the problems are the the organization deals with, as distinct from what it has actually done.
  4. There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. I think the Armor article is one of the ones e might want to remove. But I do not consider the Microsoft article promotional; promotional articles have however been written in the past about various Microsoft products, and they immediately attract attention and have been deleted.
  5. There are several other things in some of your drafts that you might want to fix. Even good fait edits often write promotionally, because of the prevalence of promotionalism in our society. In articles about people, it is a standard technique of PR agents to put the latest accomplishment or position (which is what they are really focusing on) at the top, and the basic bio and education at the bottom. In an encyclopedia , after the short lede paragraph, we deal with the material in chronological order. In articles about organizations, we do not mention other than the key people. The successive presidents of an organization can be important; the members of a board of directors or advisors usually are not, except for the most famous organizations. Promotional writing tends to liberally use adjectives of praise--we omit them entirely except for a very short direct quote from a really reliable source. Promotional writing is wordy; encyclopedia articles are compact. promotional writing often gives details of interest mainly to those in the organization or prospective members; encyclopedia articles are addressed to the outside reader.
  6. I didn't comment on notability --others have done so. Remember that here again the intrinsic importance of the subject is irrelevant. What matters are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. (I personally think that an absurd way of judging, but it's what the consensus of people here wants to do & I have not been able to change it in 8 years now, though I haven't given up trying). But in any case, to the extent an article is referenced to press releases or mere notices, it weakens the article. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North_Texas_Crime_Commission[edit]

Sorry, I ended up deleting it and then userfying it because of the user on IRC. I was tired and didn't think to check their contribs, which seem to slowly be revealing a recurring problem as far as new articles go. Had I checked, I'd have thought twice about restoring it—even moreso after some of the things they said in the conversation that followed :P. I figure I'll just leave it for now, but I'd have no problems with deleting again at this point. --slakr\ talk / 08:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Articles about academics[edit]

I have created numerous such articles lately (most recently Paul Rubin) and I wanted to get some feedback from you as to whether I am doing it well and how I can improve. Everymorning (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I re-edit Rubin in detail, and looked at the others. See Ruin for the sort of things that need to be added. See the others for some details of style that I picked up , without being systematic about it--each thing I did is meant to be illustrative. In general, avoid adjectives, especially in the lede. eg., instead of "Jones is a famous chemist. He is the XYZ professor of chemistry...." it should be " Jones is XYZ professor of chemistry ". Avoid the word "also", especially in succession. Only list the most impt things in the lede.
You are focusssing on people linked to one or another cause. This needs to be said, by describing their work, but you should not describe only the part of the work that is linked to the cause. (On the other hand, for Rubin, I have not yet to find a good way of indicating briefly his political orientation) DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_109_Feb._2016&oldid=1151040736"