add new sections at the bottom, not the top                                        ARCHIVES

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 add comments here; add new sections at the bottom, not the top

Hi DGG, or if I may be so bold, David,
You wrote at WP:AN/I Archive691: <block quote>There is more than one valid way of working here. Some people prefer to create only high quality articles, even though they may do very few of them. Some prefer to create many verifiable articles of clear notability even though they may not be of initially high quality. As this is a communal project, I think every individual person is fully entitled to do whichever they prefer, and the thing to do about people who prefer otherwise than oneself is to let them work their way, while you work yours. The only choice which is not productive is to argue about how to do it, rather than going ahead in the way that one finds suitable.</block quote> Many ^[who?] editors include a statement about their attitudes to editing on their user pages. I am not one of them, that is until I came across what you wrote. I would really like to include this on my user page. While I can add anything at all I like to my user page subject to WP:USER PAGE, I nevertheless ask for your permission to add the quote. OK with you? I'm fine if you decline this.
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where is the "like" button? RobLab (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALKINGSOFASTNOBODYCANHEARYOU. Is my memory that faulty? I can't find it, and it's possible the syntax isn't precise. Did you use this a sort of irony? I seem to remember you used the link to represent bullying behaviors. I'm seeing one such user who seems to be wanting to turn the entire AfD process on its head by using such a technique. BusterD (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have sometimes used pseudo-links like these as a statement for their own sake, without writing an actual essay. I remember saying something like this, but I can't find it. I think this one was TALKINGSOMUCH... -- but I can't find it either. As for the problem, I've commented pretty extensively at AN/I: [1], and will comment at the RfC also, But please don't confuse the reasonable message, with which I am in agreement -- that Deletion Policy is overbalanced towards deletion, and one step towards rebalancing it would be to require some version of WP:BEFORE -- with the unreasonable way it is being over-expressed. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. I was a debater in school before "talking so fast" became the current style. I feel anything which games the system deserves appropriate response in order to keep the system sound. I appreciate your valid concern about deletion procedures being over-weighted toward one outcome. Thanks for your valuable comments in those forums. Be well. BusterD (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I had forgotten that context. And so was I, in college--a very valuable experience, especially in facilitating the sort of intercampus experiences only the athletic teams otherwise gave occasion for. But the stimulus is interesting: if I take a turn at NPP, the amount of junk turns me for a while into a deletionist before I catch myself and stop being so unfriendly to all the newcomers. If I take a look at AfD, the number of unwarranted nominations makes me inclined to give a similarly snappy and unjust response to all of them, with the less than rational thought that if I argue against all of them, maybe there's a chance the good ones will make it. Several good inclusionists have run into trouble here falling into such temptation. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All full professors at major research universities have sufficiently demonstrated that they are recognized experts in their subject to meet WP:PROF,and that WP:PROF is an alternative to WP:GNG. This is not a formal rule, but almost all AfD have had this result, except in fields where people here have doubts about the rigor, such as Education. (Major: in the US, Research Extensive in the Carnegie Classification + schools of similar rank; elsewhere, similar level). The rationale for this is that this is the basis on which people are promoted to such rank at such universities, and their judgment is more reliable than ours.)

For those at lower level institutions, this is not automatic, and the judgment goes by individual cases; the rationale is that in such institutions people are often promoted to this rank based on lesser accomplishments or for other qualities than being a recognized expert in their subject.

For Associate professors, automatic notability is not generally accepted, but is determined case by case. AfD results vary, but imho are usually reasonable. Personally, I think it could be extended to them on similar grounds, but this has not had consensus. ("Associate" = the US rank, and corresponding ranks elsewhere)

For Assistant professors, and corresponding ranks outside the US, it similarly goes case by case, and almost all AfD results have been "not notable". I agree with this.

Additionally, in the humanities most full professors in the highest level universities-- ,-- have written two or more books that have reviews in RSs for notability, and thus meet WP:AUTHOR. In the very highest level universities, this applies to Associate professors also. In other fields, where tenure usually depends on articles, not books, this doesn't work as frequently, but it sometimes does. Similarly, in the fine arts, many people at various academic levels will qualify by WP:CREATIVE.

For that matter, if one argued on the basis of the GNG, we could find for almost anyone who has published one or more important papers that the 2 or more of the papers referencing them contain substantial discussions of their work. This would require examining the actual papers, as the mere fact of being cited does not necessarily or even usually mean there is substantial discussion of the work. If I really tried, I could probably find this for many people even at the post-doctoral level. As this result is contradictory to most people's intuitive feelings on the appropriate contents of an encyclopedia (as distinct from a faculty directory), it shows imo the uselessness of the GNG in this subject. Before the WP:PROF standard became accepted, I did use it when it matched my intuitive view. If we return to GNG-worship, I will go back to using it.

Where the GNG is used here appropriately , is for people at any level whose work happens to strike the fancy of newspaper writers. I don't consider most such people notable as academics, but since the public will read the news accounts and want some objective information, it's reasonable to have the articles here. (I have sometimes objected to isolated news accounts as being based on PR if it seems really counter-intuitive). DGG ( talk ) 17:39, Apr 24. 2012

Which brings me to my pother point. When I was a new admin, I half expected someone would be assigned to follow me around for some time, just to make sure I was understanding the rules correctly. Either that didn't happen, or they were very, very quiet. (I'm even more surprised it isn't SOP at OTRS, but that’s a different issue.) I think we should have a more formal review system for new admins. I know there's the ability to check with someone else, but I'd like to see something more formal.

Having made my point, I'm not sure it belongs on the thread at this time, because my suggestion isn't going to help the problems that are being discussed at the moment, so maybe I'll think some more on it, and formalize a proposal later. Maybe after getting some thoughts from people like you.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct--I was oversimplifying. Sensible new admins do only the ones that are totally obvious while they are starting--it must be very discouraging to have people revert your first admin actions, and I've seen that happen. And it is true that I will make a point of checking speedy nominations others have thought it wise to pass by, and AfDs that people don't seem to want to close; I know some others do just the same, which is how we keep long lags from developing. But I had in mind also a few long term admins who actually do decide almost all equivocal cases as delete. To expand on what you have said , in a direction of my own,

I have occasionally checked a new admin's deletions if I think from the RfA there is likely to be some problems, and I suppose others do similarly. But I do not know if any people systematically reviews the admin logs the way people do new pages--if anyone does, I've noticed no sign of it. The only thing I've seen checked systematically is the very long-standing page protections. It might be a good thing to do. The AfD closes are very visible, the prods have been checked by several people before they get to the top of the list, but speedies and blocks and unblocka and protections and unprotections don't get looked at, unless someone suspects a problem. I have sometimes thought of doing it, but I have always stopped, because, to be frank about it, I don't want to see the errors. I can't pass over a clear error I do see, and I am fully aware that some admins use the tools beyond the proper limits. Some of these are my friends, & I can mention it to them from time to time quietly. But for obvious reasons most of the ones I would disagree with are by people I often disagree with, with whom relations are often not all that friendly. I don't want to spend all my time quarreling and navigating sticky situations; though I may get the errors corrected, it is not likely to improve mutual relations. (I am also aware that I too make both errors and borderline interpretations, & I suppose I even sometimes interpret things the way I would like them to be, & if I have any enemies here, I do not really want to encourage them to audit me with the utmost possible rigidity. I expect I could be able to very well support my interpretations, but as Samuel Johnson put it, nobody however conscious of their innocence wants to every day have to defend themselves on a capital charge before a jury.

When I started here, I wondered how a system with a thousand equally powerful admins who could all revert each other could possibly exist. I soon learnt the subtleties of wheel warring--there were some major arb com cases on it during my first year here which pretty much defined the limits. But more important, I also learned that even the more quarrelsome spirits here understood the virtues of mutual forbearance--and that even the most self-sufficient people do not really want to look publicly foolish. Our balance is I think over-inclined to protecting the guilty if they are popular enough, but it is not as bad as it could be, or as it often is in human societies. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I smiled at your closing comment. I had the same, thought, although for the project as a whole, rather than just the admin function. I'm more recent to the project because, when I first heard about it, a few years before actually joining, I thought about the model and decided it couldn't possibly work. Oddly, I still feel that way, intellectually. If there were no such thing as Wikipedia, and I heard a proposal to create, my instinct is that it will fail miserably. I actually can't quite put my finger on why it hasn't failed.SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a thank you for your response — and unrelated question(s) — here. Another thing that maybe we agree on is the importance of knowing how to do research. I really like Wikipedia's Search Engine usage guidelines and tutorial, and have tried to link to them from Wikipedia:Article titles — because I think it's important to research usage when deciding the best article title, best category title, or the most appropriate term to use — but my attempts to link to this have been repeatedly reverted by people who think they own anything related to the MoS. Likewise, for the same reason, I have been unable to add links from Wikipedia:Article titles to the regional MoS guides. The article on category naming conventions also does not explain how to search existing categories or link to the above article on how to use search engines to research the best category title, either. Maybe you have some advice or ideas on this? LittleBen (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered in my first year here that there were some parts of Wikipedia where despite my interest in the subject, for one or another reason I was unlikely to be very effective. Prominent among these were the MOS and categorization. I am a little concerned with article titles, and in that field, fundamentally I disagree with you -- I think the best article title should be the clearest and fairest, and counting ghits or the equivalent is usually irrelevant. And to the extent I understand categorization debates the problem there is often finding a sufficiently clear wording to encompass the desired set of article. I think the MOS is a little more rational than it was 4 years ago; if I were doing it, I'd limit to to pure matters of style, which does not include choice between article titles, just such matters as whether to use singular or plurals. But in questions like this , your opinion is as valid as mine, and there is no point in arguing the issue here--neither of us is "right". DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main question was aimed at getting your opinion on "Tutoring newbies on how to do online research". You don't seem to have answered this, but maybe this is something that Kudpung is more interested in than you are. My comment on article titles was related to this: there seem to be many people creating new articles without adequately researching if there is an existing article on the subject already. Part of the problem is that Wikipedia Search, by default, only shows if there is an article title that is an exact match to the search term; it does not show if there is a category that matches the search term. If it did, it would be far easier to find related material. It is difficult to work out how to search categories. Terminology (e.g. article titles and category titles) is often inconsistent for this reason. Just one example: There are Web browser engine and List of web browser engines articles, but there are nine Comparison of layout engines (XXX) articles, and the category is Category:Layout engines. I don't understand your reference to counting ghits, and don't understand how my viewpoint disagrees with yours. LittleBen (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I got another response on the Deletion review thread that pointed me to a discussion here that may interest you. LittleBen (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not covering everything. The WP search function is not the problem; if it does not find an article, it suggests searching for the term. Perhaps the page could be revised to suggest that first, rather than as an alternative to making an article. I think there has been some previous debate on whether it should initially search for the term rather than the article. I also have seen it said that by the standards of other search engines, it could use some sophistication. About 1/3 of people come here from Google etc., and though those search engines rank article titles at the top, they also include articles with the term anywhere. But the Google search engine is, deliberately, getting dumber and dumber; it is no longer possible to use the "+" character as an intersection, and Google Scholar has removed the limit to subject field possibility in advanced search.

Many apparently duplicate articles are created deliberately as a POV fork, others in the mistaken belief that WP includes essays on very specific term-paper type topics. Many are simply naive, as when someone submits a two sentence article on something where we have extensive coverage.

I think teaching people to search properly is a part of research, but the main result of its failure is not the duplicate articles, but the unreferenced articles. Way back when Google was new and exciting, we librarians used to impress the students by showing we could use it more effectively than they could. (The secret is partially cleverness and experience in selecting search terms, but mainly just persistence--something like 90% of users stop at the first page of results--I will if necessary scan through even a few thousand. I have found that people learn by experience better than didactic instruction, provided they are alert enough to pay attention to what experience shows them. Certainly we should do a better job teaching beginners, but the way I think works best is to show them one at a time how to do better. A person learns best when one individual person shows them how to fix their errors and misconceptions, and this is not done by templates. Besides Kudpung & myself, very few NPPatrollers or even admins take the trouble and patience. It's too much for a few people--we need everyone who is able to do it. We progress not by discussing how to work, but by working. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we progress not by discussing how to work, but by working. You seem to be better at that (more productive) than I am ;-) But sometimes it's more scalable if we offer others the opportunity of learning how to do the work (not specifically thinking of Tom Sawyer ;-). Thanks and best regards. LittleBen (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[2] As suggested. :) I think our next step is making sure that the code is correct, and then we can start implementing. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was suggested by several people at Wikimania that we quickly make similar changes in level 4 and 4im, and then consider whether to combine levels--that part would need an rfc. The easiest way to go now would probably be to go to three levels, by combining 2/3 , to avoid having to rewrite the level 1 warnings. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just accepted the AfC submission for the Library portal article now in mainspace. Since I noticed in the past that you're a librarian, posting this article here for your perusal, if you have the time or interest in checking it out, improving it, making any corrections, etc. Regards, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for referring this to me. As you realised, this required subject knowledge. It's a valid topic, but even after your cleanup, still needed extensive further editing for conciseness and removal or original research; there were obvious indications of the origin of this as an essay or term paper. I did one round; I will do another later. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking it out, and for the improvements. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. I checked out your user page mini-essays - very interesting. Would you be available to talk about Wikipedia some time? I am writing about the philosophy and sociology of Wikipedia. 109.145.120.77 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

certainly. Please make an account, activate your email from preferences, and email me from the email user link in the toolbox on the right. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I created the account and set up email. I will mail shortly. Hestiaea (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iwill get back to you, probably next week. things are a little busy. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join in a discussion at User talk:Dr. Blofeld#Bibliography of encyclopedias over my plans to develop a comprehensive set of bibliographies of encyclopedias and dictionaries by topic. I hope you see the potential of such a project and understand that while highly ambitious it will be drawn up gradually over time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you said here was very interesting. "I do not think a community editing project where anyone can edit will ever rise above mediocre quality. Our goal should be to not come below it--above is unreachable. The greater the degree of summarization, the more skilled the writing must be. Even among the scholarly societies, many more are capable of specialized writing than of general introductions."

I would agree personally with that. Summarising a comprehensive subject is difficult, as it involves both a comprehensive knowledge of the subject itself (rare), and good communication skills (less rare, but not frequent). But it surprised me you say that because you seem to be one of the main defenders of the Wikipedia 'ideology', i.e. the idea of 'epistemic egalitarianism', the idea that a 17 year old has as much to contribute as a professor etc. Do you see any conflict between the view you expressed above, and your belief or faith in Wikipedia? Interesting Hestiaea (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it by such monumental terms as "faith and belief"; my hope and expectation for Wikipedia is that it will be a good and useful general encyclopedia. Some aspects of it are already very good, and can be excellent: comprehensive scope, up-to-date coverage. Some will be very good, and are quite good already: accuracy, referencing and cross-linking. Some will I hope become good, though they have problems at present: freedom from advertising and bias. Some will never rise above mediocre: the quality of the writing, including their detailed style. Some of all this is characteristic of a large scale community project: comprehensiveness, timeliness, lack or bias, linking. Some are special features of the people gathered here and they way they work: objectivity , accuracy, referencing.

The intention was for WP to be at the level of the average college student. Many 17 year olds are at that level, some considerably younger in fields with no special academic pre-requisites. Certainly the high school and junior high school Wpedians I have known in Wp circles have been working at a mature level. I learned this freedom from agist bias from my parents, who treated their children as rational beings who would learn more if given the opportunity. Here, we give them that chance. Children should be treated as adults as soon as they're ready, when it does not risk their safety. This is a very safe place, compared to others on the web. And it does not affect our own safety, because when there are errors, there are thousands of people to fix them.

As I said elsewhere, there still remains the need for an encyclopedia of higher academic quality. Most high school students would not be able to participate significantly, but neither would most adults. And a great many of those with advanced subject degrees I have known in my career would not have the necessary skill at comprehensive comprehensible writing. Scholars too need to be edited, and complicated works do best with skilled organization. It can be more efficient to have questions settled by editorial ukase. But not always: as you know, I joined WP and Citizendium at the same time, resolved to go with the one that made more progress. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BTW I wasn't aware of your involvement with Citizendium.

I don't altogether agree with your comment about academic quality. I don't think articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would be suitable for WP. What is needed is well-summarised and well-explained articles on difficult or general subjects that would be accessible to anyone of high school age (15-18) and above. The Wikipedia article on Being and the corresponding SEP article [3] are both unreadable but for different reasons. The WP article, as you will appreciate, is a rambling dog's breakfast of uncited original research (plus some glaring factual errors). The SEP article looks pretty accurate to me but just goes off into the clouds ("Anti-Meinongian First-Order View") once it gets going. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is better for a general audience but is incomplete. Hestiaea (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In working upon this topic, I observed that you had a particular interest in list of proverbial phrases. When I get a moment, I plan to make some bold edits there as it seems to have gone quiet. Just letting you know in advance... Warden (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

we perhaps should talk first. The main thing I think it needs is citations. I could put in a few dozen/hundred quickly. then of course it needs articles on all or most of them--that part I do not want to do. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my work on public relations I came across this article Outline of public relations, which seems like a massively extended See also section of the PR article. Should I AfD it as a fork? CorporateM (Talk) 15:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's intended as such, essentially as a table of contents, like Outline of physical science, and many others: see WikiProject Outlines and Portal:Contents/Outlines. They are more systematically arranged than th text format of a general article, which requires reading, not scanning, to find specific topics. They are more article oriented than Portals -- see Portal:Philosophy, but more general than Indexes & Lists such as Index of standards articles or Glossaries, such as Glossary of US mortgage terminology . There's also a combination page type: Portal:Contents/History and events-- click "see in all page types".

It's a good question whether we need all of these systems of organization. We've tried others: a systematic organization based on List of Dewey Decimal classes or Library of Congress Classification or Wikipedia:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus, and yet others have been proposed. I think the overlap more than they ought to, but we'll never get agreement on which to concentrate on. Personally, I very much like the Outline of... structure, and would support it over the others. I believe that's the current tendency, also. Ideally everything would be indexed according to the two library systems also, because they're familiar--not that they're any good--especially LC, which was designed to match the structure of a US university curriculum in the first decade of he 20th century. There is no viable one dimensional way to organize knowledge--the alternative is some sort of Faceted classification, whose construction and use can get really complicated. There's even a totally different approach--to have no classification or indexing of any sort, but rely on free text implemented as we implement the see alsos, and the hyperlinks, as anything anyone thinks related, with no systematic organization. Or the extreme of having everything be a free text search.

Perhaps however you are asking whether every item on that particular outline you mentioned belongs--that's for discussion on its talk page, or whether other things should be added, in which case boldly add them. Or whether the whole outline is biased in some way, in which case, discuss it. Only if it is irretrievably biased or confusing should it be deleted.

Categories are a necessary complement--they are self-populating, but eliminate the possibility of saying anything about the individual items. I use them very heavily for what I do, which is, upon finding a problem article, finding others that are likely to have a similar problem. They should also do very well for finding term paper topics. They will be more effective as subject guides when we implement category intersection in a simply and obvious manner. (And there's the related Series Boxes, those colored boxes at the bottom. I dislike them--they're visually awful, and are used frequently to express or dispute a POV. But they do serve nicely to indicate missing articles.

Quick question, long answer. See chapter 17 of Wikipedia the missing manual for a longer one, oriented towards categories. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

DGG, I and I expect others would appreciate your continued attention at the talk around user:JohnMarkOckerbloom's Template:Library resources box. There is a deletion discussion about this at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_30#Template:Library_resources_box. There was an article about this template in The Signpost in March, and some external press in other places.

This seems like a big issue which could set a precedent for how the Wikipedia community interacts with libraries. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've mentioned wikidata many time, I thought you'd be interested in this: Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today. We could use it as a band-aid while waiting for wikidata to spin up. Also w.r.t your votes - I think that whether we use the proposal i made above, or wikidata, simplifying the categories *beforehand* will actually make things easier. None of the categories i've proposed deleting could not be recreated through an intersect - but for now they serve to ghettoize and are against the guidance for ethnic cats.

Anyway, regardless of what you decide on the CFD votes, I'd really appreciate your input and help on the cat intersect proposal. cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have almost always supported ethnic subcategories. People look for articles in these fields, often to find subjects for school papers. I in general agree with maintaining the categories in the meanwhile, but I'm not sure its worth arguing about them for the present, considering the degree of opposition. As I said there is that intersection will remove the entire need for the discussions.What we need most to keep are the categories from which the intersections will be constructed. (Defining and organizing the root data is a harder problem--I find some of the current Wikidata proposals a little too casual. Adding data fields as one thinks of them is not as good as a systematic ontology.) DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you (and other admins) often tag pages for speedy deletion, even though you can delete them yourselves. Is this out of personal preference for wanting review by another admin or is there some guideline or unspoken rule that calls for review by at least two different people? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us think it better that two people see the article. I am capable of mistakes, and I know I occasionally make them, because people are not at all reluctant to tell me--sometimes I will have missed something, or not understood, or just gone too quickly. Even for the utterly obvious, there's the possibility of carelessness or sleepiness, or just frustration at having been seeing so many totally unsatisfactory articles. I doubt anything requiring human judgment can be done at less than 1% error. I've deleted over 12,000 articles over the 7 years I've been doing this. and that would have been 120 wrong deletions, and potentially 120 good editors lost to WP. But with someone else checking, that makes it only 1 or 2 in the whole time.

In fact, I've argued that this should be absolutely required, but there are cases where one must act immediately, and it's been difficult to specify exactly the exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, thanks. I agree with you. I was just curious. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I appreciate that there are times when you must act immediately, such as WP:ATTACK and WP:OUTING and possibly other situations. Do the admins have a tool that makes it easy for admins to "delete (or WP:REVDELETE) now, and list the page for review by another administrator ASAP" and if they do, to most admins who make "unilateral deletions" use this tool? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) There is no rule that admins can't delete anything on sight, but tagging and leaving for a second admin to delete is a good, unwritten practice that most seem to observe. Most of us will of course delete blatant COPYVIO, attack, and vandal pages immediately and some other cases of obvious nonsense. However, admins don't actually make many mistakes with their deletions, so 'delete and review later' by another admin would be redundant. I've deleted around 3,000 pages and only restored 20, and those were userfications. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I define 1% as "many" if one thinks of the cumulative effect over the years. If everyone who had a reasonable case stayed and complained, yes it would work, but most don't. There's also the definition of "error"-- does it mean an article that would pass AfD, or an article that with enough work might possibly pass AfD, an article to which the speedy criteria did not apply, but would end up deleted anyway The 1% is for the first two classes; for the third, it's more like 5%. In any case the error rate will depend on the type of speedys. I tend to look at the ones that have been passed over for a few hours. I only really know about my own errors, and of course my rate may be unusually high because I may be unusually incompetent. Some years ago I did intend to audit speedies--the reactions I received from admins involved in the ones I challenged persuaded me it was not the route to effectiveness here, and tolerating injustice in this was the way to be more useful overall. (There was 1, & only 1, admin who did change their practice in response to my comments.) I think I will decide the same about the G13 AfCs. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading through your current projects listed on your Userpage, and I was curious about 7-3; how would you first define what an "established editor" is? Autoconfirmed? 50 edits? Consensus? Anyhow, I liked 7-1 and 7-2 (and 7-3, just curious about the details). Please let me know when you put this in front of the community at large or if you'd like any help! Happy editing! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really should revise these. The problems at WP change over time, and so do my interests. I am a little less concerned about articles directly, and more about how we deal with editors, I no longer object to using A7 for organizations, and I'm less concerned about the misuse of speedy in general. Since I wrote that 5 years ago, there has been a greater degree of consistency in speedy deletions generally, and in fact with deletion process generally. But more important, as WP becomes important, we are under increasing attack from people and companies who wish to use us for promotion, to the extent that very strong measure are indicated. Many of the A7 company & organization deletions also qualify as G11, and often as G12, copyvio. Their authors have no interest in contributing to an encyclopedia, but want publicity for their enterprises, and a greater percentage of them are paid editors. I have come to think at AfD that for borderline notability, we should also consider the promotional nature of the article--the combination of borderline notability and considerable promotion is reason to delete--but since that's a matter of judgement, it's a question for AfD, not speedy.

I am still willing to restore articles if anyone intends to work on them, and I'm always surprised at the few admins who aren't, I'd now say, not "established editor" but "editor in good faith", & when there's actually a chance of improving the article. In practice it's usually clear enough--and a good faith editorcan even include the rare paid editor who wants to learn and conform to our standards. The problem is a more practical one, of people finding out about the deleted articles. But this is related to what I see as the main current problem:

in the advice we give new editors. too many people rely on the templates, either in New Page patrol or AfC. In any case where there's a reasonable effort , it is really necessary to explain specifically either what is needed, or why it's likely to be hopeless--and by specifically I mean showing that one has actually read and taken into account the particular article. I don't always do this myself--there are simply too many articles to deal with them all carefully--but I try to do it if there's a likely prospect of improvement, in either the article or the editor. But most patrollers and reviewers patrol or review using insufficient care or the wrong criteria.

I'm currently not that much specifically trying to save individual articles, or even to teach individual new editors--I'm trying to use my experience to help the people who work with new editors do it properly. At this point it's not a question of changing our rules, but the way we apply them, and changing the practices and expectations of the people who apply them. I tend to do this as Idid 5 years ago with speedies--I can't check every article submission, but when I see inadequate advice, I can follow up with that particular person. ` DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone watching, there are some internal signs of promotional-style biographies for businessmen that are almost always copyvio as well (besides the obvious giveaway of a statement of how important the company is, and especially a statement of how important their duties were in previous positions in the firm.)

Headings that use <big> instead of our formatting

Placing the education at the end, with a final sentence of about spouse and children.

Not giving the positions in chronological order, and often not including earlier positions except the one just before coming to the firm.

The corresponding signs for academics are slightly different, depending on whether they're done by a central office or by the individual. For senior administrators they characteristically include multiple junior executive positions and in-university awards. For any faculty, if the individual wrote it, it will often includes full details of all publications however minor; if the central office, it will omit most exact titles, especially for journal articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, a while back I asked you for your position on local interest topics. I think you may have forgotten about it. Could you see if you can find the time to give it another swing? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As before, the problem is maintaining them free from promotionalism. The more local the organization, the more likely it is that any available sources will be essentially press releases. for example, I've got this problem in my own neighborhood, Boerum Hill: there are a number of interesting creative projects of various genres, as well as some fascinating stores, all with good coverage in the fairly respectable local paper, but that paper will essentially write an article on anything in the general area, and will say more or less what the proprietors tell it. (The paper's political coverage I do trust, and i could use it to justify articles on every city councilman and community board member in the Brooklyn, not to mention the losing candidates, but I don't want to push it against the consensus they aren't notable ) So Iwait until the NYTimes or at least New York covers something in a substantial way--New York may be a bit of a tabloid sometimes, but it isn't a PR outlet. I love local journalism. I even read it when I don't know the area--it shows the way people live, in all their variety. If we could maintain the articles, I might want to do it.

The best hope for this is a local wiki. The attempts at a local wiki in NYC haven't really taken off--there are insufficient people in any one neighborhood who understand, and the ones that exist tend to be dominated by the real estate agents and local attorneys. Or possibly something built around Open Street Maps--that sort of a geographical interface makes sense. Or a combined wiki, Wikipedia Two, still maintaining NPOV and sourcing, but not requiring notability and not all that strict on promotionalism.

actually, I'd like a three way split, WP, the general encyclopedia; WP 2 for local content, and WP+, for academically reviewed material. Citizendium offered promise for that third part, but it 's manner or working drove off too many of the good people. I in fact joined it as one of the original group of expert editors, but I didn't get along with Larry, and if you didn't support him, there was no place for you there. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses. Reading what you say, and thinking about my own experiences, the problem here is that local newspapers are reliable on some subjects, but aren't necessarily reliable on all subjects. Because of that, we have no objective measure on how useful inclusion in a local newspaper is as a measure for inclusion in Wikipedia, and some organisations and individuals will take advantage off that to inject their self-promotion in to Wikipedia, so you prefer to rely on other sources that make it easier to draw a clear line. Is that roughly it, or am I just filling in my own perspective? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to rely on other methods than using the GNG to make it possible to draw a clear line. Decisions under the GNG come down to the details of what counts as reliable especially with respect to the key words "substantial" and "independent." Depending on what one wants to include or exclude, questions of what is a RS for notability purposes can often be rationally argued either way. But I've learned to work with the GNG, since it is unfortunately still the rule and likely to remain so.

And our key problem now is dealing with promotionalism. It's hard enough to deal with it in articles on major organizations--our standards for what we've accepted before were incredibly lax, and probably 90% of the articles on commercial and non-commercial organizations need to be rewritten. I'm reluctant to start including any thing that would add to the problem. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit description here, it's much nicer and more informative than the usual form message that gets left. --TKK ^{bark !} 00:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day DGG,

Thanks for your comment We normally accept inclusion in anthologies as notability [4], which as well as being a welcome contribution to that particular discussion interests me more generally.

I agree we should, but is this documented anywhere? I can't find any explicit mention in guidelines or policies or help pages, but perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong places.

Or, are there other notability discussions where inclusion in anthologies has been cited as evidence? I don't lurk on AfD currently (I used to but WP:RM seemed to have a greater need) so I'd have missed them.

Any help appreciated. I'm vaguely thinking of proposing some sort of tweak to notability guidelines to better cover hymnists, and don't want to be reinventing the wheel and/or generating useless instruction creep. Andrewa (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we've routinely used this for poets and writers of short stories, and for short stories themselves-- see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mouse (short story), where it was used in a negative sense, deleted for not being in anthologies. I don't know we've used it in this context before. There was an explicit guideline once somewhere; I typically have the sort of memory that always remembers if I've seen something, but not necessarily where or when. Actually, I consider this an exceedingly broad criterion, but so is NBOOK, and in consequence NAUTHOR. . DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now come to interpret this as not in standard anthologies, which is much less broad - DGG

Dear Sir. Long time no greetings! Thanks in advance for your view on this [5]Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we have always accepted an entry in Gale's Contemporary Literary Criticism & their similar series as notability , even if they call a figure minor. The article is in need of some cutting, which I will do tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I guess I'm missing something, because he's not coming up on Gale, and mentions in NYT, etc. are not substantial. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will double check that, probably tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, thank ye in advance.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David This artist’s entry needs to be rewritten, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Jodoin, but as it has the notability flag, does someone other than myself need to review it? The artist is very well-known in critical art circles and in art school set, but not in the commercial sense. Her work illustrated the 2009-10 season brochure and eighteen posters for the Théâtre français at the National Arts Centre (NAC) in Ottawa where it was also exhibited. It won the award for documents at the APPLIED ARTS Design & Advertising Awards Annual 2009 (Toronto). She has had solo exhibits at these public galleries: Richmond Public Art Gallery, British Columbia, Musée d’art de Joliette, Québec, Ottawa School of Art, Ontario, National Center, for the Arts, Ottawa, Ontario, Maison des Arts de Laval, Laval, Québec, Connexion Gallery, organized by University of New Brunswick Art Centre, Fredericton, New-Brunswick,McClure Gallery, Visual Arts Centre, Montréal, travelled to Nanaimo Art Gallery, Nanaimo, B.C, and solo exhibits in Montreal and Calgary and group shows in Praque and New York with commercial galleries. She also has been a guest lecturer at art schools in Montreal as well as:Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, Fontbonne University, St-??Louis, Missouri, Minneapolis College of Art & Design, Minnesota, North Park University, Chicago, University of Calgary, Alberta, Plattsburgh State University, Plattsburgh. There are also biographies of her on university sites and she mentioned in the entertainment section of several newspapers http://www.richmondreview.com/entertainment/159955635.html . There are also about ten favourable critical reviews from Canada's top art journalists. There is no hurry for a reply if you are on vacation. Thanks HeatherBlack (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to rewrite it, there is no reason why you should not do so: anyone may and should improve an article, if they do it properly. If you do so, and think you clearly meet the objections posed by a tag, you can remove it. If you remove an otability tag and someone wants to challenge it, the best way for them to do so is at AfD . The best information, as always, is not just exhibitions, but artwork in the permanent collection of major museums. If this cannot be shown, major reviews are desirable. A long list of appearances in group exhibitions in my opinion adds little: I would limit it to the few most important. I'm not sure being a guest lecturer means anything unless it is a full term appointment, not an occasional lecture. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, I think I have a better idea now. So if I look at the "notability for artists" criteria "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.", there is in fact the following hierarchy with the possibility of 4 or 5 being challenged as "open to interpretation":

• 1. critical attention and museum collections with a list of "notable works" at each institution
• 2. critical attention and government distinction/awards, art at expo pavillion or Governor General's Award or the Order of Canada
• 3. critical attention and peer recognition ie elected member of the Royal Canadian Academy of Art (RCA)
• 4. critical attention outside region, regional museums, plus newspaper bios, interviews
• 5. critical attention outside region, regional museums, plus minor awards

Is this a reasonable assessment? I'm finding that these take me a fair bit of time to do, so I appreciate your input. Thanks HeatherBlack (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're trying to be rational. But the only practical definition of notability is what the consensus at a particular time considers important enough for an article in WP: it's an entirely empirical standard: whatever succeeds. Most of the rules are ambiguous & ill-defined, & we are in any case under no obligation to follow them. People at WP are not good at making fine distinctions or balancing multiple factors. Considering the various degrees or rationality and knowledgeability of people who engage in discussions, simple rules of thumb are better. It doesn't help to pass a formal standard if the net effect is not convincing. The goal is for a subject to be what I call "undoubtedly notable ", notable to the degree that no reasonable person who understands the field will challenge, or even better, obviously notable, that any one challenging it will not be taken seriously by anyone.

Having multiple works in major museums is in practice sufficient. Having these works get independent critical commentary is even better. For the sort of work that doesn't typically get into museums (such as street art or architecture), awards and commentary and official recognition are the equivalent.

The practical difficulties for the sort of articles you've been writing are 1/whether the museum is in fact a major collection, rather than the sort of civic collection which is not particularly discriminating with local artists 2/ whether the critical discussion is in fact substantial and independent. A museum's description of its own collection is not independent, unless the level of scholarship is universally recognized. Almost no commercial gallery's description of anything is reliable. Too many articles here depend on such descriptions, & it would be very easy to challenge them. (The classic example is the degree to which the association with Duveen might cast doubt on Berenson's objectivity). 3/ (which I think you recognize)--no provincial or municipal level award is meaningful. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! I'll go back and improve the ones that I've already written. Thanks again HeatherBlack (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi david, I hope this is an appropriate space to ask about how to improve an AfD(if not please let me know !), and also to clarify your viewpoint on what is surely a subjective criteria. in regards to a comment that you made about inclusion in a museum collection being a reasonable criteria for notability. the guidelines here dont make a distinction as to the merit of a particular museum or gallery. suffice to say that i mostly agree with your assessment of the particular institution in question,you fail to back your claim with a reasonable argument. please advise so i can best respond thank you! Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, You've nominated several of my articles for deletion or speedy deletion. I'm always careful to write neutrally and cite everything that I write. Obviously, I think the topics that I choose are notable, but you disagree with me on some points. I find the notability guidelines to be somewhat vague, so if a topic has enough information written about it in newspapers, magazines, or similar media to create a short article, then I go ahead and create one. Is there some other measure or guideline that you're using to determine notability? Are there a certain number of sources that you look for, or does a magazine need a certain amount of circulation? Guidance is appreciated. Thanks, HtownCat (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I rather expected to hear from you, and I've delayed nominating further articles until I could see your response. There are two separate but linked problems in articles about organizations, their leaders, and their products: notability and promotionalism:

The basic problem of promotionalism is that WP is addressed to the potential readers, giving them the information they might want to know upon seeing mention of a subject (for example, at the most basic, where is that company and what does the company do?, or which organization is that & what do they advocate? ). A promotional article is addressed to a prospective user or purchaser or supporter: This is what we do, and here is why it is valuable that you buy our products or support our endeavors. Encyclopedia articles are characterised by plain description, promotional ones by praise, or the sort of detail one would need only if one is considering a purchase. Promotional articles are intended to give a favorable image of the company, such as describing its ostensible social purposes or community contributions.

the basic problem of notability is deciding whether something is worth describing in an encyclopedia at all. It doesn't correspond to importance in the world, but to whether it should be included in WP--we can;t after all judge the world, but we must decide what we want to put in our encyclopedia. . In a few cases we go by a general decision--for example, the decision that all named populated places are appropriate for articles. In some others, we go by outside evaluation: for example, that a holder of a distinguished professorship at a major university is notable, or someone chosen to compete in the Olympics. In many cases, there are no such firm standards, and we go by the WP:GNG, the general notability guideline, which requires substantial coverage by multiple independent third party reliable sources. (some people say this is the only real standard, and everything else is just an assumption of what will meet it). the key words there are "substantial" , "independent" , and "reliable." A substantial source is more than a product listing, or a mention of an event taking place, but a significant discussion, such as a full product review. How substantial it must be is of course a matter of judgment, which is decided by consensus at WP:AFD. An independent source is one not derived from the subject--not the subject's web page of product literature, or what its principals write, or the press releases the put out. A reliable source is one using editorial judgment, rather than simply publishing press releases or gossip. Again, these terms are matters of judgement to be decided at consensus.

In all but extreme cases. nobody can predict accurately how consensus will go--I will nominate an article for deletion if I think there is a substantial probability that it will not be considered suitable, --but even after 7 dears of experience at it , sometimes I am wrong, either because I made a misjudgment or because the community wishes to interpret things differently. The community decides, and another administrator judges what the community has decided. Guidelines are necessarily subject to interpretation, and what really matters is how the community decides to interpret them--after all, we make our own rules collectively, and we can decide how we want to use them , and if we want to make exceptions. The best way of learning this is to observe afd discussions on similar topics, to see what arguments succeed, and what the practical standards are.

Some things are deleted immediately, by the concurrence of two administrators, rather than an AfD. One relevant example is blatant promotionalism, which is an article so much devoted to advertising or promoting something that there appears no way to fix it without rewriting. (As an admin, I have the technical ability to do it without concurrence, but I rarely use it unless there is some immediate hazard, such as libel or copyvio) . We also immediately remove articles on people or companies where it seems obvious on the face of it there is no possible indication of any importance or significance, --a much less demanding standard than actual notability,. Again, normally two admins will concur in this. If such deletions are seriously disputed in good faith, most admins will reverse the decision and send the article to AfD for a community opinion.

I said there was a connection between the two: A key reason we have a notability standard is that for most things that are not notable, there is nothing much to say except directory information or promotion. It is critical to WP that it not become a mere directory or a place for advertisement--we want to provide information that people can trust, so we require sources and objectivity and some degree of significance. There are many other places on the web for advertising, and google does very nicely as a web directory.

There are additionally some factors that can affect how people here view an article. We tend to regard an attempt to write simultaneous articles about a borderline notable company, its products, and its executives likely to be an attempt at promotion--it is much better to have one strong article. Also , it is considered possible that someone writing articles about a wide range of barely notable subjects may be doing so as a paid editor. We do not absolutely prohibit this (though many people here would like to do so), but we strongly discourage it, because it is extremely difficult to be objective about what one writes with such a strong conflict of interest. If by any chance you are such an editor, I can explain to you how best to deal with it so as to get the articles accepted--I am one of the relatively few admins here who are willing to assist paid editors who come here openly in good faith and are willing to learn our standards. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your detailed response. If I am not completely sure whether a subject is notable, should I submit it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation?

I really thought I was careful about keeping promotionalism out of my articles. I would like to improve them, if given the chance. Is there a way that I can edit the deleted articles and then submit them for approval to be posted? I've read something about restoring articles to a userspace, but I'm not sure what the procedure is for that. I absolutely do want to contribute quality articles and nothing that other editors might view as promotional. Thanks for your help. HtownCat (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look next week. You should first check if there are good references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, because otherwise a rewrite is useless. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG! Thank you for your note at my talk page, I appreciate the feedback. I will look at those articles you listed this weekend and do some cleanup on them. I'll also try to be more mindful of promotionalism in the future. I'm curious about your technique of judging notability by library holdings, as in the Jedediah Bila AfD - it seems useful especially for pre-internet authors. Do you use Worldcat to find that information? How many libraries do you think are necessary for notability? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use WorldCat most of the time. But WorldCat requires interpretation for 5 factors: First, it covers mainly US and Canadian libraries, with a lesser coverage for the UK and Australia and New Zealand, a very scanty coverage of Western Europe, and little else, so it requires careful interpretation when used elsewhere. Second, it covers almost entirely English language books, for in the US only the largest academic libraries buy anything else. Third, it covers current holdings, so what libraries had 50 years ago is not represented, so for older books of shorter spans of interest such as popular fiction it requires correction also. Fourth, how many titles count for a book to be likely notable depends on the type of book-- mainstream novels and important nonfiction are much more represented than esoteric subjects. I go by the experience of having looked for many books of all sorts, and one can do the equivalent by comparison with books known to be notable. (I have sometimes used comparisons to say that a work is or is not a major work in a field) As a fifth factor: editions must be combined to get a true picture, and the way libraries report holdings this is not always easy. As a result I usually report holdings as approximate figures. For major current works in popular interest academic subjects like economics, a notable book would have at least several hundred. For experimental fiction that fits no standard genre, only a few dozen libraries might buy it, but it can be just as important. For fan-oriented books on games, libraries usually buy very little, because they get outdated very quickly. For some of the kinkier sexual topics, libraries don't buy at all. A scattering of small libraries often indicates author gift copies.

The official WP standard is book reviews. But library holding correlate nicely with book reviews, because libraries buy largely on the basis of such reviews, especially for public libraries.

Outside the US, holdings can be gotten from the catalogs listed at WP:Booksources But none have nearly the depth of coverage in their own countries that WorldCat does in the US. -- but there is the very powerful consolidated search facility of Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog at [6]. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the increase in GLAM projects internationally, I'd like to start a new WikiProject, WP:Exhibitions to help coordinate activities around major museum and gallery exhibitions. If you are interested in the project, please contact me here or on my talk page. I'm hoping to establish guidelines for creating, editing, and tagging articles on major exhibitions and to begin improving articles in this area of Wikipedia. OR drohowa (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See conversation at User talk:OR drohowa#WP:Exhibitions for my convo with JohnBod on this Project. Hoping for more responses also on the various other WikiProjects I posted on asking for comments/support.. OR drohowa (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the effort you put into the close at WT:MOS#Bird common name capitalisation. There were a lot of words to read and to write. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 03:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It was a sprawling debate that'd been going on in multiple forums for so long it's hard to get a complete sense of it without a lot of reading. Thanks for putting in the time and thinking it through.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! A very generous donation of time to get your mind round a long-long-long meandering debate with loads of distractions, and very brave to tackle one where people feel so strongly. I think you did an excellent job. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you're off my Xmas card li- As much as I hate the result, I appreciate with the time and effort put in to possibly one of the most detailed closing rationales I have read. Despite apparent appearances to the contrary, I do support the idea of a global Manual of Style and conformity and am content to abide by the decision. Agree with the idea of some sort of bot to enact this. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred a different outcome, but your arguments were really well-done and respectful to all positions. Kudos for you. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, DGG. You've put a very contentious issue to rest, and probably for good. As ever, I'm flattered when people think I'm you. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very most excellent example of gentle mop-wielding, though I am sure that some members of the species Gallus domesticus minoris will consider that the end of the Wikipedia is nigh. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, I just wanted to thank you as well although I followed the discussion from a distance (I think it had more than enough active participants). Admins can get a lot of flack but when one takes on settling such a sprawling debate, knowing that no matter what one decides, there will be some very unhappy editors, I can only say thanks. And providing such a thoughtful rationale (rather than a sentence-long decision), is admirable and helps the decision "stick"...ambiguity would have only resulted in further challenges to your decision. Instead, if individuals do want to overturn this decision, they know that the burden of providing evidence resides with those wishing to change the status quo, and there has to be a substantial case to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that you won't need to clarify that the consensus finding doesn't only apply to birds, but you might; there's a (smaller and quieter) camp who want to always capitalize moths/butterflies and dragonflies, and another in favor of doing the same with common names of British (and I think Australian) plants. The debate may have focused on birds, but that focus should be scene as license to capitalize non-bird species common names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

the opposition to this and the other parallel "Jews in .." articles that were deleted is so opposite to everything I hold important in the world, including the idea of a NPOV encyclopedia, that I can only with difficulty participate in these discussions. I have elsewhere ascribed it to the desire to hide the significance of Jews in the world to avoid arousing the anti-Semites. It is not possible to logically argue against fear and irrationality. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did justice to your very acute wake-up comments at the AfD, particularly striking because, in the drift towards uniformity, you took a stand marked by complete independence of judgement. Deeply appreciated. When I read, particularly,

There is no reason why anyone--in particular any Jew --should find anything shameful about the association of Jews and Communism in Russia, except the inability to foresee the future.

I thought of Vasily Grossman's outstanding Life and Fate, which manages, other than the direct horror of the context, to write astonishing vignettes that embrace all the complexities of identities, Kalmuck/Tartar Jewish swept up in the Communist cause, with, among comrades, the various prejudices, ethnic/antisemitic, coming to the surface, only to be talked out. 2% of the officer class of the Soviet forces that effectively won WW2, despite our films and lore, were Jewish. The great vice of superficial eyes is to judge with the facile wisdom of hindsight while ignoring the hard and sometimes tragic options fronting real people in earlier generations (it's true, for me, also of 1948). After the trench warfare attritions and military command's quasi genocidal military tactics in WW1, choosing to be Communist was one of the few ostensibly rational or ethical options left, something events in Italy and Germany in the succeeding decade could only reinforce. Thanks, anyway, and sorry for this soapy intrusion.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may appreciate in connection with the novel the edition of his wartime notebooks,A Writer at War : a Soviet Journalist with the Red Army, 1941-1945 edited and translated by Antony Beevor and Luba Vinogradova. For another account of the appeal & disappointment of Communism, see the final volume of Victor Klemperer's diary, The Lesser Evil DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Here you go Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_artists/Notability_concerns. SarahStierch (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David,
It was a pleasure to meet you, face-to-face, and hear your presentation. Are your slides posted on the Wikiconference page? I'm really interested in the stats you shared about the state of AfC in 2007 vs. 2013. I think it's so important to be aware of the changes occurring on Wikipedia as it evolves over time in order to gain an accurate long-term view of where things are headed. Thanks again! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, if it isn't a bother, could you take a quick look and review - Robert E. Olds, Joseph P. Cotton, Marcus M. Haskell, Osgood T. Hadley and Henry A. Hammel These are my first five article creations, I'm in the process of creating rest of the missing Civil War recipients of the Medal of Honor. There seems to be quite a backlog at New Page Patrol. Regards,  NQ  talk 22:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 point: in addition to saying in a general note that the material is copied from the US govt site, it's best to indicate by quotation marks exactly what has been copied--is it just the quotation in the box? then add it in the footnote there. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the MOH citation is copied verbatim from the Public domain material. The general note added is a template ((ACMH)) . I am not sure there is a parameter to include exactly which portion is copied.  NQ  talk 02:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will find a way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My approach to copyright is not to rely on google, but to check the person's web site, and any other posssible relevant external link or reference. In particular, many universities use noindex on the web sites, or on the portions of it which is a people directory. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of which way to solve problems of copyvio is not purely a question of administrator idiosyncrasy, but involves many factors.

The general principles are found in both WP :COPYRIGHT and WP:Deletion Policy and its subpages. First, Deletion policy is that "Reasons for deletion [are] subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page)" and "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" Section 3.1 for copyright violations says "remove the violation if possible, or edit the page to replace its entire content with ((subst:copyvio|url=address of copied material)). For blatant, whole-page copyright violation, you can simply tag it for speedy deletion with ((db-copyvio|url=...)) after checking that there are no non-copyvio versions in the page history." Second, with respect to copyvio, WP:CSD says it applies to "Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with ((subst:Copyvio)), and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. " Third, at WP:COPYVIO, it says "Handling of suspected violations of copyright policy depends on the particulars of a given case" It then says "If you have strong reason to suspect ... some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. "and " If all of the content [is]... a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable, if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch, but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted. "Fourth, looking at WPRevision Deletion, one of the permitted uses is for "Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion." The word "Blatent" is obviously open to interpretation, but a small paragraph copied from the persons website is not "blatant".

:I interpret this as follows:

I. removing a whole article because a nonessential part is copyright is not supported by policy. None the less, policies have some flexibility, and admins sometimes do that, and I have done something a little like it on occasion, based on the phrase in G12 "when there is no non-infringing content worth saving". If the articles is inherently promotional, I generally delete saying both G11 and G12, and I think of "entirely promotional" in a more more flexible way when there is significant copyvio. For articles, I'll sometimes do the same with A7/G12. For draft where A7 does not apply, and which the person has been repeatedly submitting without improvement, I'll try to find some reason. I will be more flexible in helping those.

II. As a general rule there is no reason to revision-delete, as long as the copyvio text is removed from the current version. It is not even permitted unless the violation was "blatant".

One more distinguished professor for you, DGG. I added a Google Scholar Report, which is rather low. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basic cleanup steps for professors (and much of it applies to all bios):

1. Remove all "Professor", "Prof.", "Doctor" and "Dr.", Ph.D, or M.D except in the lede sentence or as actual titles of positions or degrees. For every use of first name alone, substitute the last name. For every use of full first and last name, substitute the last name, except in the lede sentence or if needed to avoid confusion.
2. Then, for every use of the name more than once a paragraph at the most, substitute "he" "she" or the equivalent.
3. remove all adjectives of praise: famous, renowned, prestigious, world-wide, transformative, seminal, ground-breaking, etc. referring to either people or institutions or discoveries; even "well-known". In all of these, nothing needs to be substituted.
4. Consider replacing "expert" with "specialist". Replace "across" with "in" or, if documented, "throughhout" Remove all similar jargon. "
5. "best-selling" etc. needs to be justified by specificity and a third party quotation. Just remove all these throughout the entire article, or add a ((Fact)) "First" similarly needs a third party source.
6. Move the most important factor of notability to the very first phrase of the first sentence where nobody can miss it: not "A.B., an expert in something, who has taught at Wherever for 23 years, is the Distinguished Professor of" , to "X, the Distinguished Professor of ... at Wherever, is a specialist in something....
7. Remove complicated sentences of birth place and date to the section of biography. The lede sentence should just have the dates, eg: "(born 1945)"
8. If they have written books and work in the humanities or history or Law, or any field where books are the main factor of notability, remove journal article section entirely. If there's a section on conferences, etc., remove it in all cases.
9. The list of degrees received and dates is critical information. It goes in a section labeled ==Biography==, right after the lede paragraph. If you find it at the end, the article was unmistakably written by a press agent, and will need careful checking for copyvio.
10. In fact, the likelihood of copyvio is so great that I usually prefer to rearrange or alter most of the text.
11. Books need to be sourced to Worldcat, not Amazon or the publisher. Bio facts are sourced to the person's official page at the university. These should all be formatted as references, so there will be a conventional reference list DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Just noticed this useful list. One comment (in case you've got this chunk of text ready to paste in elsewhere in future): in point 7, about dates, I think the standard format for the lead sentence is "(born 1948)" not "(b. 1948)". Your point 6, about moving the main claim to notability to the very start of the article, is really important - so many poor articles start by telling you the subject's parentage or other irrelevancies so that you have to plod through a lot of verbiage to find any assertion of notability. PamD 14:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, though perhaps even just the date is clear enough for everybody. thanks. (as for 7, press agents writing an academic cv tend not to realise what are the key factors. Hidden in the last paragraph among society memberships, will sometimes be "National Academy of Sciences". DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be deterred by the bureaucracy here. This is after all a very large enterprise, with thousand of people working independently at the same time with almost no formal coordination, almost no supervision, and very little training. to help deal with it, a number of formal conventions have been established. Unfortunately, the sort of people that like to work here are exactly the sort of people who are not very skilled at drawing up formal conventions or procedures, and the net result is a mass of partially contradictory instructions and rules, some important, some not; some enforced, some not. The response to a rule that has proven impractical is usually to add several supplementary rules, rather that to revise the original, and after 11 years, it produces quite a jumble.

Some of us find it fun to manipulate the rules to get a reasonable result. But the true purpose of working here is to build an encyclopedia, and I will normally try to get to a reasonable result as directly as possible. Some people though insist on their interpretation of the rules regardless of the result, and I have also become rather experienced at countering them in their own frame of reference when necessary. As I'm pretty much an inclusionist on most topics, I tend to concentrate at AfD and AfC.

My advice is to concentrate on providing good sourced articles. If you want to learn process, don't be afraid of making errors. There's no other way to do it, because you need to learn not the letter or the rules, but the way we use the and the accepted boundaries. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kilroy was here —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, please see Talk:Academic journal#"Usually" peer-reviewed? (triggered by Template talk:Infobox journal#"peer reviewed"), Talk:Predatory open access publishing, and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#List of scammy academic journals. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your election to the Arbcom, DGG. Well deserved. - NQ (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, welcome aboard. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"a Checkuser, which I am not" - Well, you will be soon. Congrats! Altamel (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mazel tov! HG | Talk 07:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether to congratulate or console you, but I am glad that you were elected. Thank you for volunteering for this difficult, yet critical, work to keep the project running. -- Avi (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came also for congratulations! So far arbitration was (for me at least) a synonym for waste of time, and ideally it shouldn't even be needed, - let's work on that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for doing so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done - highest number of positive votes shows your wide-spread respect. PamD 10:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's going to suck you absolutely dry for contributing anywhere else, but I can't think of any one more suited to the task of Arbitrator. Thank you for running for election and thank you in advance for all the good work you will be doing there. Warmest regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Coming off my wikibreak to say congrats. I'm confident you will do good things. I'm also confident that Kudpung is correct; it will be an all-consuming and thankless task for the next two years, but my impression is that you were ready for a new challenge, and I know you are fully capable of handling it. Farmer Brown 2¢ 12:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations and good luck. You're one of the people on Wikipedia I have always respected greatly, and hope the other great work I've seen you do translates well to ArbCom. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Take it easy, please. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations DGG :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations DGG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Wishing you all the best during your time on ArbCom. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Another voice to applaud your success in the recent popularity contest. I hope you find your new role satisfying and may it bring you contentment. Dolescum (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• And another - it seems to be less of a nightmare job than in the past, but take it easy. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• So cool. Congratulations. JSFarman (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats my friend and mentor. I totally missed the elections or you could totally have counted on me for a Support. Happy HOlidays StarM 01:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is permitted, and I know some initiation ceremonies by definition require an oath of secrecy, it might be nice if you can tell us what all is involved in the formal initiation ceremony. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I aim the magnetic pulse field at to help jump start the Inductor? /silly Hasteur (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations and best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on winning the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto! --EEMIV (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, wanted your input on an academic without an article, RM Hogg (Scholar search). First author on several highly cited books (G Scholar h-index ~17), but otherwise no specific accolades. czar ⨹ 16:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

h index is useless in the humanities--it is only applicable to fields where notability comes from the writing of articles. Google Scholar is not of that much help, but the thing to look for in GS is materials that are very highly cited, which usually do show notability. It seems he is the the editor or author of some major works. The best database for a quick check in the humanities is WorldCat,[7] and this confirms it: he is the editor of one volume of the major encyclopedic history of the English Language, the co-ed of the standard one volume work on the subject, & the co-author of the major work on the Grammar of Old English, and a good deal else. Next step is to find his academic position, which from the LC authority file [8] was University of Manchester , and gives his north and death dates. There will almost certainly be major obituaries and the like. First place to look is TLS. One of the VIAF subpages[9] give a ref to the Guardian obit, with a quote, Sept. 20, 2007. This information alone is enough for an article stub. (I've gone into the details as an example of the way I check these things) DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for an amusing article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks; but which? DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To what degree is it permitted to create an article that is entirely, or very near so, a direct copy and paste from a single source now in the public domain? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it is permitted, but it has to be specified exactly what part is taken from the source, and future edits must keep this distinct. Some of our templates, say "some or all" has been taken from particular source. In my opinion, this is inadequate attribution. Exact quotation marks or some other equally clear indication is needed. There are I believe several thousand articles in this unsatisfactory sate, and as editing continues over the years, the result is very confusing both in terms of attribution and in terms of keeping material up to date and not based upon totally outdated views. This has bothered me since I've come here, but it hasn't bothered enough others to make any progress.

The real problem is not just attribution; the more insidious problem is accuracy. The article you cite on Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine (1524 – 1574) shows this. The source, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is accurate as a summary for the facts as known at the time, but was never known for balance in its coverage, or for NPOV interpretation, and lacks adequate explanation of what to them was fundamental (That does not mean I do not think highly of it for many purposes--I even own a printed set.) The knowledge of sources, the interpretations of scholars, the interest in particular aspects, will be very different on every topic, no matter how old, from the state of things 100 years ago; even when religious orientation is irrelevant, cultural bias is usually present. (I do not know enough about this particular topic to give a detailed critique, because my own knowledge of the period in France is based primarily upon historical fiction, whose biases can be very similar to that of outdated histories.) DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that summary. It confirms most of my concerns and adds a couple. I am unsure how much I can correct, but I will work on it a bit and add some tags as needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you've noticed how I have practically stopped participating in discussions on reform of AfC. I've done a lot for that project, such as coaxing the 'draft' mainspace into existence and getting a set of competency criteria established for reviewers, and vetting 100s of G13, etc., but there comes a time when I lose interest in projects that have become basically a lot of talk with nobody listening. In contrast, there's nothing wrong with the NPP system, in fact it's a brilliant piece of engineering. The only downside to NPP is that in spite of being by far the most important new-article filter of all, totally ironically it has no recommended levels of experience for patrollers at all, no work group, no mother project, and no interaction whatsoever between the individual patrollers. That's why it's often called the lonliest maintenance corner of Wikipedia - and that's why the qualty of rewiewing there is pretty awful, and has a backlog of over ten thousand pages.

So at NPP we're still stuck with a lovely suite of tools and very few users with sufficient clue to use them. AfC on the other hand, although it has the 'Draft' namspace, has an incomprehensible mess of script which is a constant work in progress, a permanent stream of questions from users who don't know how to use it, raw newbies just hovering with their mouses over AFC Particip to add themselves as soon as their count reaches the magical 500, and programmers plying and vying for recognition of the best script; add to that some who with the best will in the world can't discuss things calmly.

The best solution would be to scrap AfC completely (you and I have discussed this before), merge AfC drafts into the New Pages Feed, add the AfC Helper Script's essential features to the Curation Toolbar, and create a software defined new user group for the reviewers. I've had several real life discussions at various venues with senior Foundation staff who all agree in principle that it is technically feasible and that it might ultimately be the best solution rather than reinventing a wheel for AfC. Ironically again, probably because there is no collaborative project surrounding NPP, it doesn't play silly stick-and-carrot games of backlog drives with users MMORPGing for barnstars and baubles. Such initiatives IMHO only invite more of the wrong people and reduce the quality even further.

Perhaps if my dream were to come true, some of the more reasonable AfC reviewers would migrate to NPP, and that would be a net positiver all round. I think I'm going to draft up a major RfC and challenge the broad community once and for all to offer their thoughts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Of course it is feasible--we did most of it for years; it's just redefining the group. Do you see any continuing need for Draft space? Perhaps it can be a place not for new submissions, but to which articles. including some new submissions, can be moved for improvement. I'd suggest not a broad afc to gather opinions, but a focussed one on doing the change. I think AfC as it exists has very few supporters. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only supporters of AfC are the 'programmers' who use it as their playground. Just to underline my comment above, hardly had I spoken, than we get this. I do think there is a very pertinent need for the 'draft' namespace. Although the vast majority of AfC submissions are junk, as you have seen more than anyone, there are some rare rescuable items among them; it's also the destination for articles created using the Wizard - where I believe most of the drafts come from now. The draft namespace alows IPs and and editors who are not sure of themselves to create an article that will be kind of 'peer reviewed' before going live. You've got mail. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so would you then continue to feed the Article Wizard articles into AfC? If we do, and use it for peer review before going live, we will have precisely the current problems. I don't think the "vast majority" are unsuitable--tho perhaps one could say "unnecessary" I estimate that at least half would survive Speedy, and half of these AfD , even on first submission. That's a 25% yield. When we were using NP as the only route, we rejected about 1/2, either at speedy or prod or afd. The difference is that because of the desire to use WP for promotionalism, we're getting more useless promotional articles, because more people know about us. Their number will only increase in the future. (& they're encouraged because a certain number do manage to survive afd , often erratically ) If we raise our standards a little we can keep them out, but somewhere we will still have to do the work of keeping them out. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time going through G13 eligible drafts today and was a bit disturbed at how many of them are notable (well over half). Since you are one of the few people who regularly work in that area, I thought I would ask you if this was normal or if the obviously non-notable stuff has largely been deleted already creating a biased sample in the remaining material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends wether you mean clearly notable, or just notable enough to be likely to be found notable at AfD. And notability is not always the problem: there are those which are notable, but are so promotional that it would be more trouble to rewrite than the importance would justify. Then there are copyvios. Then there are the substantial number that have already been moved into mainspace. Looked at from the goal of rescuing everything possible, then there are probably well over half that could be turned into some sort of passable article; but there are probably only 1/4 that are passable as they stand or with minor fixes.

In the past, I accepted about 20% and postponed another 20%, in order to make reasonably certain nothing I passed would be rejected. (and so far, I think essentially nothing has been, except when I've missed an occasional duplicate under another name, & a few copyvios I didn't catch.) Now I'm trying to accept a somewhat larger amount. The main group that I don't want to accept but I don't want to se rejected are ones which look like they need careful checking for copypaste from sources I do not have available, or unreferenced articles on geography or the like which probably could be verified, but not easily. Some of these are detailed articles on narrow subjects, some are suspicious because of the manner of referring or indentation or line-width.

However, I rarely go thru a daily list unselectively. Each time I do this, I tend to be looking for something--often a topic I recognize. I also work on the lists of those declined for some particular reason. Sometimes I look primarily for things to speedy as G11 (I'm not sure anyone else is doing that in particular). I almost always skip athletes and popular entertainers unless I notice something obvious one way or another, as other people have a more reliable sense of importance here. I try to select ones that I more easily can handle among the people likely to be working on this: for example, book authors whose importance isn't obvious, or subjects that should be checked in other language wikipedias I can decipher. This sort of patrol of new submissions, either AfC or NPP, tends to become dull, and I try to vary it.

I'll try to take a look at what you worked on today--you could take a look at mine if you like. The move log is the place to look. But incidentally, I see I have been deleting many more articles and drafts than you--but then I sometimes want to conscious clear away the rubbish even if it will be deleted by G13 a little later on. Concentrating on NPP/AfC has been making me cynical, perhaps unduly cynical. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My sample size was small, so I may have just had an unusually good sample, hence the question. I was mostly disturbed by CCDC47 which was essentially declined because the references weren't quite right and then untouched for the 6 months. CBS Watch was indeed unacceptable as it was written - an addition to being promotional-ish, the bad paragraph was actually a copyvio too. It was easy enough to fix though. The other two I delayed deletion on are (obviously) unacceptable as is, despite being notable. (And one of the deletes was notable, but a duplicate article.) ... I normally work the back of the AfC pending submissions. I'd say over half of those are acceptable-enough as is, but I'm easier on submissions than most. I always figured the oldest one were the toughest calls on average and the real acceptance rate was much lower because of obviously bad stuff being rejected quickly. (Although maybe not, I am always mystified at how many copyvios sit around for a month+, and usually they are not hard to spot - over half of promotional sounding stuff is copyvio too.) Thus, I was surprised I didn't see a lower average quality carried through to G13 candidates. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the oldest are those that are tough either because reviews don't feel comfortable either accepting or declining, or because they take some specialized knowledge. The problem with delayed deletion is it comes back again after 6 months--I used to do this a lot, but now I try do it only when I'm feeling really rushed, like tonight. So details tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

== Redlink == Can you peek at my notes about "personal names" linking at the WP:Redlink article. It still is confusing to understand. I am not sure if I am interpreting it correctly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take a stab at rewording it. It still reads that we should not have red linked names.

Whoa. Surprised I haven't run into a copy/paste from Wikia before (re: Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc.). It's really ok for Wikipedia purposes, though? Their licensing default looks to require attribution, which seems a problem unless we're going to put the whole article in quotes and cite Wikia as a source. I understand that's a different issue from a copyvio, but still seems problematic, no? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ((Wikia content)) should work and the docs include some suggestion on how to use the template. Ravensfire (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the source is PD there is an attribution problem. In principle everything can be attributed properly by keeping the edit history, but in practice it will soon be unclear to the reader what part comes from where. This confuses the page history of all the EB and Catholic Encyclopedia and similar entries, and confuses it in a worse way, because the original source is out of date almost completely, and it is not easy to tell what may have been added by uptodate sources. (In my opinion adding that material was a serious mistake made in the early days of WP, when the expected level of accuracy for articles was much lower) There needs to be serious work done in rewriting every one of those articles, for there is no topic whatsoever where additional material is not known since then and anything implying a judgement has to be rewritten, Back in the first years of the twentieth century, it was seen as ... or it could be summarized as .....We also have scientific material from 10 or 15 year old US Dept of Agriculture publications, which now has a similar problem.

I personally do not add such material without using quotes. (They should normally have a beginning and quote on each paragraph, with an ending quote on the final one.) But I am not about to take on personally the correction of widespread sloppy practice. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing your comment that Kirkus is no longer RS, I took a look at the noticeboard and saw this discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_180#Kirkus_Reviews. It's saying that "Kirkus Indie" is paid, but regular Kirkus reviews are not paid. Are you referring to this discussion or something different? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes. as a result of that decision, I no longer trust it for anything at all. I think that's the general view of most librarians I know. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Obviously any "Kirkus Indie" review is non-RS. Do you think they are secretly paying for reviews on the "non-Indie" side? If so, how should the community handle this? Does it need to get any substantiation/proof that something untoward is going on? Have librarians written about the issue? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no it's more that any publication that takes paid reviews is ipso facto non-reliable on any part of the site. this is similar to the way a newspaper that publishes advertorials tends to forfeit some of its reputation. There are indeed a few well-documetned exceptions: the NYT, WSJ, & Forbes all publish directory information on companies as well as genuine news. (I wonder how many of our articles use their directory information as evidence towards notability , btw.) So I agree this may be too harsh a judgement, but it is none the less the usual impression, which I share. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a good way to deal with it is to consider Kirkus post-2009 a "less reliable" source. It can still be used, but if a particular book has a lot of different reviews and editors are trying to figure which ones make the cut, then perhaps Kirkus would not be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's one reasonable way to look at it. Another is that it adds to notability if there are some there borderline sources also. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! That works well :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:Citation overkill#Citation merging
• WP:CITEBUNDLE

FYI --Jeremyb (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had never noticed it here, but it's a fairly frequent technique in academic writing. I do not see how it is easily compatible with using wikidata for references. There would appear to be two directions: either to make a hack that would be able to parse such references, or deprecate this referencing technique and convert the existing ones manually, which will be easy enough, if someone can figure out how to find them. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any <ref> that has bullets (unordered list), multiple CS1 templates, or multiple bare external links should be suspect. (but if a single CS1 generates multiple external links that's ok. e.g. url && archive-url) Anyway, if there's a discussion started I'd like a pointer to it. Thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About a year ago, you were involved with a discussion on Involuntary celibacy, I've always had an issue with this close reflecting the apparent anti-fringing pushing bias rampant on Wikipedia these days. Upon viewing this version of the article I cannot find any guideline violating issues. Tone appears neutral and sources are not only mainstream, but academic. The contentious history regarding the article could only suggest that another DRV is going to be long and difficult. Alone there is nothing I can do, but with help I was hoping to overturn the deletion of the subject. It appears that the NFRINGE noticeboards have become a pool of anti-fringe canvassing whose editors decisions are confirmed and unchangeable prior to any debate. Wikipedia has never been a place where only mainstream views are accepted this in itself is a violation of NPOV we have long sought to establish yet it appears the trend is growing and correlates with the editor drain we have experienced. My gut tells me this article is the first step to changing the environment ... what can we do? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Coffee to allow the article restored with no bias for immediate renomination instead of DRV. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one question here.

As for Fringe, I never liked the way we deal with it, where we insist from the first that it is non-standard and hammer at that repeatedly, We instead ought to present it as fully as necessary for understanding in its own terms, and then say what people think of it. We need to avoid giving any false indication that fringe topics are accepted, but we still need to avoid giving primarily hostile coverage. If presented fairly, people will understand the relevance--that's the basic premise of an encyclopedia. We do not have to slant or censor, even by implication. WhatI particularly dislike is our tendency to try to minimize the coverage of people associated with a movement we disapprove of (or alternatively of maximizing the number of otherwise reputable people involved to a trivial extent for the sake of denigrating the the individuals)

I consider topics such as this unusual, but not fringe. ("Unusual" is the most neutral word I can find.) Outside sex, some political and religious topics are strongly disfavored. Others, equally unusual or far from the mainstream, but that do have a constituency here, resist all tendencies to discuss them with moderation, rather than in a frankly propagandistic manner.

But sex is always the most difficult area. WP has for long as I can remember been rather hostile to some forms of otherwise unexceptional sexual expression. People have a remarkable ability to disdain those forms of sexual expression they do not engage in; there seems to be some human need to assign some sexual practices as acceptable, and others not, presumably in order to reassure oneself that one is oneself doing it "right" rather than being a victim of limitations, and this supposedly tolerant community insists on resisting serious treatment of things that are now but did not used to be considered subjects for open discourse. For example, there's been a surprising amount of difficulty with articles on even widely-used sex toys.

The best way of dealing with such topics is first find as many additional references as possible. All difficult topics of any sort are best done by accumulating such an overwhelming body of references that he even the opponents realize. Tokyogirl79 has done a good job of it, but there's almost certainly still more to be done, especially considering the multiple uses. I think there are quite a range of different consensual and nonconsensual practices here, which have ended up in this one article because of the resistance to covering them individually. I unfortunately do not really have the time to work on it. I recall there was a 1973 book with the title "SM: the last taboo" ISBN 9780818401787, whose title I thought a good quick explanation of the problem in a few words. (the book itself is apparently a short anthology of stories, not likely to a usable reference) This is 40 years later, and everything in popular culture considered, I don't think the taboo really holds. Except, of course, in WP, which, while it should be the location for work on unusual things , is also the home of obsolete prejudices. People get very easily embarrassed about sex. In particular, some parts of the demographic working on WP particularly easily gets embarrassed.

However, I do not think we have an editor drain. We merely have the expected transition from a exciting new project to something which may be still exciting, but is not particularly new. People will naturally stay here for only four or five years. Relatively few make it a career, or a life-long hobby. People try out new things, and then turn to others; our contributor base is always going to be dynamic. What I do hope is that we will come to attract a wider group than the typical post-adolescent white male geeks. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the encyclopedia has not increased--and in fact in someways regressed-- in terms of scope. I think removing subjectivity from the closing of AfDs is the optimal method. After the article is restored I assume Tarc is going to AfD it immediately, some input when that happens would be appreciated! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC is up, comments would be appreciated. :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Well said. In particular that the community tends to use FRINGE to rationalize attack pages, rather than merely documenting that their viewpoint is not accepted by mainstream science/medicine, using reliable sources. I'll take a look at your RfC as well Valoem. I also recently noticed that more effort has been spent on Victoria Secret than all of the articles under Category:Feminine hygiene brands combined (with exception to the one I wrote on Playtex). I found this strange, even given the gender gap, because so many women are interested in women's health, so I wonder if it is because people are too embarrassed to contribute. I looked up the Durex page after they did a presentation at a marketing conference. One of the biggest global condom brands and just a stub on it. Marginally notable supermodels and pornstars have more robust pages. CorporateM (Talk) 16:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I did some research and commented there, however I wonder if you would still oppose the proposed article-title, now that I've shown an abundance of source material that uses the same phrase. CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose exactly, but I wonder whether it covers all aspects. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...

The application of all WP policies is decided by consensus, and thus a certain degree of variability is to be expected. In this particular instance, the question is apparently whether African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) should be moved to Civil Rights Movement. I'm not going to pas judgement on this; no one person decides these things. But I suggest you reconsider whether this move would display too much of an US perspective: WP is international. A reasonable case could probably be made for the move, or against it. My advice here has always been to concentrate on improving page content and not worry too much about page titles. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the claim, "The application of all WP policies is decided by consensus" a contradiction to the statement, "The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus" from the lede paragraph of Wikipedia:Core content policies that describes the "three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research.". Thank you for responding. Mitchumch (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental principles are not affected, but the application of them is always subject to consensus. Each of the individual policies has extensive talk pages discussing the proper application of them, as every single key word in them is ambiguous to some extent and the exact meaning of every one of them has been disputed . Tens hundreds of thousands of individual applications have been discussed on various WP and article talk pages. If there is disagreement on how to apply a policy, only consensus can resolve it. (And it isn't clear at all that your argument falls under any of the three policies, listed) We have no dictators; even arb com cannot decide on content. If consensus holds against you, you will need to accept it, because that's the way we work here. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The fundamental principles are not affected" That's funny considering bias constantly wins over things like basic logic and common sense, effectively making Wikipedia NOT neutral. Bottom line is that if the consensus is biased, the article becomes biased. Sega Genesis for example had a debate on the article name that was obviously skewed in favor of Americans as Americans take up the bulk of the English speaking part of the internet. Don't even get me started on the constant misuse of terms like "CGI" and "traditional animation" that violate all sense of basic logic but again, the consensus appears to be biased. Mattwo7 (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking several of your policies constantly serve to make Wikipedia everything it's not supposed to be because they allow common sense and basic logic to be completely overridden. Instead of having a policy that disallows requests for semi-protection due to hit and run vandalism, common sense dictates that low-priority articles be automatically semi-protected due to the vast amounts of vandalism from unregistered users on those pages. Just as deductive logic dictates that your reasons for deleting the most recent incarnation of the Zippcast page is bunk due to the vast amounts of low-priority articles with similar problems. This combined with the considerable amount of enemies the site's administration has somehow managed to make even makes me consider the possibility that the constant deletions are a a COI decision. Mattwo7 (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The contributors to WP being human, bias exists, but there are other reasons for disagreement than bias. Most of us no doubt think that those views that consistently go against us are the product of bias, not reason. By whose standard then do we judge? If you wish to say we judge by the facts and the abstract truth, this gets us no further, for it is people who judge those things also. If you wish to say we judge by common sense, common sense is the term we use for our own unprovable prejudices.

You seem to be unhappy about several decisions, most of which have no connection with me. The only one that does is Zipp Cast. If you think an article can be written, use Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...maybe DGG will) tell you about how i (or he, in his case) spot possible conflicted editors and how i (or he) deal with them. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is to realize that most people come to wikipedia with some degree of conflict of interest, to write topics about which the really care. The problem is not to keep the out, the problem is to see that what they do contributes positively to the encyclopedia. People who are firm believers in a cause , for example. can be great problems, because they care so much about something (hat may well be in fact really important) that they recent the writing of NPOV articles. Fans of an artist or sports team can be problems also, inserting all sorts of unjustified material in their praise, worse than a publicist would dare even try. Even for products or companies, there are great fans who want everyone to share the POV--those fixated on particular brand of camera or computer or automobile, or on a restaurant or type of clothing, of great believers in the wonderful work of a doctor or financial advisor or charity.

But the problem here is the people with a commercial interest. The come in all sorts: the owner of a business or professional practice; the press agent in a company, and the persona with a small or moderate knowledge of Wikipedia who advertises their services, or now especially those freelancers who answer advertisements on elance and similar websites, Most of these people do not know how to make a decent article even if they wanted to; but few of them want to--they or their clients will not be satisfied by a NPOV articles in proportion to the size of their business with adequate references--they want a web page here, not seeing us a s different fro mother places for posting advertisements. they do not care about our notability requirements--they all at least hope to be notable some day,and want the public to know about them. I and several others have estimated that at least half our article on commercial and noncommercial organizations and their leaders are the products of this kind of editing. t this point WP is so well known ,that it is hard to imagine an organization anywhere that would not want to have a WP page, and it takes a true understanding of the way in which WP is different, to realize that this is not he way to achieve that.

There is thus no reason to get angry at particular instances. The critical thing to do is to remove the pov articles; assuming we have half million, and if a hundred of us set out to do it for an hot a day, , and supported each other , we could mange to keep up with the inflow and clear up the background in a year or two. We did it for unreferenced bios of living people; we can do it here. If this seems unrealistic, for what is possibly the highest-priority category in terms of unjustified advertising, internet businesses, 4 or 5 people could do it.

In the meantime, we do have to pursue the chains of paid editor, who are responsible for perhaps 10 to 30% of the problem. It's not worth the trouble to work on an individual example. What is worth the double is to look for a group of accounts writing articles in identical format in a particular subject, or an individual account using a similar format for miscellaneous totally unrelated minor articles. In the first place, if the writing similarities are close enough , a SPI can be justify.d In the second, a firm explanation can usually stope them. More of the similarities to be looked for will follow in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{thank you guys for helping and guiding me, I really appreciate that and I am taking your WP OUTING very seriously. I worked on some col cases and I believe I handled those cases very well without violating any Wikipedia guidelines even though I was not aware of WP:OUTING. I usually kept my distance when dealing with such cases and never asked them to reveal any personal information other than their affiliation with the entity without asking any further explanation about their nature of work or name. I major in marketing and I can easily spot when someone is trying to promote something and I strongly stand against advertisement in Wikipedia.

we have to take advertisement in Wikipedia more seriously, some marketing courses are now teaching how to edit Wikipedia to promote companies coz they see it as important channel for public relations and product promotion, the only reason why we don't see well-written articles about these companies from new editors is becoz of their inability to navigate through Wikipedia and old web Wikipedia editor is still confusing for most of the people,as Wikipedia becomes more and more user friendly with addition such as visual editor, we will see more advertisement and vandalism .There are off course positive sides to these improvements but we should also focus on negative side too. Nicky mathew (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professional press release writers can and do learn html and the very similar wikicode, and even our peculiar referencing conventions. Their set of expected skills encompasses that. What they have much more difficult in learning is now to write in a different style for different purpose. Their training and experience is in how to write effective press releases and advertisements,and they are lost in an environment which does not accept their well-learned glossy promises, convincing rhetoric, appealing personal claims, vague statement of benefits ,and carefully selected statistics.claims is not wanted, Tbey do not have experience writing where plain neutral presentation is w\excpected, where only a set of narrowly defined reliable sources are accepted, where testimonials and name-dropping are harmful, and where extravert claims are signs of puffery. The best preparation for working in WP is journalism, tho teaching and librarianship and technical writing also do well. can also be successful

So of course , is any intelligent member of the general public-- but unlike professionals, unless the are students who know html, they have great difficulty with our current format. it is these people whom we will be able to better reach when we have a rule workignand non confusing wvisual editor that does not require manual post processing to verify that it; has avoided bloopers. Perhaps we'll get there they year (I seem to remember saying that for several years now.)At theta point, our outreach programs can extent more practically to a much wider range of non traditional editors, many of whom maybe interested in the everyday topics we have such trouble with. and those they may be able to drive out the professionals DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can point out that the argument may benefit me, but I don't think increasing notability requirements is the right way to go. Well, if I had my way, I would consolidate all of them into a single notability guideline of just a few paragraphs, rather than creating unique guidelines for different subject areas. The myriad of guidelines for different subject areas tend to reflect the biases of the community, setting a low bar for reporters, authors and academics, and a higher one for org's and business executives. I rolled my eyes at the reaction when I tried to delete an over-the-top promotional page about an open-source project.

But in any case, what I would suggest is instead that the burden of proof for notability be shifted to the submitter. Right now the AfD nominator is expected to investigate the article-subject's notability before nominating. The burden is that evidence of notability exists, somewhere out in the world, which means tons of research to delete every spammy article about a trivial org. Instead, the requirement should be that the article itself contain evidence of notability and that it be deleted if evidence is not provided in the article, shifting the burden of validating notability to the author, rather than the community. CorporateM (Talk) 20:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The basic WP:GNG guideline is the same for most types of articles, the way it is applied is what varies widely, and it is those differences in appliation which reflects the biases of the community. That's all that I am suggesting: that in dealing with commercial organizations especially we interpret the term reliable sources to not include sources which are dependent on PR. (sources that are straight PR are of course excluded from all areas). I'm not even proposing this as a formal guideline at this point, but I intend to argue at individual cases that some sources, such as local business journals, or reports on funding, be disregarded for showing notability.

Most of the special guidelines are attempts to correct bias, not increase it further: the Athletes guideline, for example, is a way to limit what would otherwise be the overcoverage of college and high school athletes. WP:PROF is away to limit what would otherwise be the great undercoverage of researchers.

What I am suggesting is merely an empirical adjustment in interpretation, not a fundamental revision. My view on how I would truly like to go is entirely opposite to yours: I would eliminate the GNG entirely as too dependent upon interpretation have have guidelines for subjects which truly reflect what is of encyclopedic importance. I am not suggesting this, for the general feeling is opposed to it. (and in practice, it would immediately create a immense number of arguments in particular areas--the virtue is that once it were settled, it would decrease them.)

Establishing the burden of notability is already on the contributors to the article in practice: we almost always do decline articles where nobody can find sources showing notability, except for the correction of parts of the world or topics where this is accepted as particularly difficult. Establishing the rule you suggest would increase our already strongly existing cultural bias. It would also be opposed to the basic principle of WP by which non experts work together to gradually develop articles, by requiring an article be sufficiently well established immediately. It would prevent the formation of articles on many topic areas, including most historical topics except by those with access to research libraries. It would also immensely bias WP in exactly the wrong direction: towards news events, internet phenomena, popular artists, and minor sports figures. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... - I do not have experience in areas like sports figures, so I am not privy to the circumstances unique to the subject area. I've heard that the German Wikipedia does have revenue requirements for companies to qualify. I think there would be more support for it than you would think. However, I would do something more along the lines of making the assumption that an org is not notable if they are below a certain funding/revenue threshold, allowing for exceptions when there are reliable sources to justify it - as oppose to a hard and fast rule. CorporateM (Talk) 23:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about revenue requirements. These depends a great deal upon the part of the world and the industry. The deWP deals with a more homogeneous range of topics than we do. They have been mentioned sometimes in afd discussions for financial companies , for example to explain that under $1billion of assets managed is not a big deal. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you didn't mean publish Blackall and Yaraka Branch Railways to the Main space? JMHamo (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there's a printed source given. I can't see it, but we should assume good faith that it does cover the material. Checking for copypaste would however require actually locating it. If an article has about at least 60% chance of passing afd, I think it should go in mainspace. Or did I miss something obviously fishy? DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs clean-up, categories, more wikilinks etc, just messy. JMHamo (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it does. As you know, there are several schools of thought: one is to get everything right before moving to mainspace; a second is to at least get them cleaned up to a reasonable extent extent before putting them in mainspace, the third is to put them in as soon as they have a decent chance of passing afd. I started out at the first, but then moved to an second, and am now close to the third. The part that takes experience is deciding if there is the basis of a sustainable article, & I try to look at that for as many AfCs as possible. I admit, tho, that this rougher than even my usual standard: I usually at least add article sections; tho adding links is a good exercise for beginners, I usually add enough basic ones to at least give the impression of a WP article. (But there are a great many people who like to add categories. I learned early on that the best thing for me to do about categories, was to let them do it.) I was going too fast here, and you were right to call me on it. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

I subscribe to the get to as near perfection as possible before moving it from Draft school of thought. All too often the article is not found again (especially is there are no categories) and remains indefinitely in a bad state. A bad first impression for any reader coming across it. JMHamo (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my style is the experience that slow as it may be to get material improved in mainspace, it is even slower and less likely in Draft. As I understand it, the likelihood of survival in mainspace is the only actual guideline. It's good to do more, and each of us will balance whether we want to work in concentrated way with a small number of articles, or as a preliminary rescue of many. I've always done mostly rescue, with a few each week taken beyond that. I didn't expect it, but I find I like to work at the bottom. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your tireless new page patrolling. Esquivalience t 02:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Douglas. Thank you very much for your advice. However I did not understand your suggestion. Could you please help me/give me an example of how to include such "quote parameter in the references to insert a sentence"? What you are saying is a bit confusing, because many of those sources are scientific papers, not possible to edit in any form... even more, to check the use of the term (i.e. technomass) in many cases you have to buy/access the article by a university account. But you know that, you are a librarian... btw I reallly like your page/description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynost (talk • contribs) 09:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the latest number of undisclosed paid editing issues, I was wondering if the creation of a new WP:CSD criteria is in order. The general idea is that if someone is found to be partaking in undisclosed paid editing, than the articles they have written can be deleted more efficiently. On the grounds that undisclosed paid editors COI prevent the content of the article from being written in a balanced manner. Sort of a Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over speedy for undisclosed paid editing. This would serve to more strongly discourage undisclosed paid editing and reduce the ability of businesses to profit off of the practice.

A rough draft of the deletion criteria could read:

A12: Articles created by an undisclosed paid editor while taking part in undisclosed paid editing where the only substantial content to the page was added by its author.

Is this good, bad, awful, would it destroy Wikipedia? You are a very experienced editor within the deletion process so I'm interested in your thoughts on this idea. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with "undisclosed paid editor" is we have no means of proving someone is unless they confess to it subsequently. And if they do so confess, doesn't this to some extent turn them into a disclosed paid editor? Even confession isn't absolutely reliable because there have been a few verified examples of joe jobss where an upe pretended to be a well known wikipedian. As you know, the prevailing view here is that outing is more important than coi. Personally, I would be prepared to see that be reversed, but I unfortunately don't think it would get consensus, considering the defeat of the recent AfC on a very mild exception to the outing policy. Officially (i.e., in my role as an admin and arb), I will as I have always done apply existing policy, not policy as I would like it to be.

To the best of my knowledge, and as confirmed by opinions of some people with experience in this, there has never been an upe making worthwhile contributions, so they can all be gotten rid of otherwise. Of course, this means if there has been one consistently doing so, we obviously do not know about it. I doubt it, because the amount of junk being submitted now and in the past is so great that it is reasonable to assume any new entry on an organization is very likely to be coi at least, and in most cases also violation of the our Terms of Use; I would also say this about to individuals in some fields. This then raises the question of if they are making consistently good contribution why should we want to get rid of the articles--the same as undetected sockpuppets.

I would go a little further: imo, even for the best declared paid editors, the quality of their paid work is not as high as the volunteer work most of them also do.

The best course of action within existing policy is to have stricter requirements on articles in susceptible subjects, and for more people to participate in the afds. I would certainly propose a formal deletion reason , that borderline notability AND a mainly promotional article is a reason for deletion. (It is now, if we choose to do so, but a formal statement would make it easier to explain). I am saying this with great reluctance--for my first 5 or 6 years here, I devoted as much of my effort as possible into rescuing just those sort of article. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts DGG. I don't like the situation either, but the quantity of COI violations that are done on a daily basis is so large (if the quantity of G11s and adv declines at AfC are of any indication) that something needs to be done. I'm just grasping at straws for a solution. Can't we just get Congress to grant the WMF subpoena power or at least file FTC complaints against some of these people. /rant Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a very few extreme cases, where people or firms have been identified, the WMF has taken some legal or regulatory action. I have some knowledge of whom to speak to and approximately what their parameters are. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I created Category:Referencing systems and rearranged or redirected some articles to fit the category. But it strikes me a category like this must already exist, and I thought you would be the best person to ask. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

working on it. See,for example the standard system for the Talmud and system for Chapters and verses of the Bible. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's actually quite a large subject. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting Surah Peter Damian (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see that anyone has ever written a general WP article on this. I'm not immediately aware of any general discussions in the librarianship literature, but there are many further places to check--I think I recall there are discussions of its use in particular subjects in books on how to do research in history, etc. , DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, could you help me remove the advert flagged banner on the Village Capital page? It's been flagged for a while now, and the page seems like it's been improved. I'd love an opinion on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's standards, and if not, what I can do to fix this to remove the banner as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahlerbattle (talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as a start, remove the adjectives of praise. the substitute ordinary english for jargon like "across", and decrease the amount of dupllciation. Then I will take another look. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Still needed [reply]

Hi, Curious to know the reason for deleting Aditya Birla Finance Ltd Page. You have redirected it to its Group Page i.e. Aditya Birla Financial Services Group. Here check this both the URLs: http://adityabirlafinance.com/Pages/Individual/Our-Solutions/Overview.aspx & http://abfsg.com/Pages/Home.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunalshahv (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the article said, "Aditya Birla Finance is a part of Aditya Birla Financial Services Group". I considered the articles on ABF do be a mere advertisement, and recommended that it be deleted altogether. Another editor made the merge to prevent the deletion. I still think there is no need at all for even the redirect for this small division, but I'm willing to let that stand, and not start the necessary community discussion on whether it should instead be deleted. At the very most, I do not see any reason at all why we need articles on both. It might be useful to list in the main article the various divisions that make up the company.

I see you have also written articles on other divisions of the company. I will meed to take a look at them to see if they should be merged and redirected also. Since these firms are almost the only topic on which you have worked here, I assume that it is quite possible that you are in some way connected with the company. If so, I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organization as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use, [10] Section 4, "Paid contributions without disclosure.
. I've placed the relevant warning on your user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Inprocess[reply]

This is your promised reminder that it would be helpful to have information about how to use impact factors in a smart way for evaluating sources across multiple disciplines. Wikipedia:Impact factors is a new redirect to Wikipedia:Scholarly journal, which is mostly a notability essay. I think you can safely usurp the redirect, if you don't want to come up with another name. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would be really useful for me, if I'm understanding it correctly. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Really useful" is exactly my goal.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"so promotional that it would need to be rewritten from scratch" is a good reason for deletion.

You rightly owe someone a private thanks, or some form of acknowledgement for their work. Or are you only the whip? :) -- GreenC 13:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently referring to my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canine Companions for Independence (2nd nomination)

if you mean others have used this wording before me, that's very possible, but I've been using it for many years, and I'm not consciously copying anyone.

If you mean it's not a valid reason:

WP:CSD is limited to the reasons specified; any reason the community accepts is good at AfD. See [[WP:Deletion policy]#Reasons for Deletion]], point 14." Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"

It is obviously a good reason for AfD, since it can even justify speedy G11; it's a restatement of "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." from WP:CSD#G11. Similarly the essay WP:TNT has been used repeatedly by others as an argument for many deletions. Whether any particular article in question is actually that bad, is of course subject to a community decision: at AfD if at AfD, at Deletion Review if it was done at speedy. In this case, it is indeed possible that the decision may be against my proposal.

a related deletion rationale I often give is that "an article that is only borderline notable and is also promotional should be deleted ." That only works at AfD, and only if the consensus agrees with it.

WP:CSD is limited to the reasons specified; any reason the community accepts is good at AfD. See [[WP:Deletion policy]#Reasons for Deletion]], point 14." Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David, is there anything you can do to have the banner removed from my page? I think you agree that it is not justified, and its only effect is to instil doubt about the validity of my page, which is in fact understated and minimal rather than self-promotional. I'd be grateful for any help you can give me. Best wishes, Stevan --User:Harnad 14:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

working on it -- answer later today. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again David, I see you to-do list is long, but just a reminder about the banner on my page... Chrs, S --User:Harnad 12:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

U:Harnad: Stevan, here's the situation. Most biographical articles in WP, including academic bios, tend to be written by PR staff, and are excessive in praise of their subject. But your bio is one of the academic bios that is too modest to the point of being inadequate: it doesn't give a full basic sequence of positions, and it needs more detail, especially about the cognitive science aspects, along with more links to related articles and a list of major publications in that field. I've always meant to expand it, but it would get me started if you could suggest on the article talk page any good third party published descriptions of your key work. (In the last few years we've tightened the rules a good deal, and since you are the subject, you are supposed to put the suggested material on the article talk page; I or someone else will then add it. We've also adopted a more standardized approach to academic bios--I will make the appropriate adjustments.)

As for the tags: The primary sources tag tho now justified can be removed--there are too many links to your talks and statements, which does not take the place of a listing of major works, justified objectively by some factor such as most-cited. I think I know which ones to remove, & I'll remove the tag. The connected contributor tag will have to remain--you are the major contributor, and it's our standard notice. It doesn't imply bias, just an alert to possibly watch for bias. If I removed it, someone else would put it back. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, I will provide the materials you request on the talk page for my entry. I was not aware of all those format and content requirements. Best wishes, Stevan --User:Harnad 04:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

yes, best practice has gotten more organized & formal as compared to when you & I started here. DGG ( talk ) 13:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksHaydertouran (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very few individual academic departments are notable. That's not my personal decision, but the consistent practice of the community. For practical purposes, without going into the rather elaborate Wikipedia jargon, the requirement is world-famous. The basic requirement for inclusion of any organization is coreferences providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Very few academic departments can meet this requirement. In addition, a requirement for an article on an academic department (or any organization) is that the article be non-promotional--that it be directed towards what readers of an encycopedia might want to know, not what the organization might want to tell them.

Your department does not meet either part of the requirement. But the primary reason for deletion was not advertising, but rather that it gave no indication whatsoever that it might possibly be important in any sense, let alone world famous. I should have specified that as the reason, and I apologize for any confusion. It was for good measure, very difficult to understand. The title didn't even say what university it was in. The text was written in English that would need to be almost completely rewritten, even if it had been famous. There were no references except to its own site.

I also removed your edit inserting a direct link to your department in place of its name at the university article. We do not include such links. We linkonly to the main university web site. The reader can generally find the web pages of individual departments from there. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in your thoughts here, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For my first 2 years here, I helped establish the principle that every institution of higher education is to be considered notable; ever since then, for the following 6 years, I have successfully defended it. It is almost never even challenged, which is more than I can say for most of our guidelines. (there are sometimes exceptions for unaccredited institutions whose real existence is not all that clear, but that doesn't apply here) DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you did that, but congrats for setting a policy-in-practice! I have withdrawn the AfD (in word only at the AfD - I don't know how to formally do that) If you like, I would be interested in hearing your rationale - not to argue, just to learn. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The argument I made is that if one searches carefully enough, especially for potentially notable alumni, it is possible to meet the GNG for high schools and colleges most of the time, depending on the usual argument over whether sources are sufficiently substantial, etc. It would also be possible to show this for elementary schools a good deal of the time. The results in practice depended on how hard they are argued and searched for more than anything about the school itself, and have an equal amount of error in each direction. Every last one of them was at the time argued, and we therefore spent a good deal of effort at AfD, without getting any more precise results than if we accepted all the high schools and rejected the elementary schools. (Most of the discussions were for high schools; it is accepted as being all the more true for colleges.) As a compromise, it was accepted that high schools and up were notable, but primary schools would not ordinarily be notable. We therefore avoided about 10 afds a day without adversely affecting the encyclopedia. Everyone, thse arguing in both directions, realised things were better that way.

As contributing factors for the acceptance of the result, was the general view that they were appropriate for the encyclopedia considering the interests of our writers and readers; that there was limited opportunity for spam; & that they were good articles for young beginners. It's essentially the same argument by which settled geographic places are notable, but not necessarily unsettled geographic features. Both of them have proven very stable compromises.

They rely on the notion of presumed notability as a concession to those who thing the GNG the main factor. I do not, personally think it ought to be, and I have supported every effort to set a demarcation line based on something intrinsic to the subject. There are stable similar compromises for many types of athletics, for popular music, for astronomical objects, for academics, for scientific journals, for government officials , for some types of local institutions, for national vs subnational associations, etc. I don't agree with the demarcation lines in some of them, but I support all of the compromises. I consider the GNG to reflect the bias of the internet, and that if we really worked at finding sources we could make nonsense out of it.

The entire rationale for a notability standard at all is a little shaky, as compared to most of our other rules. The original rationale is so we look like what people expect an encyclopedia to look like. This was extremely important in the beginning , when people already had an expectation based on the print encyclopedias they knew, and it was necessary to establish ourselves as a serious project. The better reason is that lowering the bar too far leads us to become an advertising medium. It is much easier to control what we have an article on, than to control the content of articles. If we are more or less inclusive, we're still an encycopedia ; if we accept advertising as articles, there's little point in existing, because the internet does as well by itself. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to write all that, that all makes sense. The only argument I would have, is the "limited opportunity for spam" thing. A good chunk of COI stuff I deal with (I won't hazard a guess on the percentage, but it is not insignificant) is raw academic boosterism - maybe the state of higher ed today would call for an examination of the assumption? I do hear you on cutting down on un-necessary AfDs - there is great value to that. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it all before :). As for promotionalism: I was thinking primarily of high schools, where the sort of promotionalism in their articles is usually trivial to remove, and goes as soon as someone notices it. Colleges are much more of a problem.especially because so few of us even occasionally try to clean them up (except that there are now consistent efforts to remove non-notable alumni) Almost every US college & university article on WP is written by PR staff, except the few written by over-enthusiastic alumni. The alumni are worse: just like all fans, they don't give up. The PR staff are usually local PR staff, who are generally incompetent as compared to the people who work in industry. They follow a standard pattern, which is remarkably similar to the one-page descriptions in college guides. I don't know if there are people training them, or whether they copy each other.

I hadn't seen the boosterism essay you linked to--thanks!. I think I'll add to it. I also added a little to WP:College and university article guidelines.

I've decided to check some of the university FAs, to make sure we aren't specifying well-written but promotional articles as examples. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG. I couldn't help but notice your comment on User talk:Timtrent#afc_etc, saying that submissions that are clearly non-notable should be marked as such and that the users should "discourage continuing" writing the article. What do you see as the best approach to dealing with users that submit Afc submissions that clearly do not have a chance of passing? I feel confident in determining notability but I don't want to be too harsh on anybody, especially new users. Many thanks in advance, Aerospeed (Talk) 17:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I typically say: "In order to get an article, you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. If you can not find them, an article will not be possible at this time. When you become well-known enough for there to be such references, then it will make sense to try again. " The key word to avoid harshness is When. Almost everyone understands, except some paid editors. For those who do not, I sometimes go to MfD.

And it's crucial to say this as a short personal message, not as part of the boilerplate. People rarely read long boilerplate. I often modify the templated message after it is placed, removing almost all of the surrounding text. I sometimes remove the color also, so it doesn't look like a template. Here's an example I've given up on trying to get the people who program this to improve the messages. Even the custom message template still has too much unnecessary verbiage, DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a number of articles about academics recently and I wanted to get some advice from you on how to write such articles, what should be included in them, etc. Everymorning talk 17:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

forthcoming, probably tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will get there, probably Saturday. In the meantime, look at Chad Orzel, which I deprodded. A full article in Contemporary Authors is proof of notability -- and that article usually lists books review also)It's available online as part of Gale's Literature Resource Center, available thru most public libraries DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the only problem is I don't often edit from a library (unlike yourself, I imagine, since you are a librarian). But I'll keep that in mind the next time I stop by a library. Everymorning talk 02:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most large city libraries have it available to library card holders remotely. You only have to visit once, to get a card. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any word on when that advice is coming? It's been about 3 weeks now. Everymorning (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...

This can s perfectly legitimate--if the article is in the end acceptable. I've done it sometimes--the only real reason I go thru the RfC acceptance process is to get the articles in the right category & added to the statistics. The real problem is that PR people do this rather frequently, without improving the article. I have learned for some types of articles before deleting a G13, to see if by any chance the article is in mainspace, and if so, whether it's acceptable. Sometimes it is, and it is the reviewer who was in error, and rather than argue it, the person just bypassed them. Considering the quality of some reviews, I can well understand them.

The fundamental principle to understanding WP procedures is that there is no underlying principle or system. There are multiple ways to do anything, some of them devised by programmers wanting to display their cleverness or take care of every unlikely contingency they could think of. Not all of them had actual editing experience.

As for the article, it's not my field, but it looks fine to me. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: Thank you. Very clear and helpful. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For all the abuse you are getting at AfD.

Bearian (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the last year or two I have been deliberately trying to stretch deletion process a little in both directions, to see if consensus is changing. To keep things responsive, somebody's got to, and better me than someone with a coi. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EINSTEIN. Expand, mock or delete as you see fit... Guy (Help!) 14:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I must have quoted it about a hundred times by now! It is almost always very effective at putting an end to absurd arguments for coverage. And if someone doesn;'t get the point, it shows very nicely their total lack of objectivity on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG,

(This is a continuation of similar threads on your talk page in 2012 and 2014). I have been away for a few months, and when I started editing again, I was hoping to be left alone to help build areas that, in my opinion, are sorely lacking.

On 8 August 2015 5 I found a little visited article about a very important organization: Condo Owners Association (Ontario) (which has an article here under the incorrect name) and at 17:10 I started renovating the whole area surrounding Category:Condominium on Wikipedia. According to recent news reports 50% of new home buyers in Toronto are now purchasing condos, and the number of condo owners is staggering, considering how little information exists on Wikipedia on this topic.

As usual, however, it appears that my efforts to build up have attracted the attention of the deletionist faction. By August 9 the article that was getting no attention at all for months, was up for wp:AfD, and instead of continuing my efforts to built this neglected Codominium area, I find myself spending more and more time getting into conflicts with other editors intent on deleting whatever else is associated with this article. I seem to have been unsuccessful in trying to convince another admin that the article that is now getting very little attention at AfD should be moved to its correct official name.

This is very discouraging, and I know that posting this on your talk page will undoubtably bring out more of the same, sigh… Ottawahitech (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might help me if you could specify the articles involved. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying.; response forthcoming. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a little too much like a press release, and this will inevitably affect people's attitude towards it. Possibly there might be a little advocacy in some of the other articles also. The last thread is now at [11] DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I belong to a (dying?) minority of editors who like to work on articles that are not yet developed. Unfortunately it appears that my edits only serve to bring those articles to the attention of editors whose mission is to nominate articles for deletion. I have been asked before to provide examples of this phenomenon and thought : Condo Owners Association (Ontario) can be mentioned as one because no one paid attention to it until I started to work on it.

I am worried that my sad conclusion is also shared by others, which means few editors will be working on improving wp:stubs around here. Thanks btw for finding the 2014 thread - I am unable to locate the 2012 one tirled Useless stubs because the Edits by user tool is broken (another sigh...) Ottawahitech (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like posting a link to an article at Helpdesk is a good way to send existing long-time articles to wp:AfD. See for example Wikipedia:Help_desk#Lynn_Walsh, I think. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, I moved the discussion of this particular point to Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk#Deletion_of_articles_referred_to_in_questions_here. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a dual intention here: One is to try to keep everything suitable for an encycopedia. The other to to remove promotionalism. Lately, due to the flood of promotional articles, the second has become more important--even critical. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia.

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. It will take years, but work on them as I see them.

Normally I send a long standing article to AfD rather than to speedy unless it's utterly outrageous--t will not be deleted unless the consensus agrees with me. I accept the consensus there as the guide in establishing standards. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting a Speedy at Make It Cheaper, which obviously deserved to be fully considered. I wish more Administrators were as rational. Yours sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was superb finally getting to meet you! I only got to hear the last bit of your talk but was quite intrigued. I look forward to seeing you and the rest of the NYC crew next time around. All the best — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG,

You have A7-deleted my page about the SNIA Long-term Retention Technical Workgroup (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNIA_Long_Term_Retention_TWG&action=edit&redlink=1). I would like to review the previously existing version of my article and edit with the relevant information. Can you please send me the text from the version I originally submitted?

Thank you.

Phillipviana (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phillipviana, I can not send you the deleted contents until you authorize email, using the Preferences link on your user page. But in any case, the material is entirely copied or closely adapted from various parts of their site. I suggest you try to integrate the appropriate material dealing with this topic on a single WP page. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thank you. I will come up with new content but would still like to have the previous version. I have confirmed my e-mail a few minutes ago. Please send me the previous version when you have a chance. Thanks. Phillipviana (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, can you please put the version back online? Thanks Phillipviana (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... our WP article on National Book Award explains it: hundreds of books get nominated--any publisher can nominates as many as they please. In the 2013 procedure, each of the 4 categories is winnowed own by a panel to a long list of 10, a short list of 5, and then a winner. The books on the short list are called Finalists, and get a prize; the winner gets a much bigger prize. By analogy with other similar awards, winning is notable, being a finalist contributes to notability, being nominated is not even worth mentioning. If the NBA site lists them as finalists, they're finalists--we usually regard the award site as authoritative. DLB's text is considered reliable--its headlines are, as usual with headlines, summaries & simplifications. Headlines never take precedence over the text, here or anywhere. USA Today, LA Times etc. are dependent on the actual source of data, and less reliable. Neither of them is really a RS for published books. (The LATimes is a RS for film). This is one of the cases where the PS is more reliable than any report of it. What must be avoided is using any statements on Amazon or the publisher's sites as evidence for anything at all; they both often list awards & best seller status in the most positive terms they can concoct. Pre 2013, there was no list of 10, just the short list of finalists and the winner. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG For my own reference, can you please send me the page you rejected about the SNIA Long-term Retention Technical Workgroup? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNIA_Long_Term_Retention_TWG&action=edit&redlink=1).

		 −	

My e-mail address has already been confirmed so you should be good to send it now :) Thanks

Phillipviana (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want WP:ALTEXPAND deleted since it's undermaintained and horribly out of date. ((Expand)) was deprecated ages ago, so I doubt anyone's looking for "alternatives" to it anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), Perhaps then it should be expanded/updated and retitled; it was good material--we shouldn't lose it. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a look at this article and to its history. --Randykitty (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

citations are 500, 270, 170, 150 ... , so he's notable, even allowing for the very high citation rate in this area. Even tho its an autobiography, what it needs is rewriting. Once upon a time, I would unhesitatingly rewrite all articles like this, but in the last year or so the number that need doing has escalated to the point where I only do it if it is in my area of interest, it is easy to do, and the article is not hopelessly corrupt otherwise. This articles is a summary of his outrageously self-praising website even by the abyssmal standards for such websites, http://www.drpeterlin.com/dr.-lin2.html , but not close enough to be a copyvio. It's not even a competent summary, because it leaves out some of the actual encyclopedic information, such as the dates of his positions, and makes no attempt to select the most important among the publications.

As we have now learned we need to do, I checked some of the refs. That he was clinical advisor to the bill is referenced to the Senator's web site, but isn't stated there. Some of the rest are also ambiguous. It's implied he developed EKOS--he did not, a/c the references--he merely uses it. And a Reuters article referred to in this connection is not an article, but a press release on their site.

For an analogous case, by a known paid editor, see John Wesson Ashford, where I just removed the minor and stuff and unproven claims to be first in something. He , too, has very high citations.

I am holding off going further until I can decide what I want to do in such cases. I don't want to punish notable people for being naive enough to write their own article or use a paid editor, but I equally don't see why they should get priority for rewriting before all the even more notable people whom we are missing. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking paid editing more than autobio, given the contributors' names (and didn't look into notability myself, as I have no time right now). You're right that it's not egregiously promotional. I removed some of the minor awards. If only those paid editors could get it through their heads that it is far more effective to write a really encyclopedic, neutral article... --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a group of editors. Look at the main editors and the other articles they have edited. All related.

• JeremyKai4077 (talk · contribs) created 9/10/2015
• Garfield4407 (talk · contribs) created 9/9/2015

• John.freeman.2010 (talk · contribs) created 9/8/2015 (also see their talk page about an article that was speedied)
• Also note that JeremyKai4077 and John.freeman.2010 have also the exact same user page.

Possibly some paid editing? At the least this group has a very narrow focus. Ravensfire (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously encountered obvious but undeclared paid editing devoted to a particular medical specialty, and to other groups of individuals, or companies in the same field, where I assume it was a PR company specializing in the field or working for a trade association. I have frequently encountered it for people in the same or related company, where it has sometimes not been an outside PR firm, but the employer: sometimes in-house PR staff, but sometimes a department manager or the like acting on his own initiative.

Experience has unfortunately shown that most (but not all) people with experience in PR cannot be taught to write a proper article, because they are so completely oriented to writing advertisements or quasi-adevertisements that they honestly cannot see the difference between that an a proper encycopedia article. Declared paid editors here whom I trust have told me they need to turn down most clients, because the clients even if notable will not accept a NPOV article. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG; Thanks for your useful comments at the Drv recently on the Poetry article. User:Bearian seemed to agree with you, but the review was closed. This leaves the question of somehow udpating/changing the policy pages at WP:CWW and WP:Content forking to indicate that qualified citations to other Wikipedia articles are now mandatory if G-12 disqualifications are not to be risked. I would not want to see other editors led down the same primrose garden path as I was only to have their articles questioned or deleted. It is true that Wikipedia excludes citing use of other Wikipedia articles in the Bibliography section, but it seems like a "shadow-bibliography" is what is now being required. The wording in both WP:CWW and WP:Content forking should be strengthened now to indicate that G-12 disqualifications will be applied if the now mandatory "shadow-bibliography" for WP:CWW and WP:Content forking is not included in articles which are affected (hundreds and hundreds of articles as I count them). MusicAngels (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:MusicAngels: please understand that the problem with the poetry articles was not only copyright violations but also that they were biased, prejudicial, subjective, redundant, and based on long-disputed scholarship. Even if you fixed the copyright you would have a swarm of scholars descending on you. Stick to your own knitting, whatever that knitting is. 01:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)128.90.91.69 (talk)[reply]

MusicAnimal, alll yoiu had to do to prevent the deletion as copyvio was to add attribution, which would have been easy enough.Dennis Brown gave you good detailed advice on how to fix it Personally, I would not have deleted by G12, but I think that everything considered, Nyttend acted reasonably. I would personally have thought it poor judgement right (though not prohibited) for him to have removed it immediately, but you were given time to fix it. WP is full of rules, but most are not actually observed to the full rigor in which they are stated (Even copyright , one of our most rigorous, has-- as you have seen -- some disputed aspects. But they are there, and if a dispute should arise, or someone feel neglected, people sometimes invoke them. The only safe way to work is to write so that someone trying to pick apart an article has nothing to grab hold of. Anything organized like WP will never be altogether consistent, or even always fair.

As general advice, it would be immensely more useful to work on criticism sections for each of the authors. Then summary articles by period could be written using and linking to that material. You need to work on small discrete articles for quite a while, before attempting something like this. Even if you know how to do a systematic survey in the ordinary academic Real World, WP is -- some say different, but I say peculiar.

With respect to the comments from 128.: At this stage in the development of WP, articles on serious humanities subjects that are really properly written and sourced are a minority. The great majority of our articles on these topics are also using out of date subjective material. To do it right, we'd need a few dozen more editors with at least an advanced undergraduate understanding of the topics & of humanities research & writing techniques, and access to the print and online resources of a decent research library. The material added did use current literary criticism also. I have not read it in detail, but I saw no gross signs of being biased or prejudicial. The complaint in the discussion that it covered only WEurope & NAmerica is in my opinion absurd--trying to cover all cultures in a single article on a topic like this is a really major task which was, reasonably enough, not being attempted. All that was needed was to adjust the title or add a line of explanation. There's no way to handle these topics without some redundancy, but if there is too much it can be fixed by editing. If there were errors they could have been corrected, and if better sources were needed, they could have been added. I should add that there is no one correct interpretation of literature, no one way to evaluate the work of an author, nor will anything ever be definitive, nor in most cases is there even at one time a true scholarly consensus. It's not quite like, say, molecular biology. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DGG: The "biased and prejudicial" aspect of the essay was that it arrived fully formed out of the head of an uneducated person, leaving uneducated editors to chip away at it. The act of "chipping away" was deemed disruptive by me and several other because we are IPs. In short, the bias and prejudice of MusicAngels was creating an article selfishly without input or organic growth. I and many others got frustrated because any editing was met with bullying by User:MusicAngels. When you look at his talk page you see some residue there. He had to be slapped down about not bullying IPs over and over again. Every edit I made he reverted and said I had to justify it. How was he justified in creating an entire article out of his field and then have it be the default? Insane. 128.90.39.243 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG; This is the same IP-hopping editor who I reported above as blocked on multiple accounts in his range account at his institution. If you need the other range accounts he is using for IP-hopping I can provide them along with the blocks already made. MusicAngels (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: and what we see here is MusicAngels attacking me because I am "IP hopping" (out of my control) rather than actually seeing the substance of my critique. If Wikipedia policy is that IP editors are not second-class citizens (and if I am so easily identifiable) then perhaps MusicAngels should listen rather than seeking to ban me. There was no consensus on the poetry pages because they arrived fully formed without consensus. 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)128.90.95.145 (talk)[reply]

Hi DGG: Thanks for getting back. Only two very technical issues to bring up if you can glance at them. First, the IP-editor here has been identified for IP-hopping and trolling by multiple editors/administrators now and has been blocked multiple times as in this one [12]. You are apparently the ninth editor that he has been trolling/hopping and he appears to be taking advantage of a large institutional range of IP-addresses available at his institution. The second technical issue at hand is that I was quite serious about needing to edit the individual pages for WP:CWW and WP:Content forking to mention the G12 issue and requirements for the "shadow-bibliography" issue (that is, current requirements to exclude Wikipedia article references in the Bibliography section of articles system-wide throughout Wikipedia, but include the Wikipedia article references on the Talk page or dummy edits). Since I am meticulous about checking and verifying references in Bibliographies and have spent a great deal of time cleaning up dead links and restoring bad ones, then this is an important issue. If the deleted articles were mislabeled as G12 (as you suggest in your comments above), then the deleted pages should be at least re-labeled on the admin-only data base as to your stated preference and reason. If they are G12, then WP:CWW and WP:Content forking need some editing and additions to cover the G12 issue which is currently not mentioned on those two pages. If you need some of the other IP-hopping addresses for the IP-account above, then let me know here and I will try to get them listed for you. MusicAngels (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The G12 deletion in such cases can be applied, but usually the problem is corrected after a warning. As I said, I personally would not have applied G12 in this case, but the action was within the range of administrative discretion, and therefore I cannot say it was mislabeled. As I said above "Anything organized like WP will never be altogether consistent, or even always fair." The actually best way of dealing with the WP references is very simple: to remove the duplicated text and link the name. If you did think it necessary to include the text, in addition to the techniques listed in WP:CWW, there is also available a rather complicated technique, used often in history and geography articles, but relevant here also: WP:Summary style. I don't think anyone mentioned that possibility in the discussion--I am going to add a link to it on WP:CWW

There is no need to edit anything to say not to use WP articles as references--it's part of the Verifiability policy page--see WP:CIRCULAR DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my understanding as well. This is the template that I had already prepared on my Talk page for insertion in the article, but I took one day off last week and the article was deleted without prior notice of closing. I think User:Fogettaboutit was also in agreement with you on this. This is the template as prepared on my Talk page and I was just going to fill in the names already listed in the Lead section of the poetry article. If you are saying that this will work then I am in full agreement with you and User:Fogettaboutit:

((Copied multi|list=
((Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff ))
((Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet2 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff ))
((Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet3 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff ))
((Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet4 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff ))
((Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet5 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff ))
((Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet6 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff ))
)) Is that what you are reading as being what User:Fogettaboutit had in mind. MusicAngels (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At a different level, I have to say that using these copies was not necessarily a good idea in a general article. Too much of them dealt with the biography, and the reader of a general article would want to see about the literature. They would know enough to go to the article about the author for the bios. It would have been, as I just said, the actually best way of dealing with the WP references to remove the duplicated text and link the name. That people didnt like the article affected the action. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In stating that, you do realize that your suggestion is very close to the WP:TNT option if all of those biographical subsections are deleted. Since this is effectively equal to the solution previously put on the table by Drv participants, then I would like to offer to do the WP:TNT from the inside-out myself for the article. If you could restore the article as a Draft article under a new name "Draft:Poetry in the 21st century", then I will remove all of the biography subsections used in their entirety. This will effectively leave only the lead section and the outline structure for the rest to be then rewritten. This was only a "C"-class article anyway, and I would like to move forward with the option you are offering of straightforwardly removing all the WP:CWW biography material used and then rewriting/redrafting it along with WikiProjects as a Draft article. Also, I would mark the Talk page to inform other editors not to apply any WP:Content forking in the new article. MusicAngels (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to run your mouse down this list of contributions - the popups will quickly show you that they are either all important (but not necessarily notable) hotels, or large numbers numbers of Wikilinks to them from other articles. The URLs of the sources all have that squeaky clean look. I haven't done anything yet. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will take a while to check them all, but spot-checking,most of the edits seems to be minor adjustments, of the sort which are appropriate even for COI editors. Looking at articles they contributed themselves, Hilton Frankfurt Airport and Waldorf Astoria Berlin are not particularly promotional. More tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've seen the outcome of this and this. Personally, I relist at least once before closing as no consensus, but this is an admin's prerogative and is not a reflection on the closer. What I'm more concerned with is that while Cunard's efforts to rescue such articles are laudable, such closures possibly deny us of much needed evidence for finding solutions to Orangemoody and other issues concerning blatant paid-for (or indeed any) promotion. Perhaps one could consider employing G13, G11, and G5 more broadly or more vigorously. Thoughts? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard is taking the same approach I would have taken 6 years ago. I then argued that the most important thing is to have acceptable content, and how it got there is secondary. I still think that the ideal way of looking at it, if it were not for the current epidemic of paid editing (and the realization that it was there before, also, but we paid insufficient attention to it.) You & I have been assuming a deterrent effect. Cunard has challenged that assumption, and I can't prove him wrong. As you said, its "possibly deny us", but just possibly. Based on some discussions, perhaps what it's most likely to do is discourage pd eds. from giving money-back guarantees, but they will still be able to show portfolios of whatever of their work has not been deleted, including that done before they were detected.

Frankly, I am no longer willing to challenge on the grounds of having been started as paid editing any article that he will rewrite and take responsibility for; I started thinking in the course of the discussion that I am not sure my renoms of those two articles was justified.

G5 has never covered articles started before someone is blocked, or articles with substantial contributions by others. I can see permitting it retrospectively, but the sort of thing we're discussing would require removing the " substantial edits by others" part. I'm not sure I would support that.

G11 of course should be more consistently applied, but I am not sure what wording would make it stronger, as every article on an organization or its product will have some promotional effect., We could add something about "promotional intent", but this is hard to really prove.

I don't see what you propose to do with G13 to make it stronger. I still have my list of 500 or sos articles that shouldn't have been deleted but were because the contributor gave up after improper reviewing.

What we need to concentrate on I think is the notability standard for organizations. Even here, it's hard to think of how to reword it so it doesnt remove the clearly notable--our emphasis on the GNG prevents any rational work on this area. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an extra-strict WP:NSOFT-essay, where three coverage-bursts are needed (not just three publishers). If the details of WP:NCORP-guideline are tweaked, so that three coverage-bursts (not just three published sources) are needed, that might ease some of the not-startup-type burden, since most startups only have one product, they get a coverage burst for their first funding round, a coverage-burst when their beta-product actually ships... and then have to wait around for that third coverage-burst (usually a second successful round of series B funding) prior to getting a dedicated wikipedia-article. In the case of Circle, they got their first burst in Oct&Nov'13, their second burst in Mar&May'14, and their third burst in Sep'14, plus their biggest burst yet in Apr&May of 2015. But if the WP:NCORP-guideline standards were shifted to require three bursts of coverage, spaced several months apart, then Circle (company) would have been a redlink (or more likely a WP:NOTEWORTHY mention under Bitcoin#companies methinks) for all of 2013 and most of 2014. Because they had a famous serial-entrepreneur founder, and got plenty of money early on, it would only have taken them a year of operation to get a wikipedia page... but that is still 12 months of WP:FAILN under the three-coverage-burst-test, used by WP:NSOFT-essay already. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

75.108.94.227 (talk · contribs), I don't think the number of coverage-burts matters--it's rather what gets said. If it's just funding, it doesn't show notability. I agree that a famous founder can be relevant--but if that's all there is, the information should be added to that pindividual's article as part of the list of companies he's funded. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aware of this? I wasn't. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: Hallo David and Randy, I wonder whether either of you has any pointers towards notability criteria for bibliographic databases. Polymer Library, formerly Rapra Abstracts has been PRODded as failing WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY (?). It feels to me like something which ought to have a WP article, but ... any thoughts? You two seem the natural people to ask, and by pinging RK on this page I hope to avoid duplication of any effort! PamD 14:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly? Nope, no idea. For the most important databases (like PubMed or the Arts and Humanities Citation Index) sources can be found without too much trouble. For the smaller ones, it's difficult. We have more database articles like this, none of them sufficiently sourced (just dependent sources for non-controversial info). In the present case, things are even more difficult, because "polymer library" is not an unambigous search term and gives many hits, but nothing really about this database. The links in the article don't help in establishing notability (the last one - STN - even seems to be a false positive as this library is not listed in the list of sources). Perhaps somebody from the Chemistry project would know of some sources? Curious what David will have to say about this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the refs I have at hand. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's worth pursuing the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (3rd nomination) (by contacting the closer or possibly del rev)? The closer's argument is that there is no clear interpretation of what constitutes "local" vs. "regional" coverage (play to the semantics/letter of WP:AUD). I thought the arguments clearly stated how the mall's coverage was still of "local interest" (best evidenced by the fact of how its larger import could be unclear at all). – czar 14:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It rarely hurts to ask the closer, but I generally do not recommend taking a non-consensus close to Deletion Review, and , at Deletion Review, I rarely vote to overturn one unless it is truly perverse. .Just wait a few months and nominate again. But in any case the argument would be that publications serving the San Joaquin Valley are local not likely to have readers outside the valley; publications serving the State of California are regional, being of interest to neighboring states also; A major SF or LA paper read nationally is national. The Oakland Tribune is arguably more than local, and it is certainly outside the Valley, but Tribune Business News is not the Tribune. If one is going to get technical about wording, the rule is that at least one non-local source is needed, which implies that one source is not always enough. In practice, the result of mall decisions depends on how hard they are argued. W

More generally, the majority disputed afd decisions hinge on the exact interpretation of the sourcing rule, and in most such cases a decent argument can be made in either direction. That's why I support going by objective criteria. In the case of malls, size. We have failed several times to get consensus on a general rule. If we did, and it were > 1 million sq ft≈100,000 sq metres, this would be deleted with no argument; if it were 500,000 sq ft it would be kept with no argument. In either case the effort debating it could be used for more important purposes. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sqft is the proper metric (assuming WP:42 is not enough of a metric already). Malls in the Boston area will be low-sqft, and that goes triple for malls in Hong Kong. By constrast, malls in Dallas or Minnesota (e.g. the Mall of America for a 'famous' example) will naturally have far more sqft, because real estate is cheaper and the dense-packed-mall-layouts are not necessary.

  Something like average-visitors-per-week ... or maybe peak-weekly-visitors-during-the-year to account for the seasonal nature of malls i.e. december 25th ... would be a better metric than sqft, and similarly, annual revenues is a good proxy for visitor-count slash mall-importance. Physically large does not equate well with wiki-notability, but number of people involved (or as a proxy number of dollars changing hands) does a better job methinks. If we do this, I recommend the visitor-count or dollar-count cutoff be low enough that at least one mall per tiny-city-of-population-10k is theoretically able to get a wikipedia article dedicated to the mall -- in the USA there are about 600 such tiny-cities, according to the KGB.[13] Or, actually that brings up another idea, see below. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

proposal: Businesses of Greater Clovis, California

  Or... now that I think of it... we could just use *that* as the threshold: every city with a population of 10k+ people, such as Charlotte Amalie would be permitted by the hypothetical WP:NSHOPPING wiki-notability guideline to have a safe-from-AfD article called Businesses in Charlotte Amalie. Such a 'listicle' would obviously include the 'major' malls (with WP:UNDUE being calculated based on sqft or visitor-count or most pragmatically revenues-per-annum since that latter figure is often available -- or simply in the usual wiki-fashion by the amount of ink spilled in wiki-reliable sources), as well as other major employers like hospitals/schools/banks, notable tourist traps, oft-reviewed restaurants, and such.

  Obviously, these business-in-XYZ-summary-articles will be a goldmine for linkspam, so if we go thataway, I would suggest beginning with a Businesses in CityName, CountryName guideline that sets a temporary initial threshold of 100k+ population minimum for the associated metro area; we even have an on-wiki list of such areas, and for the USA the total as of ~2008 was roughly 267 such medium-cities of 100k+ people (total of 295 as of July 2014 data). Borderline-notable mall articles and such, could be merged inot the business-of-XYZ articles, with exceptions for Mall of America and other not-borderline-exceptions. This temporary approach would cover about 90% of the states and territories in the USA... California where the Sierra Vista Mall is located tops the list with ~70 cities of 100k+ population in 2014:

• 6+: CA TX FL CO AZ NC IL VA WA MI NJ OH TN
• 4or5: CT GA KS MA MO NY PR AL IN LA NV OK OR PA UT
• 2or3: IA MN SC WI KY NE NM
• one: AK AR DC HI ID MD MS MT ND NH RI SD
• zero: AS DE GM ME NI VI VT WV WY

  Later, if that 100k+plan worked out, we could expand the threshold to include the additional ~~300 tiny-cities in the USA with 10k+ people through 99k people. Most of the states and territories exxcluded by the 100k+ rule, would be included by the 10k+ rule, including Charlotte Amalie, U.S. Virgin Islands which is the capitol and has 18k population nowadays.

  If the scheme *does* work, it could be a good recruiting tool for the type of editor naturally-interested in shopping and tourist attractions (plus editors WP:COI-interested in the retail industry and microeconomics), as I mentioned at the AfD for the mall. Furthermore, this scheme could also be a good way to help decide borderline-notability-questions about startups and such with WP:PRESERVE in mind... rather than a binary question of bangkeep or bangdelete, we would (almost always since I'm proposing a geography-based scheme) have the additional option of merging Circle_(company) into the Businesses in Greater Boston article that was a spinoff from Boston#Economy.

  And in fact, wikipedia already has Greater_Boston#Major_companies as a spinoff-list from Boston#Economy. So my proposal is that we expand that to be a spinoff-article that gives some details about the companies mentioned, then do the same Businesses of Greater CityName thing with 300 or 600 more cities, based on a population threshold of 100k+ or 10k+ respectively. Both thresholds would permit bangmerging Sierra Vista Mall into a broader Businesses of Greater Clovis, California article ... which at population 102k people just makes the upper threshold.

  Anyways, food for thought here mostly. Ping User:Czar, User:Brianhe, User:Widefox, User:Kudpung, and User:CorporateM, who may have comments about this crazy proposal.  ;-)     p.s. Not sure if DGG wants to host a big discussion, here on User:DGG talkspace, please let me know if you'd rather see this taken elsewhere DGG. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see is the COI hell that would inevitably result from these sorts of lists (many more anons adding their businesses than caring about an esoteric guideline). More concretely, I don't think a NSHOPPING guideline would ever pass consensus—especially since I think (or hope?) we're moving in the other direction (away from content-specific guidelines) post-OrangeMoody. I'd also say that these types of articles are closer to directories in function (what Wikipedia is not). If any such article was necessary, it would need to extend naturally (in summary style) from the city/town article's "Businesses" section. czar 15:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I submit to you that we are already in the COI hell of which you speak.  :-)     Orangemoody was a symptom: the only way even wiki-notable companies like Countly can get their articles approved, is by spending months and months learning all the wiki-policies, or by hiring some kind of wiki-consultant for cold hard cash. Because the COI-handling-facilities are so borked, we are quickly tilting the wiki-culture towards forcing honest disclosed-COI-editors into retirement, which will leave only the dishonest undisclosed bad apples. Agree about avoiding WP:NOTDIR, and agree about extending the Clovis, California#Economy section in summary-style, but disagree that WP:NOTEWORTHY is that hard even for a reasonably tiny business to surmount. The idea here is that the Businesses in Greater Clovis articles will become a place where

• #1) we can put 'quasi-local' organizations like the Sierra Vista Mall, that will be better-watched by the anti-COI-hawks than a dedicated Sierra Vista Mall article possibly could, and
• #2) we can also upmerge borderline-wiki-notable startups like Countly into Businesses of Greater Istanbul (or Greater Long since they have relocated to London nowadays), rather than let them molder in AfC as potential victims.
• There is even the possibility that #3) companies who clearly pass WP:GNG, such as Circle_(company) and the other bitcoin startups, could be down-merged into a paragraph of the appropriate city.

I'm not arguing this idea is a panacea of bliss, there will still be plenty of COI-encumbered clueless wiki-beginners (not all of them IP-anons dern it! ;-) but I think it is a better way to manage things than the hardline approach to handling COI, which I will unfairly mischaracterize as ban-'em-all-and-let-the-great-jimbo-sort-out-the-wiki-bodies. See my argument at the AfD, that the mall-article (and the businesses-of-xyz even more so) could be #4) a recruiting-tool... this is an expansion on that, which will also double as a way to mitigate the COI-encumbrance-problem, by putting all the COI-eggs into one basket, as it were. Whether it is a better idea, than what we are quickly moving towards, remains to be seen, but I do agree it is different from what we are quickly moving towards. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT business listing COI magnet, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Suggest AfC or some other place is better location for discussing new articles (no idea why I'm pinged). Widefox; talk 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way of preventing promotionalism in an encycopedia that permits anonymous editing. There is no way of preventing undisclosed COI editing either, for the same reason. We have been able to detect those we have, because they've not understood editing here well enough to avoid detection--and because all edits on borderline notable subjects of certain types clearly merit investigation. If we lower the standard of notability, it will be all the easier for them.

We are not in great need of people who will write on local subjects; we are not in need of people who will write on barely notable subjects. We are in need of people who can write on the clearly notable subjects that not enough people have been interested in, and the obvious area properly receiving current attention here is our continuing gender bias. But what we need even more are people who can rewrite the existing promotional editing on the clearly notable subjects. Almost all articles on major corporations and nonprofit organizations need complete rewriting. They've been contaminated by PR from various sources: the PR people who have written many of the articles, the volunteers who write like PR editors because they think that's what we want here, and the inevitably PR writing based on the RW sources being PR in the first place.

It's unfortunate that a few honest paid editors have gotten undue suspicion. But, quite frankly, I would very strongly support eliminating all paid editing whatsoever. Their fundamental mission is not really compatible with a NPOV encycopedia.

However, the proposition that we write as volunteers basic factual articles on all clearly notable organizations is a reasonable idea. If we do it, we shouldstart at the top, not see how far we can go to the bottom. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well expressed. The only substitute for the editorial supervision that Wikipedia of necessity lacks is to depend on high quality sources that do have editorial supervision that insists on fact checking, a skeptical attitude toward press releases, and disclosure of COIs. The most reliable of sources are characterized by strict insistence on declaring C.O.I.s, and even the appearance of C.O.I.s, and the use of press releases as no more than sources of questions to ask. The more time spent working on articles written from a source-rich environment (the truly notable), the better our instincts become for working in less information-rich environments. This should be the starting point for pulling out the effects of systemic bias by developing skepticism toward hand-outs and coi claims. (The NYT public editor has just written a piece on two Times published book reviews in which the reviewers assigned had undisclosed COIs).

Wikipedia needs properly sourced articles on corporations—for completeness; the same reason Wikipedia needs any article. But not so much that non-NPOV, poorly sourced articles need be allowed. Wikipedia has accessibility, reliability, and completeness to offer. Completeness is getting out ahead of reliability—this is a perversion of our goals. While it may be admirable to strive for completeness (an impossible goal), reliability back-stopped by adequate cites to WP:RS is existential. —Neonorange (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The contributing editor asserts that the gentleman is important, yet a reclusive character. To me that may be a disqualifier or may be a paradox we can solve. I have a suspicion you enjoy things outside the run of the mill and might enjoy chasing material on this chap down, assuming it is possible to find it. I'm about to ping you from the AFCH entry so you can get the full picture from the editor concerned.

Of course, you may throw up your hands in horror and decline the challenge! Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DGG. I got a notification that the article I created for MicroAssist has been deleted because of promotional content. This is my first time write content on WK and I'm not quite sure what kind of content should be considered promotional and advertising. I don't mean to violate WK polices but could you please let me know where I can find more specific and detailed guide on how to make a page for company? I tried to use neutral words and state facts. I've linked some content back to our website. Is it the major problem we have? I really hope that I can create an article that fulfill all requirements of Wk. Please let me know how I can improve my content

Thanks,

Jessica--Jessicahuma (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

....

I don't agree with the inherited notability argument above, or that notability can be measured by job title or award. Her notability can be established using the traditional method of evaluating sources, which in my view is the only basis from which notability should be measured. However, I don't question her notability, only whether her publication being nominated for this particular award is significant enough to warrant inclusion in her profile. I wasn't sure what you meant to say in this regard. Is the National Magazine Award known to the public? David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 02:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is the correct way to look at inherited notability is that the fact that a person is notable, doesn't mean that everything they do is notable; even a notable person does many less important things. But the way a person becomes notable is by doing important things, so that someone who has done sufficiently important things is notable. The nearest formally recognized analogy here is WP:PROF, where being editor in chief of a major journal is fully sufficient proof of notability. I would extend that to all media. The National Magazine Award certainly wasn't known to me before I looked at this. Based on the information in our article, i would say winning one should certainly be included. For finalist, it needs the recognition of the Nobel or the Booker or the Academy Award. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...

Basic principle from WP:N--passing the GNG does not guarantee an article if it is more appropriate as a section in another article. And there of many other factors for whether an articles should be made: for example, avoiding the appearance of promotionalism or over-emphasis or just plain COI. The way to avoid these for someone notable for a single accomplishment/book/organization is whether to make the article on the accomplishment/book/organization or the person. (I usually see it for books and authors). If an author has written several notable but not famous books, I usually suggest that author, with sections for the books, which can be expanded if they're highly notable. If an author has one, I usuAlly recommend doing it on the person also, because if one books is successful, they are likely to write others. But if the book is much better known, which a first book may well be, then the book. This is a case where the restaurant is the better known. If you wrote one on the author also, it would duplicate much of the material, because you'd have to explain something about the restaurant. Such duplication looks like promotionalism, & can attract negative attention. If one just linked that part, the article would seem too scanty even if technically justifiable, and thus attract unfavorable attention.

Since there are many people here who can make a negative case against anything, and some who have a prejudice against any particular class of article or subject field, the best thing is to not attract them. I deprecate the GNG altogether--for any disputed article I can argue either way whether any reference is substantially about the subject, whether it is truly independent, whether it is based on PR, whether it is in essence a true 3rd party source. I choose which way to argue based on the result I think will help the encyclopedia (by which I of course mean my vision of what will help the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the confusion caused when a chunk of your talk page was hacked out accidentally by someone, you might have forgotten about closing the merge discussion! --Dweller (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Hi DGG, I haven't forgotten about my promise to share with you the questions for the research project previewed at WikiConUSA this month! However, I was traveling and haven't had a chance to do so until now, and I've placed the questions into an Etherpad here: COI Languages Survey. This is meant to be view-only (although I don't think Etherpad does that) so if you know anyone who is interested in taking the survey itself, send them to this Google Forms questionnaire. And if anyone doesn't use Google (we've heard from one or two) I can provide a separate link, which would be again Etherpad. Cheers, WWB (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difficult problem is is how to handle potential articles on the people & companies who have been exploited by the undeclared page editors. Most of the time, the problem does not arise: For orangemoody, 5% at most were likely to be notable ; in previous editing rings, the percentage has ranged from 10% all the way down to zero, depending on the general subject area. Aside from these large rings, there has also been use of undeclared paid editing by actually notable business concerns, sometimes with existing articles--most of the time, they knew very well what they were doing was deceitful, even before the clarification in our terms of service. In any case, I really do not see how anyone can ever have deluded themselves that paying to have an article written about themselves in an encycopedia was ethical, or that any respectable encycopedia would have staff who would accept such payment. True, a great many of those exploited did in perfect honesty not fact realize we were other than an advertising medium; some of the fault for this is in the promotion-ridden commercialized nature of society, but some is in our own lax prior practices.

In those cases where a subject is actually highly notable, I think the only reasonable solution is for someone here to write an article in the ordinary way. In most cases, I would advocate waiting at least 6 or 12 months, to avoid giving the impression that we do not remove paid articles. If someone is borderline notable, it as always will depend if anyone is interested, but my personal inclination is that I have other priorities: the truly notable subjects that are not covered. A practical question is whether the deleted material can be furnished to reliable editors prepared to rewrite. I think this would be subject to discretion, and anyone doing this needs to check that the material is not simply reinserted in altered form. (It would actually be a violation of copyright to do that without giving proper attribution to the paid editor!)

If someone else submits obvious coi material without a declaration of coi, the priority is to check for another member of the ring of sockpuppets, not to see if we can have the article. This is best done by one of the admins at spi; one of the main reasons I became an admin was to check deleted material. For articles written with a coi, deleting is more likely to be needed than rescuing.

...

Several of the checkusers have worked with these in detail, and they're the experts in this in general. But those of us who work with particular types of subjects gain special experience at recognizing problems with them. There have been , and will be, other rings, tho so far some of the Orangemoody techniques are thankfully unique. The attempt at promotional articles will always be a problem , if we retain open editing and anonymous users. The problem intensifies as the RW importance of getting a WP page increases. All we can do is try to reduce a combination of various means to try and reduce the impact. One key step has been taken: the current terms of use, and the general recognition here that they are enforceable policy. There are a variety of other possibilities, and I'd expect everything anyone can think of to be considered. One key change requires no change in written policy, and is a matter of outr individual attitudes: to interpret the notability requirements much more strictly in susceptible fields. There are some areas where we should stop accepting borderline articles if they show signs of promotionalism or promotional intent or possible sockpuppettry. So I argue at AfDs, and the position is often supported. I therefore do not agree with 75.'s efforts at trying to rescue such articles--they are better simply gotten rid of. The time spent in trying to fix them is counterproductive in two ways: it encourages the promotional editors, and it prevents us doing more useful work, such as writing the hundreds of thousands of needed articles on notable people, or maintaining the articles we have already. (I shared 75'a attitude for several years when I first came here, but with the rise in promotionalism my priority is now the opposite, and least in some subjects--including even some of my favorite fields.) The time spent on this article, and one lower down on the page in the last week or so, has made me resolve that I will no longer help promotional editors, unless the subject is so famous I'd write the article myself. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from, systemic bias, our difficulty to locate sources if they exist, etc. Perhaps we should focus on languages we can speak. The amount of spam is really disheartening, though. Anyway, I am fine with deprodding, as long as you leave the notability tag for future consideration (maybe in 5-10 years somebody will review those articles again). Cheers, PS. For the record, pl wiki is extremly inclusive. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andoria-Mot, why this was kept here is beyond me. Pl wiki discussion was a travesty, people kept saying the company is important, but nobody cares about sources. The best I found was a single blog post, but that, plus the company owns website and an existence of an old-vehicle fan-forum section about its products were enough to keep it. Ridiculous. Would you mind doing me a favor, looking into this and perhaps starting a 2nd AfD? This company made some engines, but so what? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that afd was one of the 100s of examples of no-consensus because of insufficient participation. 6 or 7 years ago, I tried to follow every afd in fields I understood, but I can no longer do that. You'll have noticed a few other eds. tries to inform me here of some such potential situations before the expected close, and I try to look at most of them and say something, which of course is not always what might be expected. I can't do many more than I do now, but I can do some. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andoria-Mot (2nd nomination) - almost two weeks and again, only one comment... will you take a look? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David, I just wanted to say that you are one of the biggest disappointments of this extremely disappointing ArbCom class. Resign. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite (talk · contribs): Perhaps you mean that I should have done more. While I have discovered I can not do as much as I intended, I think I'm accomplishing more than if I had left the committee. But if you mean that my effect has been a net negative, I think I have come to understand the problems we are faced with better than you do. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dave, I wanted to know if you've ever been at the edge of retiring or ever thought of it? Considering you've been here for almost ten years as have I, there must've been times you had the impulse of retiring. I ask because I certainly have come and go in that time and although I sincerely appreciate this website and its concept (and I get hooked in periods here and there as I have recently, I always get walled by some eventual drama), the unnecessary and tiring drama simply seems to be unavoidable sometimes. Frankly, I think the fact several people have serious health troubles affects this sometimes especially if it's mental and psychological. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought I'd say it, but I find that I am considerably more reluctant each day to start editing WP. In general the inevitable frustration of the way this system necessarily works can be dealt with by moving from one area to another, but I may be beginning to feel that I've done as much here as I can. Perhaps the fault is arb com, where the public work is frustrating for we almost never actually solve any problem (at least, nothing we've done this year has helped much), and the private discussions which are the bulk of the actual work are not just frustrating but distinctly unpleasant for me, as I generally find myself in a very small minority--I had not realized the extent of the focus on narrow legalism rather than substance. I only remain on the committee in the hope that the new arbs will be more willing to think in terms of benefit to the encycopedia, not in terms of what people "deserve." Of all the places in WP where IAR has a role, it is most relevant to the work of the committee, which has much greater powers of discretion than any individual admin. I suppose having said this much, I should emphasize that personally, I very much like every one of them whom I know--they're much more human outside the committee. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is wiki-kosher for arbs to name specific usernames, that they would like as new arbs, but if so, please write up a voterguide, DGG. Or if you prefer, just toss out the names you had in mind, or even, the generic criteria that you are looking for. I too would like to see more IAR on the committee, although I also like the arbcom folks I'm familiar with, present company very much included. But it is a hard and thankless job. ( I will contradict my own flat statement by saying, thanks for doing what you can, it is appreciated.) In particular, nobody wants to do the arbcom thing; it is a huge timesink to run, and like a super-RfA tends to attract mostly new critics and little praise. Even if you "win" you tend to be the focus-point of much angst and many complaints. Point being, DGG, if you are permitted by your wiki-honour to urge people to run, that you think would be good arbs, in whatever fashion, please do so. Same goes for your compadres, if you can ask that they speak out. There are some folks already announcing candidacies at WP:ACE2015/C, but Yunshui just retired, and none of the arbs up for re-election have yet put forth their names. Because it has been such a hard year, this is an important arb-election methinks. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again, your not supporting to lose the valuable admin service of Yngvadottir!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter, Wikipedia:Main Page history/2016 March 27, with thanks for your ARCA statement, KISS! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi DGG,

Thanks for replying to our page in the Village pump. I've created a Meta:Research page which details the research questions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship Of course, you are welcome to take our survey and/or give us feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah90 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to look up some h-indexs for professors on Google Scholar, what is the general recommend level for notability and how would I do this using google scholar? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look for their name in the form "FM Last", not their full name. The results will be in approximate descending order by the number of citations. Sort out those references that are to web sites, non-academic journals, newspaper articles, and the like. Th h index is the highest number where are that many papers with that least that many citations: r.g., if the counts as typical for a probably not notable biomedical scientist, are:

40, 35, 33, 30, 29, 27, 26, 25, 24, 22, 21, 21, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13,12, 12, 12, 11, 10, 8, 5, ....... their h=16, because there are 16 papers that have been cited 16 times or more. I report these counts saying just that italicized phrase, rather than report it as an index ,because it is clearer in words..

But the h index can be deceptive. Consider another biomedical scientist, almost certainly notable:

190, 180, 170, 60, 30, 10 , 5, 5, 4, 3 .... . For them, the h=6.

But which is the more notable? The h index emphasises doing a great deal of not very important work, over people who do a smaller amont of extremely important work. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't fully understand what's happening here: after the discussion to delete, the article name within the discussion went from blue to red (from memory) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Latinas_and_world_war_II however I noticed this morning an edit on my watchlist on Latinas and World War II. On closer inspection, the history of the article is consistent with one that's never been deleted rather than one that's been re-instated. Only thing I can think of is that there's a minor formatting difference - the capitalisation of the Ws. As I'm quite new to the back-end of wiki, I wasn't sure how to trace the audit trail of deletion and post-deletion activity. thanks Rayman60 (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman60 Here is what seems to have happened: Latinas_and_world_war_II contained very little content, and what content there was present was a duplication of content in the more general article, Hispanics in World War II. As nobody seemed interested in improving it, it was accordingly deleted, as is the usual course of things here . Rather than someone stepping forward to work on it, another article was started, as is perfectly legitimate, and called Latinas and World War II. It appears to have significant content that is not just a duplication, and there is no reason to delete it. If there were significant content in the originally deleted article, the two could be combined via what we call a history merge, tomerge the edit histories, but there doesn't seem to be enough to be worth doing this.

The thing to do now is to work on expanding then new article. From the format, it may be the work of a class. If so, please ask for assistance in setting it up properly as a class project , at the WP:Education noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I'm not the creator or editor of the article, I was involved in the deletion discussion. I see now that there were two articles, one with small caps 'w' in World and War, and one with capitals. The one with capitals was created after the deletion debate began but I think some of the points raised were in reference to the still-live version rather than now-deleted one. The original editor who is writing as part of a school project has returned with new edits after a brief hiatus, but not sure whether the discussions on the deletion page are still valid. Rayman60 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu Digital (2nd nomination), you supported deletion and the AfD was closed as "delete". At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30#Vu Digital, I asked for the community's permission to restore the history under the redirect so I can merge material to C Spire Wireless, the parent company.

I will only merge material sourced to TechCrunch, Mississippi Business Journal, Broadcasting & Cable, and The Clarion-Ledger, which all pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I will not merge any material sourced only to press releases or sources that fail Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Would you support this? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi and other local business journals I consider never reliable for notability , as they just reprint what the company sends them and show no selectivity in the companies they cover. . I think the sameabout local newspapers from the area the company is located, just asI am for local authors. More controversially, I am no longer sure about TeleChruch--too many of the stories are basically PR, I recognize the impossibility of cleanly separating PR from unbiased news in this and many other fields, which is one more reason why I wish we could get rid of the WP:GNG guideline in favor of abstract standards. Then we could say: this company has so much in sales, of has a >X% market share, & is therefore notable.

more practically, how about a more general article on "video-to-data"? DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, because of L. Nichols Buttons AfD, I was wondering, "Does Wikipedia actually have any button makers of notability?" I didn't find anything, but I keep thinking that that can't be right! Thanks! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should be sources. It was in the NYC garment trade a distinctly separate industry. There are probably sources on historic manufacturers also. But in checking, beware: most of the material I can find on WorldCat is about political pin-on buttons, not buttons fro garments, and most of the rest about buttons for military uniforms. But see: Newberger, Edward Louis. The Button Industry in the United States. Haworth, N.J.: St. Johann Press, 1998. and Jones, W. Unite. The Button Industry. London: Sir I. Pitman & Sons, 1924. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, then I'm getting that Wikipedia has zero articles on button makers. Correct?! (Except that one currently being deleted, that is!) --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the NYC trade, the firms were mostly very small; I think it quite possible that none were notable. I have no knowledge elsewhere. Nut has several dozen elevant books listed in addition to the oes I already identified, in particular Jones, Nora Owens, and Edith Mattison Fuoss. Black Glass Buttons. Ypsilanti, Mich: University lithoprinters, 1945. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fascinating and worthwhile topic. While a modern invention such as zippers will tend to have notable manufacturers associated with the project -- see, e.g., the Wikipedia article on the YKK Group -- the button is one of those objects that's long been so familiar that its history is obscure. Important button makers do pop up in conjunction with subjects that are notable for other reasons or as an incidental mention in a larger discussion; for instance, the button makers of Birmingham are mentioned in the article on Matthew Boulton, while the button making industry of Muscatine, Iowa is discussed in the page on that town, and the storied royal button maker Firmin & Sons has its own page, even if buttons get only a brief mention. (For more background on Firmin & buttons, check out its website [14]. However, one could argue that separate pages could be made for companies or regional button-making industries such as these due to their significant historical impact; the Birmingham button makers were recently the subject of a book by economist George Selgin -- Good Money: Birmingham Button Makers, the Royal Mint, and the Beginnings of Modern Coinage, 1775-1821; the Arcadia Images of America series has a well-researched book on Muscatine's Pearl Button Industry; and Slate had a nice general overview of other key developments [15] Maybe the folks at The Button Room museum, the National Button Society, or the British Button Society would be interested in buttressing the button history here, assuming they have access to even more research. In the meantime, I'm going to see if I can dig a little deeper on L. Nichols. Fashionethics (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion with chiropractics coverage? This technique is the third most common in this field. I do agree a chiropractics is a form of quackery, but should be have some coverage on major techniques. I think this passes our GNG guidelines, but some editors deny the use of sources from within the field, what is your opinions on this? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bias and prejudice, is what I think it. I commented there, though without using those words. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks DGG, ideal solution and we keep an emerging editor. Well Done Victuallers (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I recently submitted an article for the European Aeronautics Science Network (EASN). Another version was submitted by a different user during the summer and it was deleted after discussion because of notability criteria. Being personally involved in aeronautics, I recognize the network as one of the main contributors on its research with focus on academia. I have therefore submitted a new version and included a list of external-third party sources in order to support its notability. The article was deleted again by User: Dennis Brown who I contacted in order to request some information on how I could proceed with this, but he is currently not as active in Wikipedia. As you were originally involved in the first article [16] I would like your feedback on the above. I have gathered a list of external links and references showing the recognition of the network by the European Commission, but I am afraid that if I submit a similar article again, it will be deleted on the premise that it was deleted before. Could you please advise me on the matter? Thank you in advance Mr2t7bv (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Mr2t7bv[reply]

Mr2t7bv, the best course is to write at Draft:European Aeronautics Science Network a revised article with fully satisfactory references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. When done, ask me to review it. My apologies for the delay in responding. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I previously created a page for a national company called Paper Mart which was subsequently nominated for speedy deletion, which you followed through with. I understand now the issue of duplication (I had been under the impression that citing the page with overlapping phrases as a source was sufficient, especially since it was the company's own website. In any case, I have rewritten the article without duplication and have also provided more references and information to show the company's notability. I am letting you know as I was about to recreate the page but noticed the message that I should contact the editor who deleted the page. I am not sure if I should ask to have the page restored or if I should enter the version anew. I am very new to Wikipedia so I appreciate your patience. Should I just post the new version?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paper_Mart&action=edit&redlink=1 21:51, 12 December 2015 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Paper Mart (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.papermart.com/History, (({url2))}, (({url3))})

JamesLeary (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JamesLeary, a copyvio version cannot be restored. Place your new version in Draft space as Draft:Paper Mart, and I will look at it. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I just did so. Please let me know what you think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paper_Mart JamesLeary (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little cleanup. The problem is that most of the sources are mere notices, or trivial, or press releases. I do not think that without something much more substantial this will make an acceptable article. DGG ( talk ) 09:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again DGG. I just reposted the article with the intention of letting you know afterward. I just realized I was supposed to let you know beforehand. In any case, I think it may be worthy as part of WikiProject Companies and California? JamesLeary (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of your proposed deletion of the Generation Alpha article? I agree with you. The article probably should be merged into Generation Z as some sources are starting it (Alpha Gen) as early as the year 2000. At this point, it's a marketing term that is being used to segment parts of Generation Z. We merged the "Pluralistic Generation" ("Plurals") into Gen Z and it's actually worked out pretty good. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[[User::2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8|

2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8]] Thanks for clarifying this. I added the merge tag. Please expand on the rationale, which you will find on the article to which the merge should be made, Generation Z. If nobody objects, then do it. If they do, discuss. If you need help doing it , ask me. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Could you weigh in on the discussion support or oppose please and why? 2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me when we could merge the Alpha article into Generation Z please? Can you do it? 2606:6000:610A:9000:B8E5:EA11:1C26:8BB3 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We normally wait one month for comments. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about a month, could you merge the Gen Alpha article into the Gen Z article based on the talk page consensus please? Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:64D9:8D26:B2B7:7C54 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in about this request to merge the articles. Could you handle it? Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:D4A1:F521:9922:7B15 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression you may be familiar with the McKinsey Quarterly and I know you are also interested in several related topics (self-citation COI, improving business pages, etc.), so I thought I would bring this RSN post to your attention in case you were interested and/or had an expert contribution to the topic. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 17:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew it existed until this moment, but I'll look at the discussion. (I just read some of the articles, which seem excellent; their greatest virtue is clarity.) DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Articles" tend to focus on McKinsey's recommendations ("China should do XYZ"). This is good information for current or prospective clients to see what type of recommendations they make, but I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia and as an involved party in their own recommendations, that's a bit primary. However, if you click "Download the Full Report," those usually have mountains of data deeper into the report about market sizes, global economy, demographics, etc. that I think could be useful in improving core business pages. I don't think it's overly boastful when McKinsey claims in the report to have collected the best available data on the subject - this is what they are known for. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 01:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I'm dropping you a note because of your prior involvement in cleaning up the article; I think the recent likely autobiographical edits can be deleted en masse, but prefer to bring it to wider attention rather than do the Christmas Eve carving myself. Wishing you Happy Holidays. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC2E:9C35:B399:A9E0 (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

checked again, and removed excess. Left a gentl warning DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was quick! Had you noticed the draft already before I pinged you? --Hegvald (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, but i saw immediately there was an obituary in the London Times, and this is enough for notability. The article can be improved subsequently. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too many drafts get arbitrarily dismissed by reviewers. Sometimes authors continue to work on them, sometimes they just give up. Reviewers, like new page patrolers, often seem to lack significant track records of actual content creation of their own. --Hegvald (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a different skill that article creation; I've discussed so many thousands of AfDs that I know what the key factors are, and I've looked at so many thousands of drafts and new articles that I have developed an eye for things that quickly show notability -- or that make it unlikely. The comment you made about look for reviews would be helpful in any case and is really more fundamental. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi david,

I hope this is an appropriate space to ask about how to improve an AfD(if not please let me know !), and also to clarify your viewpoint on what is surely a subjective criteria. in regards to a comment that you made about inclusion in a museum collection being a reasonable criteria for notability. the guidelines here dont make a distinction as to the merit of a particular museum or gallery. suffice to say that i mostly agree with your assessment of the particular institution in question,you fail to back your claim with a reasonable argument. please advise so i can best respond thank you!

I hope this is an appropriate space to ask about how to improve an AfD(if not please let me know !), and also to clarify your viewpoint on what is surely a subjective criteria. in regards to a comment that you made about inclusion in a museum collection being a reasonable criteria for notability. the guidelines here dont make a distinction as to the merit of a particular museum or gallery. suffice to say that i mostly agree with your assessment of the particular institution in question,you fail to back your claim with a reasonable argument. please advise so i can best respond thank you!

	+	

Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it considered standard procedure to ping prior editors involved when an DRV is closed as relist, are there any examples of this happening in the past? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I consider it good procedure. I don't know if it is actually required, but it should be. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has happened (including where I was actually notified) and I myself would like to be, especially if it was a subject I frequently comment on such as businesses and companies, biographies, etc. SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I haven't seen it before so it could be utilized more. I am not sure what to do anymore in regards to this AfD, obviously if this fails I won't touch article again. The amount of heat and off wiki harassment is enough. But I do feel that authority is the only way to override this going forward. This AfD highlights mobbing at the highest level, when editors see the number of attempts at restoration they become increasingly defensive with each incarnation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk · contribs) and Casliber (talk · contribs) are the only two editors that had any legitimate reasoning for there vote to delete and I appreciated that. The rest of the editors appear to be there to attack me and the article and have created an environment so hostile that editors supporting this concept are afraid to speak their mind. Editors appears to have ignored the fact that I went through DRV and garnered overwhelming support from even Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) himself who not only favored inclusion, but strongly supported it. The inherent bias now makes this AfD flawed. Cunard (talk · contribs)'s strong sourcing and well reasoned policy based inclusion seems to be ignored. Any editor reading the wall of text before his post is going to be bias or reserved about supporting this. I am not sure what to do next and have considered pinging all Arbcom members to see if they consider this entire debate historic to improving Wikipedia. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's personal. In addition to any particular prejudice against this particular topic, WP can show a remarkable degree of prejudice against some sexual topics. Like many individuals and organizations, WP's willingness to accept such things is in principle very broad, but in practice is limited to what people are familiar or comfortable with. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG| DGG]] ( talk ) 05:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you left a message for User:OzBioMan raising a concern about potential COI. In addition, the users' articles have no third-party sources. See User talk:OzBioMan#Need for third-party sources. --Macrakis (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Draft:Leque Island
• Draft:Martin L. Beck, Architect, Professor of Architecture, Princeton University
• Draft:Mel Gilden (writer)
• Draft:Myronn Hardy
• Draft:Narender Nath
• Draft:Nimod, Rajasthan

• Draft:NIMT Group of Institutions
• Draft:North American Invasive Species Network (NAISN)
• Draft:Patricia Bracewell
• Draft:Paul Levitt
• Draft:Pohnpei Bell Tower
• Draft:Prof. Rabi Nanda Bhaumik
• Draft:Second Life research
• Draft:Thangavelu Engineering College
• Draft:The Dear Departed
• Draft:William Wiser (writer)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chi-Dooh (Skip) Li
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cognitive Emotional Behavioural Therapy
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Colegio Euroamericano
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Contemporary Architecture Practice
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dan Burke
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dana Klisanin
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Darley Cliffe Hall
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David A. Schultz
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Thomas Albert Brockwell
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lloyd J. Reynolds

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are my friend: Special:AbuseFilter/342. Let's look into re-enabling, it'd be good to have the log for review, even if they are mostly constructive. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the page curation tool already picks up articles that become redirects. Not sure how, but I did some tests, and it works. This means they will appear in Special:NewPagesFeed. Now all we have to do is tackle that 1000+ page backlog :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. I've been building robust measures of productivity for Wikipedia editors. I'd like to use your edit history as an example when demonstrating the measures. See my write-up of the general measurement strategy here: m:Research:Measuring edit productivity. See my notes on your productivity here: m:Research_talk:Measuring_edit_productivity/Work_log/2016-01-18. TL;DR: It looks like your contributions to Wikipedia have been consistent since 2006. This stands in contrast to the bursty activity of me and Jimbo Wales. You've also contributed several orders of magnitude more productive content than I have (2.5 million vs. 17k "persisting words"). ;)

I'd like to present these graphs and the discussion you see beneath them at the January version of the mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase tomorrow. Would that be OK? --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EpochFailCertainly you can include it. I note that when I retired from Princeton & LIU as a librarian, I discovered Wikipedia, and after a few months experience, consciously determined to make a consistent almost full-time effort. There are others in similar positions. For some of us in my age group, various life factors have caused periods of inactivity, but that has not happened to me. Anecdotally, I've seen that for some of our members in the 30s to 50s, periods of their activity in WP have coincided with periods of their unemployment. Analogously, it's long been known to librarians that increased library use is seen during periods of economic depression.

I have one question that is not clear from your graphs: is your data coming only from Article space? I ask because I would have thought that more of my activity in recent years has been elsewhere. And I am only 98th in the count of WPedians by number of edits. My rank in that table has risen only very slowly over the years DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC) which would confirm your hypothesis that the other highly active editors are also consistently active. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm only looking at article space, but I would imagine that your work on drafts would eventually lead toward article space. Generally, measuring productive contribution outside of articles is very difficult, but something that I hope we'll have some good new thoughts about. E.g. productivity on templates may be related to template usage. Talk page productivity would be much more difficult to track, but I imagine that we can at least flag obviously unproductive discussion posts automatically using machine learning and natural language processing.

I haven't done any sort of ranking for Wikipedians by this measure of productivity yet, but when I do, I'll get back to you. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for Drafts, when I accept an article that needs fixing, sometimes I make my edits on the Draft and then move to mainspace, but equally often I will move to mainspace and fix it there (especially if I want to use visual editor, which I prefer for finding the correct internal links to add) DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Draft:Andréas Christo-Foroux
• Draft:Blood Brothers (novel)
• Draft:Chandraprabha Saikiani
• Draft:Charles Hewett
• Draft:Children's Savings Accounts
• Draft:Clarence D. Martin Jr.
• Draft:Common pool resources
• Draft:Continuing Church of God
• Draft:Council for Opportunity in Education
• Draft:De novo protein synthesis theory of memory formation
• Draft:De Paul School Brahmapur
• Draft:Democratic Left Front of Sri Lanka
• Draft:Derek Cabrera
• Draft:Devere Allen
• Draft:Emery Hyslop-Margison
• Draft:Gary Yannone
• Draft:Gautam Mitra
• Draft:Gemma Calvert
• Draft:General Motors Gen 5 "Small Block"
• Draft:Grégoire Hetzel
• Draft:Health care in Ontario prisons
• Draft:Howard L. Weiner
• Draft:Inqilab Nadirli
• Draft:Japhy Ryder
• Draft:Jason Wakefield
• Draft:Jay Lebow

• Draft:John Rattray
• Draft:Kjell Habbestad
• Draft:Latinist
• Draft:Longyou Caves
• Draft:Malca-Amit
• Draft:Marjorie Schlossman
• Draft:Melanie Jackson
• Draft:Michael M. Oye
• Draft:Morgan Rice
• Draft:Nagdah,Madhubani
• Draft:Newton's Point

• Draft:Noma Copley
• Draft:Sean Gervasi
• Draft:Shaikhan
• Draft:Shin-Tson Wu
• Draft:Steine Depression
• Draft:Summer Bridge Programs
• Draft:Tandis Jenhudson
• Draft:Town Hall Harbor
• Draft:Tungapadu
• Draft:Tynemouth Medal
• Draft:Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem)
• Draft:Vidisha Devi
• Draft:William A. Cohen
• [[Draft:Wilmot Gibbes DeSaussu

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Draft:Anita Thapar
• Draft:Bigelow Kennard Lamps
• Draft:Bonnie Burnham
• Draft:Brian Jay Jones
• Draft:Channel 24KZ
• Draft:Deborah L. Duvall
• Draft:John Strachan (professor)
• Draft:Lee Yu-Ri
• Draft:Medical Communications Industry
• Draft:Rahul Pandey
• Draft:RESIST
• Draft:Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh
• Draft:Thomas G. McGinn, MD, MPH
• Draft:Williams Art Mafia
• Draft:Wolfgang Luthe

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...to be on the opposite side of a discussion from you, but it seems to keep happening recently! So here, have a thumbnail picture of a cup of tea, which apparently has some form of magical reconciliatory power :) Thparkth (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GG| DGG]] ( talk ) 21:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DGG! I'm reaching out to you for help with a project that I'm working on because I think you'll have some valuable insights. See WP:Labels/Edit types. We're working on developing a practical taxonomy (see talk page for our debates) for classifying the type of work done in an edit so that I can build some machine learning models to predict those types and we can get some fun, new wiki tools. Would you be willing to get on a phone call with us to review some edits in the context of our taxonomy some time in the next couple of days? --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I commented in some detail first. A good time for a phone call would be Friday. My personal guess is that you will be able to tease out some clear instances that this approach can be used for, but not a general purpose tool is everal years ahead. Not that I see anything wrong with working at that time scale. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it looks like the G13 thing is going like the prior G13 discussions so I say we think up something new. What about a draftprod idea? It's suggested. It's not a speedy but it'll clear MFD through a different process and I think it can cover most people's concerns. Something like "any userspace or draftspace draft of an article that hasn't been edited in six months where the creator hasn't made an edited in the last year can be proposed for deletion if after seven days an admin determines that the draft has no likelihood of becoming an article." Any draft can be obviously removed by anyone and there's MFD then. Just off the top of my head but one year is WP:STALEDRAFT so maybe one year not six months and make this part of the STALE deletion process. I'm not sure where this complexity of 'what is a draft' is coming from but that's the only problem I'm still seeing. It's enough multiple parts here but we can suggest the idea first and then do a separate exceedingly complicated broken up RFC to offer the idea. What do you think? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strike this whole idea. It's not necessary. MFD, while not ideal, I think could handle this. I may suggest it again if MFD becomes unmanageable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In figuring out to do , we need to consider the purpose. There are three basic classes of material

1. Material that might significant contribute to a plausible article. In my opinion, this should never be deleted regardless of time, or whether the editor is active. What we need to do with these is to make findable. My main concern with these is to make sure that none of these get deleted. I've been spending half my time on that for a year now, and I would oppose anything that makes this harder.

2. Material that is abandoned but harmless, and will never make an article. There's been a lot of activity here lately--I regard this as a rather low priority. When we do clean up, it's more important to clean up the areas of Draft space and WT:AfC/ , which are joint-use non-private work areas, than Userspace or User talk space, which can accommodate a little harmless junk because it is not in the way. Cleaning up user/Usertalk space is in my mind an extremely low priority. The priority is in removing stuff that is harmful, and fixing what is erroneous or outdated. That probably amounts to at least 1 or 2 million articles.

3.Material that is harmful and shouldn't be here. The main types of that are advertising and copyvio. G11 & G12 is what we need here.

The main use of MfD for Draftspace is removing material that keeps getting resubmitted but will never make an article and isn't bad enough to be called G11.

The current attempt to remove variant incomplete article versions that do not contain harmful material is in my opinion unnecessary. It would be more important to check them to se if there is material there that would be useful in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You declined a draft I submitted about a documentary film, Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board that I saw on the Discovery Channel. I have gone back and added significant reliable sources to the article, but have not resubmitted it yet. I want to see if there is any advice you can give that would help it get approved. I tried to follow all Wikipedia guidelines as well as modeled it after other documentaries in the same area without sounding like a press release. Please let me know the best way to let you see the draft or have someone who specializes in documentaries like User:Bzuk since the movie does contain several aviation experts and compares healthcare to aviation. It also interviews several persons of notability including Chesley Sullenberger and John J. Nance. The analogy is that aviation saw that they had system errors that would doom the industry and they got together to fix the problems by forming the private-public joint tsk force, Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST).^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} In healthcare, there are 440,000 people dying in the US annually from medical error, making it the third leading cause of death.^[7][8][9] There was a fair amount of press about the movie when it came out, so I have added lots of reliable, secondary sources.^[10][11][12].^{[13][14][15][16]} Any help is appreciated. --Radom event gen (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not see where you have yet actually added the material you mention to the draft at Draft:Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board. The first step is for you to do so; that is the way to let me see it. I will give you my opinion then. You can then decide whether or not to submit the draft. If you do submit it, any established editor can review it and if they choose accept it. I also point out that if the draft should be accepted, by myself or anyone else, anyone who disagrees can and probably will list the article for a deletion discussion at WP:AFD, and the community will decide. The criterion for accepting at AfC is likely to pass a discussion at AfD, and in my opinion neither the original article nor the article supplemented with the sources you cite is likely to pass.

As advice, I point out that the importance of the issue or the urgency there may be for change, or the merits of the proposal, are all questions of advocacy, and not relevant to an encyclopedia. Similarly, material about the NTSB that does not substantial discuss the documentary is irrelevant. Material about To the extent you include any of this, it will negatively affect the article. The question is whether this particular documentary has been discussed in 3rd party reliable sources.

In the material you cite above, ref 1 is a good source in general but does not mention the film, refs 2 - 6 are about aviation, not health care, ref 7 is advocacy, not news, ref 8 does not mention the film, ref 9 is a reliable source in general though it reads to me more like advocacy than the usual dispassionate medical review. --note the doi goes to a paid source, the free link [17] should be so indicated)-- ref 10 does not mention the film; ref 11, 12 and 14 are press releases related to the release of the film, but do not discuss the film, 13 is advocacy, ref. 15 is an advocacy blog, ref 16 is a mere announcement about the film's existence with a link to it. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I have found other references that discuss the content of the film from reliable, third party sources. I will focus on those. Radom event gen (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Draft:Danish Association of Lawyers and Economists
• Draft:Dwight Hall at Yale
• Draft:Jerry Bostick
• Draft:Madeline A. Cain
• Draft:Meg John Barker
• Draft:OzCon

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

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

• Draft:137th New York Volunteer Infantry
• Draft:Blu Dot
• Draft:Bob Wing
• Draft:Bulletin of the Comediantes
• Draft:Countryside biogeography
• Draft:David Yesner
• Draft:Fung Global Institute
• Draft:Glenn Bassett
• Draft:Humber Sloop
• Draft:Kesavan Ravindran
• Draft:LotfAli Haghighi
• Draft:Mickey Keenan
• Draft:Philip Troen
• Draft:Queen Mother Dr. Delois Blakely
• Draft:Randy Shull
• Draft:Terry Dame
• Draft:Warner Brown
• Draft:Werner Clement

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

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

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]

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

• Draft:Camp Colorado, Texas
• Draft:George Macpherson Stalker
• Draft:Indian Institute of Fire Engineering
• Draft:Johan Roos
• Draft:Jonathan A. Foley
• Draft:Shirley House and Park
• Draft:Stone construction in the Middle Ages

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

	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]

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]

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

• Draft:Condé Nast Johansens

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

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

• Draft:Alessandro de Mortara
• Draft:Brazilian crime fiction
• Draft:Calder's set for Socrate
• Draft:CBN Radio
• Draft:Chris Hoofnagle
• Draft:Critical Materials Institute
• Draft:Cycle truck
• Draft:Delrina Corp. v Triolet Systems Inc.
• Draft:Donald Gross
• Draft:Donor Committee for Enterprise Development
• Draft:Dover Engineering Works
• Draft:Edinburgh Instruments
• Draft:Educational Requirements for Teachers in Asia
• Draft:Ellen Berkenblit
• Draft:Ellen Spolsky
• Draft:Elliott Sclar
• Draft:Eytan Avriel
• Draft:Fernando de Córdoba

• Draft:Fred N. Thomas Career Education Center Middle College of Denver
• Draft:Garrett-Jacobs Mansion
• Draft:Geoffrey Philip Wilson
• Draft:Gyorgyi Lantos and Istvan Mate
• Draft:Hammad Riaz
• Draft:Herb Stovel
• Draft:Ilan Sadeh
• Draft:Issa Khalfan Al-Huraimel
• Draft:Kavitaram Shrestha
• Draft:Kudappanamoodu
• Draft:Liisa Ladouceur
• Draft:Luis H. Fajardo
• Draft:M. Heather Carver
• Draft:M. Jude Reyes
• Draft:Mahalingam Thangavelu
• Draft:Malhupura
• Draft:Masod, Betul, Madhya Pradesh
• Draft:Merit Tables
• Draft:National Stroke Association
• Draft:Peelay Pattar
• Draft:Philip Auerswald
• Draft:Pinnacle College
• Draft:Radical Painting
• Draft:Rami El Obeidi
• Draft:Richard G. Newell
• Draft:Robert Brewer Young
• Draft:Rod Connolly
• Draft:Rose Adare
• Draft:Rose Hayden-Smith
• Draft:Sadaoki Furui
• Draft:Satya Pal Singh
• Draft:Shoe hanger
• Draft:Siege of Banu Qurayza
• Draft:Simon Weller
• Draft:Stella Maris Mtwara University College
• Draft:Tallship Koreana
• Draft:Tempo School

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

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]

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:

• Boston Globe Article (unfortunately archived but also available on highbeam)
• NY1 piece
• healtcentral blog as a support article to fill in details (as it is written by himself, which I understand IS allowed for persons but only as long as the article is not based on them)
• Introduction at this keynote closing speech and this keynote opening speech
• this article
• These interviews: 1 2
• How he is quoted in IB Times and USA Today on biosimilars..?
• He also writes for US News
• PCORI has some articles about Seth and his organization's: 1 2 3

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]

appreciate your time, thanks. SometimesIWriteThings (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Can you userfy this plus talk page for me? I don't know what there is but I did find this source [18] 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]

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

• Draft:Artus Frank
• Draft:Atigre
• Draft:Climate Action Reserve
• Draft:Jerome Dreyfuss
• Draft:Joseph Lau, MD
• Draft:The Captains House, Dresden, Ohio

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!!!!

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