User talk:DGG/Archive 95 Dec. 2014

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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

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

I would be grateful if you could help me a little further with this article I started which you helped get accepted. If I understand correctly the biographical text about Otto Weininger was removed because of copyright issues. I can't recall exactly the source of this biographical text that was removed, but I did probably did get it from one of the places cited. I am wondering if I had simply put quotations around the biographical text and attached the citation directly to that text, it would have been ok? The main source of my concern with the lack of biographical explanation is that, in the absence of even one sentence about who this psychologist, Otto Weininger was, there is likely confusion with another well known person - a philosopher- with the same name and I would like to avoid confusion with this other person. I know the citations explain who Otto Weininger the psychologist was, but I was hoping the actual body of the article might include at least one sentence about who Otto Weininger was so the reader might more easily understand why the award was named after him.PhilPsych (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC) PhilPsych, I added the link to the WP article on him, which gives the information. You can add a sentence, but you can;t use the WP article as the ref--the newspaper article you use as ref.2 would do nicely , however. The source that was copied was from Caversham. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

04:47:01, 1 December 2014 review of submission by BillFourth

• BillFourth (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cody Sweet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi David. Thank you for your review of the article on Cody Sweet! This is the first Wikipedia article that I have tried to create. I tried to follow the format of other similar articles in Wikipedia. I did not intend for it to be an advertisement. I have removed content and references that might be construed as advertising. I would appreciate your guidance if there are any other changes that are needed to make this acceptable as a Wikipedia article.

Thanks!

BillFourth (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to remove some more: Who's who in america, DAR, Kentucky Colonel are not significant honors; discussing notable people who introduced her to other notable people is name-dropping ; a list of feature articles written by the subject for a newspaper is inappropriate detail--so is listing the college courses she taught; the philanthropy section is trivial;the achievement of her relatives is irrelevant; listing her non-notable sports & theater activities & the poems she read at an undergraduate contest detracts from the important material. Amazon & ImDb are not good refs. All these things are characteristic of promotional bios and of autobios. I am not sure rewriting will actually help, though, because it seems doubtful that there is enough for notability: all I see is one self-published book not even in Worldcat, some articles in magazines, and some TV appearances. Multiple sub-notable achievements do not add up to notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

05:51:06, 1 December 2014 review of submission by Tfamelb

• Tfamelb (talk · contribs)
  • User:Tfamelb/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi DGG,

Firstly, thanks for reviewing my page, especially so quickly, really appreciate it. Following on from your feedback, I've done as much research and reading in terms of sourcing, notability and reliable references, and asked on the Teahouse Q&A board, and I'm not quite sure what else I can add to the page at this stage?

If at all possible, I'd appreciate any input as to what else I can do to support the subject's notability, as I've cited (what I think) are a number of independent and reliable sources, such as Reuters, The Age, Bloomberg, et al. And the device is being used worldwide by several major sports teams.

Thanks again for your assistance, very much appreciated.

Warmest Regards,

Tfamelb (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

its actually a combination of promotionalism and notability. Try rewriting to decrease the material that would not be of interest to the general reader,such as the staff listing. Don;t list the patents. & it never says just what ViPerfor and ViSafe actually are. One photo is enough. Product mentions do not make good references. We need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements-- rThe Age refs are probaby ok,most of the others are not. DGG ( talk ) 10:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Invalid CSDs

Hello DGG,
I was in the process of letting Justice007 know their CSD#A7 notices on those two newish "Altaf Hussain University, ..." pages were invalid, as the template message says: "Note that educational institutions are not eligible under this criterion.", when I noted you had already withdrawn them. Just letting you know the editor's already been advised. Regards--220 of ^Borg 08:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC),

yes, this is of some interest however, because the universities have been authorized but not yet constructed, nor have they admitted students. . They might well be deleted at afd DGG ( talk ) 10:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Irwin J. Rosenhouse

Dear DGG: Couldn't find any evidence for some of the museum collections you asked for, so I commented them out. Is he notable enough for his book illustrations and Folkways album covers? If there's any connection at the NYPL, you are in a better position than I to find it. I have spent enough time on this, so I will be letting it go now. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'llwork on it. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Request on 22:05:54, 2 December 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Efrain Ib

• Efrain Ib (talk · contribs)
  • User:Efrain Ib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per last editor's remark, I moved article to the correct location (i hope). Please check to see that revised article matches content found on the Efrain IB user page. Hopefully we are getting closer to approval on this article. Please advise. Thank you very much !

Efrain Ib (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Efrain Ib It's in the right location. Unfortunately, Draft:South County EDC appears to be an advertisement for the organization, and cannot be accepted. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

submitted draft - Town Centre (PortSt. Lucie)

Please review the submission for Draft:Town Centre (Port St. Lucie). If there are reliable sources cited, accept the submission. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I commented, on your talk p. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Kasia Wrobel

Thanks for saving one article from being deleted, but can you also save this one Kasia Wrobel? I assume the user there miss read the speedy criteria guideline. Thanks. Also, he was quite mean by reverting my edits and posting this on my talkpage. Like, he could have done it without reverts.--Mishae (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, can you verify what was so uncivil in my quite polite response here: 1 I think reddogsix have over reacted.--Mishae (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

done. But I doubt if I'd be willing to defend it at afd. The NYMag profile does look like a directory entry. As for the comment, personally I make a good many typos, so I wouldn't like being told "learn how to spell". DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

To be honest with you, its very hard to fine a reliable source for models. NYMag profile even though it is directory entry it looks more RS then for example Fashion Model Directory. Like, I added ref from Elle magazine but that's as far as I can go. And since I don't speak Polish I don't know a single reliable source in Polish language. Like, I bet she might have turned up in one of the Polish newspapers, but, how do I know?--Mishae (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

yes, that's the reason many such articles are deleted at afd. The ones that are kept are usually the ones that have received extensive publicity, because in this field it is very difficult to tell publicity from reliable sources. The only think I know that I would rely on is major national awards, and I do not know which ones are sufficiently major--but this has been a useful guide in other publicity-ridden fields. I have sometimes (emphasis on sometimes) had success in spotting articles in languages I cannot read using the countries version of Google and then Google translate--it can at least show there is a significant article. I wouldn't write an article using only such sources, but it can establish a ref for notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Is this a reliable professional source?

Thanks for pointing that out, but I don't know where exactly to find sources in regards to the information of the population of the Medieval countries. (N0n3up (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

I will take a look,. but it may take me a while. There are of course only estimates, not documentation. Probably the only way to deal with it is to cite a relatively modern estimates from decent sources, and that year would be recent enough to be included, but not to rely on. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DGG, and I was looking for good sources where it will give me reliable estimates in regards to the population of medieval Europe (e.g France, England, Italy). And what about this? http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Papers/MEDIEVAL_GROWTH.pdf (N0n3up (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

Pet games disruption continues

In the last week, these three were created: [1] [2] [3]. It's the same pattern, each time a throwaway account, the usernames all follow the same pattern as well. Altamel (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It's worth taking to WP:SPI to see if we can establish a range that is blockable. I usually leave that part to others. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndersoChambers. I hope I did everything correctly. Altamel (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You just saved a WP editor

Helsinki_County_Prison. Had already given up on Wikipedia... 88.112.32.173 (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Recovering data of a deleted page

Hello Mr.Goodman,

I would like to introduce myself. I am Dhwanika and I am writing to you in order to recover the data of a deleted page. The page in question is of Priya Adivarekar, which was deleted by you a few weeks back. I am interested in adding additional genuine information about her as an artist. Since I did not get the chance to edit her page during the review period, I would like to ask you for a copy of the information, which was on that page. It would be great if you can help me with this.

Thank you

Regards

Dhwanikaxoxo (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope you understand why the arguments for keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Adivarekar are not accepted here. It's not purely a question of adding information, but of adding references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. In this field it can sometimes be difficult to tell PR from objective coverage, so you must make sure there are really good sources. In practice, it is relatively difficult to get articles on voice actors accepted. Most of those who are included in List of Indian dubbing artists have either won national level awards or also had significant careers as actors in the ordinary sense in major films. If there is in fact such a career, the article might be accepted.

I can email you a copy of the article, but you first must activate your email from your log-in page. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Richard L Wahl

Dear DGG: Here's an article that appears to be about a notable professor. I added some book references. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I moved the statement about the named professorship at Johns Hopkins to the first sentence of the article, because that all by itself securely meets WP:PROF. And I accepted it. I have usually been accepting articles I am 95% sure of lasting at afd, but I'm gradually moving down to 80%. (The official minimum is51%, but I think that's a little too low. I have no quarrel with anyone who uses 60%. Of course, it depends on the reason it would be rejected. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

16:41:31, 3 December 2014 review of submission by Katkins indiana

• Katkins indiana (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Catherine Miller (dancer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just a quick question David -- if I can find more independent sources, do you think this entry will pass muster?

(I don't want to waste time, yours or mine, if you think this an unworthy topic. I created it as my first attempt at a WP article because I noticed that a link from the WP entry on the film "Five Dances" went to the wrong Catherine Miller, and that the right one didn't have her own entry yet. After reading up on her, I found that Catherine seemed more accomplished and more note-worthy than some of the other people involved in the film, who do have WP entries, and since I'd already done the reading I started writing her up...)

Katkins indiana (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the refs again myself, I agree with you that the film is the most likely source of notability at present. What you need to do is find at least one substantial review of it in a major national periodical . But usually dancers need to have received extensive individual coverage, won a prize at a national level, or performed as principals in a major company. The actual accomplishments are secondary, since we cannot judge that, but must go by the sources. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Reddogsix still proposes a nom despite your effort

Take a look at Kasia Wrobel again please. I suspect that the user just like in previous Samantha Hess article have some prejudice either against the person in the article or me.--Mishae (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I can not stop anyone from going to afd. The ed. in qy has made a number of recent deletion nominations, about 3/4 of them good, and 1/4 not, which is a rather high proportion of errors. They've also nominated other models7 similar entertainment figures for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what I am asking, but your comment there might help. So far I added Elle and Pudelek refs. The later one is Polish so I don't know if its an RS or not.--Mishae (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not consider an AfD which closes as a "Keep" to be an error on the nominator's part. An AfD nomination can serve as an appeal to the collective wisdom of the body as a whole. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Its the other way around @Orangemike:--Mishae (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Elly Barnes re-draft ready to review

Dear DGG, I have completely re-written and re-submitted the article titled 'Elly Barnes' following your feedback plus image permissions are OTRS pending. I am a bit concerned as now I can see the image file on the www but with all the wiki mark up and the link to the article works but it has the 'review'note on it. It is probably something I have done but it looks a bit of a mess. You did agree to review it quickly once I had re-written it so I wonder if this is possible please. Do you need me to send you the link or any other info? Thanks. JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please try to find one actual independent substantial article about her, and resubmit. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear DGG, thanks for the feedback: I have removed reference to being 'highly commended by TES' as I could not find documented evidence in the public domain to support this. In terms of independent substantial evidence currently there are three key areas I cite that refer to the ground-breaking and unique role Barnes has in challenging homophobia in schools: 1. Barnes is employed as a LGBT special schools advisor by Birmingham City Council (ref 9) 2. Barnes is employed as a LGBT special schools advisor by Durham County Council (ref 10) 3. The Ofsted report that quotes and references the work of Barnes as 'best practice' (ref 11) The fact Barnes was recognised for her work by being number 1 on the Independent on Sunday Pink List in 2011 and in the top quartile in subsequent years is in itself an independent verification and valid reference. Sue Perkins also includes these as wikipedia references. There are a number of independent newspaper and news references that I can add but I did not want this to be disproportionate to content provided. I believe the language used is dry and factual, not self promotional and this is one of the things I amended based on your previous feedback. I have been reading the wiki-guidance and reviewing other articles on comparable individuals that cite no or very few references to support statements made about them e.g Sue Sanders, Shaun Dellenty so there still seems to be a lack of consistency across wikipedia regarding this point. Of course I am happy to review content and do some more work on the article before I resubmit. JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @JulesatEducate&Celebrate: Just regarding your last point there about Sue Sanders and Shaun Dellenty, you generally want to use our our general requirements for articles as a reference rather than compare your article with another one which may also be problematic. The fact that it's on Wikipedia does not mean it has been approved by anyone in particular or has met any requirements. This is a principle editors generally refer to as "other stuff exists". Some inappropriate articles get picked up immediately and are improved or nominated for deletion accordingly, but not all of them do. There is indeed a lack of consistency, but this isn't a really problem because there are no deadlines; this entire project is a work-in-progress. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I shall look again tomorrow. I personally do not regard the list placement as conferring notability, but it is possible that the community might. The standard for accepting an article is a reasonable chance that the community will accept it at AfD, so I'll give it another check. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. I have removed two further paragraphs under the 'Educate & Celebrate' heading as further advice given indicated they were not biographical. Plus I have added 4 x newspaper citations, 3 x Guardian and 1 x Independent in response to your notability point. There are other news references I could add if necessary but these 4 are the key ones I think. JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reorganized it a little into our usual sequence of topics, from its arrangement with the bio at the end, which is characteristic of press releases, and cleaned it up a little, reducing linking of common terms and over-use of her name. I still consider it borderline, and also essentially an advertisement for her program., and have consequently placed a press release tag on it. I may make some further comments on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you DGG for reorganising and spending your time assisting me in this process. I have learnt a lot. I can remove the Educate & Celebrate sub-heading to ensure it is more of a biog if this helps and will add add some wider references where her work has been cited and quoted in the next few days. JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What would help most is to use a photo of her, not her standing in front of a poster for the program. I'm not sure what you mean my making this into more of a blog, because that's just what it shouldn't be. A blog is a place for someone to state their views. An encyclopedia article is a place for a subject to be described neutrally. Do not add more mentions of her work; they detract from the article. Multiple bordeline sources imply that there is nothing better. Rather, add substantial articles about her and her work. And check WP:REFBEGIN for our style of references--the references should give the author & title & source, not an explanation of why it's pertinent. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear DGG, I will definitely sort out a different photo. I have not used the word 'blog' in my post above and understand that is not wanted. I actually used the term 'biog' i.e. biography. I will review the way the references are named and add the journalist names where relevant. JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for misreading. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear DGG - a new image has been added as per your advice. JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Issues with Queen's University Beerfest Article

Hi David,

I want to thank you for taking the time to review and comment on my article about Queen's University's Beerfest as well as for the substantial contributions you have made to Wikipedia over the years.

I am hoping that you will re-consider your decision to reject the Beerfest article. I was surprised to see it rejected, particularly on the basis that it is a "local college event without public significance or interest outside the college." I believe this to be quite decidedly not the case. Queen's Beerfest has become such a large event that now more than 40% of participants are from outside of Queen's. In some ways, it has become an event which has replaced the former Queen's Homecoming tradition (cancelled in 2009 due to vandalism, burning of cars, and other acts of lawlessness) in the hearts of minds of Queen's students and alumni, though thankfully with far less destruction. High school students, students from other universities, and friends from American colleges plan their annual visit to Queen's around this event. Additionally, the raucous party culture of Queen's is certainly an issue of public concern, as evidenced by the numerous instances of national news coverage it has drawn (a couple of which are referenced in the article).

Further, there is ample precedent for other campus traditions being written about on Wikipedia, many of which are less fundamental to the University culture or well-known by those outside of campus. At Queen's alone, these include Golden Words, Oil Thigh, and Boo Hoo the Bear (not even an official mascot) to name a few.

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments here, and I hope that you will decide to allow this article to stand. Failing that, I hope you will provide me with any specific requirements you would need to change your mind.

Sincerely,

Robbie Mitchnick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchnickr (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I re-read the article. I apologize for not noticing earlier, but the article is largely devoted to the lists of the various competitors and officers, and this raises serious problems of our WP:BLP policy. extensive information about participation in a drinking contest at what the article calls "one of Canda's leading party schools" could be taken as negative information in terms of the possible influence on their later careers. I have consequently removed all of these sections. In any case, it makes it a more modest article, and it might be OK, except for the problem of sourcing But there have to be good sources. At the moment, the only usable source in the Globe and Mail. This is not really sufficient. Find another, make sure the article reflects the information in the sources, and resubmit. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks David, will do.

Robbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchnickr (talk • contribs) 20:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Darryl Willis

I've been spending some time cleaning up Category:American public relations people. I find that about one-third to one-half are good PROD or AFD candidates. Many are chalked filled with brief mentions, quotes, primary sources, rankings, blogs and other junk to make it look as if it was sourced, so they've escaped cleanup. This person appears to be notable[4][5] for a single event, that is being a spokesperson for BP during the deepwater horizon spill and being featured in commercials that ran afterwards. I am not sure if this is a ONEEVENT or not, as it is a single event, but not entirely trivial as is usually the case when that policy is used. Wonder what you think. I might keep chipping away at this category, like I used to do for articles with "industry-leading". CorporateM (Talk) 03:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never really like BLP1E. it's subject to a wide range of interpretation in any given case; The issue often is over whether something is important enough to be of long lasting encyclopedic interest, and one can reach whatever conclusion one cares to--the written policy is not much of a help. . In this case he did not have very much of a role, but he did make the news, and for all I know, may be quoted forever in histories of the events. This requires guesswork, and can be argued in each direction. I don't think this really belongs in WP, but I have not been emphasising these, for I have found that some of these will be strongly disputed, and the result is that the coverage will be even more erratic. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Idea

see [6] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've commented. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy

I just started a DRV regarding this. I was hoping you could restore the article and talk page for discussion. Thanks! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You already linked to the sandbox version you;d like to have reinstated. Is there some special reason why you want the other versions? DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

To compare version differences :). Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

OK DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I noticed that the version nominated for deletion is significantly different from the revision I am trying to restore. The current revision has an additional 14 sources from multiple academic papers. I was wondering what your opinion on the matter is. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 08:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacqueline Chabbi

Dear DGG: Although this article says the subject is an "associate" professor, there seem to be many people citing her work. I have added a few book references. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Llikely but not certainly ackeep, so it goes into mainspace.

Draft:Canadian Historical Review

Hello DGG. Once again I would like to rely on your expertise about academic matters. This submission is about a notable academic journal, but I couldn't accept it because of the non-neutral way it's written. It's been waiting a long time for review, likely because other reviewers felt the same way. I'm not sure really what information should be in an article about a journal - is all that information about the editors, etc., appropriate? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I couldn't resist making some improvements to it - I've added some third party sources and removed some of the promotion. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I sometimes trim back alittle further than you just did, but it;s ok. Something to look for is earier eds in cheif, which aresometimes listed, because all ofthem will be notable by WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James UH Chin

Dear DGG: I came across this professor draft article which seems notable at first, but it seems he's an adjunct professor and here's the Google Scholar report:http://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=V08w1yYAAAAJ&hl=en . —Anne Delong (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No clear way to decide. I'll fix it as I can and accept it. Everyone who writes a non-promotional article in good faith about a probably notable subject has a right to have the community decide if the subject is actually notable. Currently, I define "probably" at 2:1, 66%. It is not fair or reasonable for individual Wikipedians to act as gatekeepers in such cases; the spirit of WP is that we make community decisions.

What we can rationally act as gatekeepers for, are the throughly unlikely or utterly impossible article. (altogether too many clear G11 are just being marked "advertising" and left to be indefinitely rewritten. I nominated 40 of those rejected as promotional for G11 last night, 38 were deleted. I intend to continue. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Center for Undergraduate Research in Mathematics has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Han Yajuan has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

04:40:58, 9 December 2014 review of submission by FortesInFides

• FortesInFides (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Island Rose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello DGG,

This is regarding my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Island_Rose

I would like to request for a review of my draft article above because it was declined for notability but the sources include recognised leading Philippine national broad sheets, a leading Philippine News Network leading publications, and international publications (the topic is based in the Philippines). These sources are referenced as leading publications in WIKIPEDIA itself:

1. Philippine Daily Inquirer; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Daily_Inquirer 2. The Manila Times; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manila_Times 3. Entrepreneur Magazine; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneur_(magazine) 4. Endeavor Global (Non Profit Organisation); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endeavor_(non-profit) 5. GMA Netwrok; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMA_Network

As the article stated, this is a Philippine company and in this country, the publications mentioned are some of the most notable and credible sources. The international sources are likewise very credible. Last and most importantly, The topic being written about is a pioneer in its field and the largest operations of its kind within the Philippines.

Can you let me know how I can improve this? This is my first attempt at an article. Thanks!

FortesinFides

FortesInFides (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I quote from the draft article "Island Rose is a subsidiary of Philippine Cut Flower Corporation". Not all publcations that may be notable enough to be included in wikipedia as a publication are sufficient reliable that having an article in them necessarily makes the subject of the article notable. In this case . ref 1 is a general article about online merchandising in the Philippines that uses the company as an example; and even more important the article was written by the VP of the software company your firm uses, and is therefore a pure press release or advertisement for their software, and not independent coverage. Ref 2 is an interview with your firm's marketing director, where he says whatever he likes. Ref 3 ditto. and so on. These sources may publish press releases, but we do not. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok DGG, thank you very much for the tip. Will improve on this. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FortesInFides (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion

Hi DGG,

Request regarding the deletion of my page on Prof Dr. B.H.Briz-Kishore located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prof_Dr._B.H.Briz_Kishore

The page which I created is regarding a renowned person working at highest power corridors of India and I am having good sources and references. So kindly undelete the page and we would update it with more information.

Thanks, Bhargava Krishna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhargava Krishna (talk • contribs) 04:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

the problem is not then notability of the subject-- the problem is that it was written as a tribute to him, or an advertisement for his work. It needs to be rewritten from scratch, with removal of all adjectives of praise, and all judgments of value that cannot be supported by a reference from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Request on 18:59:51, 10 December 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Bragdonite

• Bragdonite (talk · contribs)
  • User:Bragdonite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obsolete

After having published architectural history for 35 years with monographs and essays printed in five languages, I am completely astounded at the rejection of an article that took me 4 months to complete for Wikipedia. I have long defended Wikipedia as a viable source of credentialed information, and believed it was worthwhile to offer the best scholarship for submission -- which is what I tried to do from my decades of experience in this type of writing. I will hack down the piece and resubmit, but this is the first time in a long career of scholarly publication that anyone has ever rejected anything I have produced and I just don't know quite what to think of that. I have maybe grown too old to be writing for present day audiences. Perhaps my first missed clue was being criticized for marking down college students who copy and paste from Wikipedia with the links intact. Thank you for your time in reviewing the piece. I see you have received many awards and notation for your work. Bragdonite (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As a scholar, when you write on a subject a subject, even if not doing original research , you synthesize the material, draw conclusions, and support them with the authority of your other published work, and your name and position; there is also the further quality certification of peer review, professional editing, and publication by a press that is known for its quality. In return, you are personally entitled to the merits of the work you do to further establish your authority. Many encyclopedia rely on a similar process, most notably the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Wikipedia is something different. Ne do not publish original research or synthesize, nor do we draw conclusions. Everyone here writes as if they were anonymous, and has no personal authority. I don't think our way is a good way to publish research, but it might be a good way to do a tertiary source like an encyclopedia. because it is possible that multiple contributors can provide a more balanced treatment than any one individual, however eminent. It does of course assume readers who can draw their own conclusions.

It is however not very difficult to accommodate oneself to this, by writing in such a manner that the conclusions are implicit, and that every detail is supported with references even beyond the ordinary requirements. Instead of the support of outside certification, you have the support of the internal consistence and the obvious quality of sources. The real problem for scholars and professional authors of all sorts here is that there is no control over the work once it has been finished. Most authors expect to produce the finest completed piece of work that they are capable--albeit often with the assistance of editors in the preparation, and then to have it stable. This is not possible here, and specialists of all sorts have the inevitable sensation of seeing their good work gradually changed and usually degraded. I therefore advise those accustomed to conventional publication to publish their work in the usual manner, but in addition to give a free license; there is thus a stable form as your own contribution, and also the base for the much wider diffusion of your understanding--and in particular the very real possibility of translation into a great many languages. You cannot here reach your audience with full exactitude, but you can reach in some manner a much wider audience.

I've made the analogy to delivering an introductory course an introductory survey course to a very non-specialized audience; where you must expect the students to come away with an often very imperfect idea of your meaning.

For submissiona such as this particular article, I would normally have accepted it, making the necessary cuts and rewording to meet our normal style and our peculiarities, and probably simplifying and shortening some of the peripheral material. But when I encounter work by an obvious expert--especially in a field where I myself have no particular qualifications--I will often try to persuade them to do the improvements themselves, which ought to be yield a better result. As we have a remarkable number of expected peculiarities, I will then make only some additional adjustments. (I almost said, final adjustments, but of course nothing I do in accepting or revising an article is any more final than what the author has done in writing it.

As a child, I dreamed of writing an encyclopedia. But even so, I can help produce a much greater one than I even then thought I would be able to do by myself. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that helpful discourse. I had a rather different view of the idea of Wikipedia and feel more comfortable in understanding the scope and limitations of the project from your comments. We all have suffered the results of committee ministrations on getting work off the table and out into the world. It was slow of me not to recognize that function is implicit in the structure of Wikipedia. I am revising the Dyson piece, and have to this point removed 40% of the draft. I am reluctant to diminish the Design Philosophy section, as there is nothing else on Wikipedia that comes close to Dyson's explanation of organic design, but I will try to chop it down. I very much appreciate your courtesy in allowing me to edit the piece as you mentioned. I will reconstruct the citations when I am done with the deletions, as I had built them to reflect multiple instances of the same reference.

I do have a question I hope you can answer. Someone edited the paragraphing within the Career decade sections to collapse all the sentences into one enormously long paragraph within each section. It was unreadable. Is this a Wikipedia stylistic convention? I notice this is not the case on the Frank Lloyd Wright page. I consciously modeled the Dyson page after that page's format.

Again, my thanks to you for the guidance and the insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bragdonite (talk • contribs) 20:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

William Adlam

FYI: the PRODs were removed: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Adlam. JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

04:44:15, 11 December 2014 review of submission by Psanchan

• Psanchan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Paul Coceancig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, could I get some help on how to make my article better? I can't find other sources that seem verifiable, but have heard of him in the community and met with Dr Coceancig himself.

Thank you.

Psanchan (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, experience shows that it is very difficult to produce a satisfactory article here on a subject where one has a direct financial interest. it is usually much better until other people with no such direct involvemen think the subject is so highly important that they will write the article.

It is not altogether impossible, when the subject warrants it. the requirements here for an article such as this are first, to meet the relevant notability standard of WP:PROF, establish that the individual is an authority in their field through the award of major prizes at a national level, the presidency of the major national level professional association in a wide field, holding of a named or otherwise distinguished chair at a major research university, or the production of a very considerable amount of highly cited professional peer-reviewed publication--the amount and nature depending, of course, on the particular subject. And this must be demonstrated by published evidence. The question here is whether external fellowship in the Royal College of Surgeons of England is intrinsically such an honour. It might be, and if the article were otherwise satisfactory I would accept it and ask that the community discuss the matter.

But an article must be descriptive, not promotional, and rely on references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements for the demonstration of the importance of the work. it must not use terms of praise, A method of dental treatment cannot be assumed to be a great importance because the article says that it is, nor can someone be assumed to be the inventor of it because the article says so. External reliable evidence is needed. It is also necessary that the article not read as an advertisement for his practice. When one of the two references is the site where he does advertise his practice, it does so read. You may try again, of course. when you have it ready, let me know, and I will give it an immediate review. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Andras Nagy

Hey, DGG, I actually made an article about a scientist all by myself.... —Anne Delong (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation Regarding Reliable Sources

Given your recent activity on the talk page of Identifying reliable sources, I am inviting you to participate in the discussion I started in regard to establishing a prima facia case for verifiable sources if it is has met and maintained the standards for inclusion in Google News.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

Hi DGG. Coming back to our conversation ([7]), you then said that “the question is whether we will support a separate article on the subject at all, and that is unpredictable”. However in Wikipedia there is a review article titled “Historical revisionism (negationism)” ([8]). It contains examples of countries which falsify history. Is it possible to include a short part of this material - [9] into the section on Azerbaijan of this article? Divot (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That is up to the people at the article talk page. You need to show it is regarded as a major example on part with the others. It will be helped by not relying on partisan sources, though of course the leading publications on each side should be cited. In particular, the claim of being revisionism or falsification are made by neutral scholars unconnected with the country. The material on your current user subpage is most of it much too one-sided to be usable, certainly not at such length. The validity of the viewpoint is best shown by a scrupulously neutral presentation. Avoid charged words in either direction. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What about this one - Section for Historical revisionism (negationism)? Divot (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I consider this reasonable, but that doesn't necessarily mean other will. The 1st sentence needs more precision: "there is a practice " -- what time period is being talked about, the entire span of historical writing? The quotes say either "Soviet and post-Soviet" or 1960s-1980s. For the quotes in the refs, try to trim their length to the key sentence or two. And translate Russian titles.

Environmental Impact of K-Cups

What do you think of this oddity: Environmental Impact of K-Cups? Looks like a pet project/personal essay/Original Research, and is the editor's only wiki contribution (they had posted it on the Keurig article and it was deleted as WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, out of place, and unnecessary; they then posted it as an article). Only one clickable citation. Note that the editor's Contributions page has a banner that says "Cstrin2 is a student in CHEM 4150 Environmental Chemistry (course talk)." Am I missing something? Are these students being urged to post their term papers onto Wikipedia? Because that's exactly what each of the 13 students has done or is doing. Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the perennial problems with the Education program. Even when topics are chosen that could possibly make WP articles, the topics are often much narrower than we usually write. For most courses, a suitable term paper topic might very well not be all that useful to the encyclopedia, and vice versa. (This is especially true because in a term paper students are normally expected to develop some ideas of their own, not just summarize existing knowledge). There are some related discussions on the two noticeboards, Wikipedia:Education noticeboard and Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents.

It also indicates a problem with the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:Notability does say that the GNG and related guidelines are "not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." However, there are no good guidelines for applying this discretion, except those that have developed as best practices in some specific subject areas, but these usually relate to people or events or creative work, or other specific things, not to less individual matters that are very specialized, or to case-studies such as this. Nor do we have any good guidelines for when to include case studies such as this within an article. Many general articles on environmental or social or economic problems use sections examples, and the most reasonable approach is that they be the most important of the available examples.

As for this particular article Some articles as specific and narrow as this have been sustained at AfD. Since it's a matter of judgment without clear rules, that's the only way to get a decision. But all decisions at AfD are erratic, and tends to be decided on the basis of on the energy of those who appear. I note the WSJ did think it worth an article--journalists usually look for specific examples to write their stories about, but an encyclopedia is different. I also notice that the article is itself not of very high quality. As for other articles in the scourse they will need to be looked at on their merits. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"I note the WSJ did think it worth an article". On the contrary, the WSJ article is just a standard stock-market report on a popular brand, nothing whatsoever about environmental impact: [10]. That's another problem with students never providing clickable links even when they are readily available. Except for this article in the Arizona Daily Sun (which link of course I had to find myself), the entire wiki article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, not to mention WP:UNDUE and unfair (and potentially libelous?) focus on a single brand or product. I think this is destined for AfD. The question I suppose is, who wants to nominate it? Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well anyway, I went ahead and nominated it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental impact of K-Cups, using my rationale above. Softlavender (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dimitri D. Dimancescu, CVO, MC

Dear DGG: I saw your note about the existing article Dumitru Dămăceanu. Are you sure this is the same person? There doesn't seem to be much overlap in the information. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right, not the same person despite the year of birth. I reverted my edit, & found a proper link. I'm very grateful that I have you watching me. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Susan Inman draft

Thanks. I was just beginning to look into it. I do think I made a mistake and clicked the blp rationale, rather than the ilc rationale, which is right above it on the drop down list.Onel5969 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Iagree it is often unclear which of the prebuilt answers to use; no problem. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oscar Goodman (oncologist)

Hello again DGG. This fellow appear to be an assistant professor, but he has some well cited papers. Is it worth looking for some independent sources here? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

the article is unfortunately an advertisement & would need substantial rewriting. I'll check to see if the cited papers are not just large clinical trials of which he is just one participant. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brahmavarta has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Musicians Handbook has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Clare Balding

Seeing the "peacock" tag you added to Clare Balding, I thought I would see if I could clean it up, but I'm not sure what it is you were objecting to. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"highest-profile" , "leading", phrases such as "she became so impressed by the vibrancy and physical challenge of the sport" -- I know such wording permeate our articles, but it's all of it wrong without a third party quoted source, and we shouldn't add to it. Additionally, the sucession of short single-sentence paragraphs give a somewhat promotional tone. Just fix these & remove the tag. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Trevor M Jones

DGG, Further to your removal of all the references on the page Trevor M Jones, it took me a long time to compile these references at YOUR REQUEST. Specifically you requested: '(3) We consider being an editor of journals significant. Please include them, with the exact positions and the years.' This I have done and now you are removing them. Why have you done this please? I would like them reinstated as it adds credibility to the page. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonieVP (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

we consider the position of being the editor of a journal significant. We do not consider the individual editorials significant. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Dyson

David, thanks for your support in making the Dyson draft become an article. I am continuing to add the citations back, but have a question about date format. Some citations are giving a date error. I do not understand how to format citations that are double year *e.g. "1989/1990"). Can you take a look at the errors on the footnotes and let me know what the proper format is for the ones I have not been able to fix? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bragdonite (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have checked, and I do not see we have any direct way of handling this--our bibliographic templates are by library standards rather crude. There are various workarounds, including not using a templated ref at all but writing it out manually. That's in fact what I usually do. Fortunately, there is no rule that references need be in any particular style at all. I'll clean this up as best I can DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

00:26:59, 16 December 2014 review of submission by Tfamelb

• Tfamelb (talk · contribs)
  • User:Tfamelb/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tfamelb (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi DGG,

Firstly thanks for reviewing my page, especially as quickly as you did. Following on from that, if at all possible, I'd really appreciate another moment of your time in terms of suggestions/direction.

I've researched as much as possible in terms of improving the notability and the citations I've supplied through the Wiki guidelines and indeed your own notability & inclusion article, and I've also asked via the Treehouse forum. Unfortunately however, I'm none-the-wiser as to how to improve my sources/notability? I've included as many 3rd party sources as possible, including several from large news organisations, such as the Bloomberg profiles and the products are being used by several very high profile sporting teams?

Any assistance would be very much appreciated.

Cheers, Tfamelb Tfamelb (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

First, my apologies. The form notice permits only one reason (although I have asked many times for more flexibility) and I should have written a custom notice. But there are over a hundred submission a day to be reviewed and only a few of us doing the reviews. This of course is our problem, not yours.

So, let me explain in more detail ,as I ought to have done at the first. Notability is only one problem, and perhaps not the most important. For notability, the article needs references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The Sydney Morning Herald article would do, except that it resembles a press release: it's an interview with him where he says whatever he chooses to--even some otherwise good newspapers tend to do that, but our standards are higher. Almost everything else is mere announcements, and the article could be much improved by removing most of them.

The real problem, is promotionalism, that it reads as an advertisement or a company web site. . To make it appear less so, the first step is to remove all executives except the ceo. The testimonials or list of clients do not help, while they may be needed to show acceptance, but should be cited from third party sources. A list of patents is irrelevant. The photos do help to show what the product is, especially the first; I'd remove the other.

When you've revised it, let me know here on my talk p., and I'll give it a look.

Perhaps I need to explain that my essays represent my opinion of what ought to be done at WP. When I actually do something, or give advice , I can not follow my private opinion, but I must do and say what the community will currently accept. Anything else would be unfair to you, as only the community can make the decisions. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing

Hi DDG, As an admin who has listed himself at WP:PAIDWATCH, I was wondering if you could take a look at Blackboard Inc.. I happened upon the article, cruising the "random article" link and discovered that two paid editors had created what appeared to me to be a company web property. After removing a bunch of WP:NOTCATALOG, puffery and who's who among executives and sorting out some failed verification problems, I pretty quickly found that this is a fairly strongly disliked company as described in one of the existing sources. Given the context, I've added some criticism and one of the paid editors and the person that helped them are objecting to it being in the article. Thanks. The Dissident Aggressor 00:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's declared paid editing, after all, and discussed on the talk p. But I made a comment, that will explain why I do not want to get substantially involved. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Congrats

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Take it easy, please. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Congratulations DGG :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Congratulations DGG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Wishing you all the best during your time on ArbCom. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Induction to the 2015 Arbitration Committee

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome onto the 2015 Arbitration Committee. In the next few days we will induct you and the other new arbitrators. Please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org from the email address you wish to use for registration on the various private wikis and mailing lists. Please also indicate which, if any, of the checkuser and oversight permissions you wish to be assigned for your term (if you don't already hold both).

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails. Please carefully read them. If they are automated registration emails, please follow the instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or GorillaWarfare (the designated newbie contacts) directly if you have difficulty with the induction process. Lastly, you must identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to being appointed. Please promptly go to the Identification Noticeboard and follow the instructions linked there if you are not already identified.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 08:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Now just waiting on you, DGG, if you wouldn't mind emailing as soon as possible! Best, AGK [•] 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

email mail sent. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

19:39:48, 17 December 2014 review of submission by 152.133.6.2

• 152.133.6.2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Patrick McNamara, Neuroscientist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi DGG,

I'm wondering what needs to be done to help this article get accepted. The first review said that the article needed to be more neutral, less personal, and include book publications only along with references to those books. I thought I had accomplished this however it got declined agian, so I'm wondering if you could provide more specific feedback on what exactly is preventing this from getting published. Many thanks!

152.133.6.2 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

what you need to do is 1/ avoid phrases like "McNamara is a philosopher and neuroscientist whose interests are diverse though they tend to center on three major topics: " or "Both works draw on a range of scientific, philosophical, theological and anthropological data and sources to construct a theory of religion" or " Throughout the work he emphasized the extraordinary stamina, courage, graciousness and intelligence of people with the disorder.".They are appropriate for a popular magazine article about him or his web page, but not in an encyclopedia. 2/Don't list his media appearances. They're not even relevant to a career as a scientist. If any of these are substantial interviews, they can be given as references. 3/ First describe his basic biography, not in the lede, but a section labelled "Biography". Inclue positions and years. 4/Then describe his major work in plain language, not quoting from his lectures. Don't say "his detailed work can be found at ...." list it as an external reference 5/List all his book is formal bibliographic format: author, title, publisher,date, ISBN. Separate the ones he wrote from the ones he edited. Use WorldCat as the reference. Include a ref for each, listing the published reviews.

When ready, resubmit and let me know & I'll review it right away. He is notable, and there should be an article. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Adekola Ogunoye II

Hi DDG

Can you help to review the above article? Thanks in anticipation. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems a good short article in an area where we have desperate need of them. The main thing it needs is to have the references expressed in a fuller way, including not just the link ,but author title, date of publication, and date of access. I don't usually assign formal ratings, but I would be reluctant to rate it higher than start without completed references, or higher than C class without a much more detailed presentation of his life and career. My personal opinion is that the effort would be better spent in making more short articles like these on as many traditional rulers as possible. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you DGG, I actually used the "fengtools" to fixed the bare ref. but I unintentionally ignore the access date. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Suggestions/directions

Hi DGG,

Thank you for reviewing my page in a swift response. I would really appreciate your suggestions/directions on how to make improvement to the article.

I've researched as much as possible in terms of improving the notability and the citations by looking at samples of existing Wikipedia articles on Malaysian businessman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Choo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Fernandes

Any assistance would be very much appreciated.

Regards, Wendy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendyapplenian (talk • contribs) 03:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This is apparently about Draft:Dato' Sri Lee Ee Hoe, JP. first step: remove adjectives. Second step, cite all calsims, cuch as "Malaysia's No. 1 Japan Travel Provider." to a third-party independent reliable source, not a press release. then, don't write in bullet points, but paragraphs, and finally step, fill in all references according to WP:REFBEGIN. When done, resubmit, let me know here, and I'll look at it.

I must however point out that a great many bios in WP do not meet our current standards, & need drastic improvement or even removal. I've already made some edits on the two you've mentioned, and will make some more. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Math article help.

The person I ask about math articles is no longer around. Do you know of anybody that could help out at Image Super-Resolution from Sparsity? They have improved the math in the article and the article overall, but issues still remain. I want to remove the Prod I placed. Bgwhite (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Report

Hi DGG

I hope you are fine? I am here to build an encyclopedia and not for a war with any editor. As an uninvolved admin. See this AfD and this personal attack thereafter. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not see that he attacked *you.* I would guess that there is rather likely to be arb cases involving incivility and personal attacks; I think I need to remain uninvolved in admin actions of the type that might reasonable be expected will come to arb com. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Alan Fox page edits

Hello DGG. I recently submitted a page for Alan C Fox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alan_C._Fox), which you reviewed and provided feedback on. Thanks so much for your comments and advice (not to mention your time spent reviewing these pages)! As you suggested, I've refocused the article around Alan's work as an author and de-emphasized his business career. If you are so inclined, would you be able to take a look at the page and let me know if what I've done is up to snuff? Thanks! (Pitneyj (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC))

User:Pitney, one important thing to do which is needed so the actual notability can be judged. Expand the references according to WP:REFBEGIN to show author, title, title of publication, date of publication, , not just the web site. The notability for the purposes of WP depends on whether the references are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

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

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

Possible promotional editing

I know you're going to be busy in your new job very soon, but could you please take a look at these contribs. They admit editing as a group and I've already deleted one article. They clearly seem to be using WP as a platform for some kind of promo but I can't quite put my finger on it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Esther Gokhale Article

Hi there, I had written to you about a month ago with regards to the article about Esther Gokhale which you deleted through speedy deletion. At the time I asked you to clarify on what grounds you determined it to be unambiguous advertising. You said you were concerned that some of the details in the article seemed to be the types of details one would find only in promotional pieces. I am wondering if that is enough of a reason to delete an article about a notable subject.

Could we reinstate the article and either edit out the parts that seem promotional, or at least go through the Afd process with it so that other voices have a chance to weigh in?

When I posted this before, someone else weighed in saying that it would make sense to just edit out what seems promotional. You seem to have deleted the thread, which is why I am posting again.

Cheers,

Dandem1 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

who is "we"? If you have any financial connection you must declare your conflict of interest.

The material in that article was essentially the same as in the article Gokhale Method, which was deleted by the community in a discussion in which I did not participate, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gokhale Method.

The only proper course of making at an article is to decline any conflict of interest, and then use the WP:AFC process.

As a guide to doing so, note that any material about her motivation can come only from what she chooses to say to an interviewer, and is therefore not reliable. There are some ambiguities worth noting--if she was "trained as a biochemist" at Princeton, in what year did she receive a degree, and in exactly what major? Similarly for claimed studies at Stanford. I notice the absence of basic biographical information.

Do you have the link to the original Drudge report posting on which the other sources seem to be based? DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

00:42:43, 22 December 2014 review of submission by Nevline

• Nevline (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Reflections Unheard: Black Women in Civil Rights (Film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello-thank you for reviewing my submission for the Reflections Unheard: Black Women in Civil Rights Film. You suggested that I provide appropriate references to indicate the film's notability, acclaim, critical coverage and/or awards before re-submitting. Upon editing, I have provided the appropriate links in the "Film Festivals and Acclaim" section.

There, you will find schedules, articles, and webpages written about Reflection Unheard's specific screenings and awards directly from the noted film festival's official websites. I would appreciate if you could re-review my submission and get back to me, as I have provided your requested information. Thanks again!

Best, Nevline

Nevline (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nevline (talk · contribs): I responded. I do not think the article would be kept if submitted to mainspace, and that is the criterion. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Roland Tay

Hi DGG,

Thank you for reviewing my article. I changed the tone of the article and took out most of the descriptive sentences. With regards to citations, I cited mostly from newspaper articles. There is a website where all these articles are kept, it is currently at this link :http://www.rolandtay.com/inthenews.php. Please have a look and I welcome all feed back. Thank you.

Roland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandtay (talk • contribs) 08:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed it; I consider it still to be essentially an advertisement. I am not sure whether it would or would not be possible to write an article on him that would not be, as I explain a little further in my second decline of Draft:Roland Tay but if you are or represent the individual you are not the person best placed to judge. I notice you've been adding references to his name and company to articles on individuals for whom he conducted funerals. You may not do this if you have a conflict of interest, but you may suggest such an addition on the article talk page and let other people judge if it is significant enough to include. Until others agree to accept them, I have removed them from the articles. I note another editor has also judged such an addition inappropriate, and notified you on your talk page; despite that, you added another. DGG ( talk ) 11:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi DGG,

Thank you for your feedback. my username is him but i am not him. I work in the funeral industry and see him as a good role model for our industry because of his charitable acts. He is a prominent figure in Singapore and deserves a wiki page of his own for his charitable acts. I have even linked his webpage for your reference. All that is stated in the article is covered in the news reports that I cited and these news reports can also be found in the link i provided you. The other editor pointed out promotional language, of which i have removed. I am stating facts that are in the news reports. I would like to ask how then can i write this article more like an encyclopedia? You may google roland tay to get an idea of who he is or just watch his documentary here: [link removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandtay (talk • contribs) 12:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are not him , or using his name as his employee, agent, or contractor, you must choose another username. On the new userpage you must disclose whether you have any business or financial relationship with him. If you do, editing the article without declaring it is a violation of our terms of service for which you can & will be blocked. But if you are not employed for the purpose of publicizing him, it puzzles me why you inserted his name and the name of the firm in other articles. I also find it somewhat unlikely that someone in the industry but presumably connected with another firm would write a laudatory article about a competitor. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok i will change my username. He is the whole reason why I joined the funeral industry. He helped my family with the funeral arrangements of my father when our family could not afford it. I do not work for his firm but hope to impress the firm with my contribution of his article. In the funeral industry in Singapore, he is known as our god father. I will tone the article down then. Thank you for your advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandtay (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

On the basis of what you said, "I hope to impress him with my contribution to the article" you have a conflict of interest to a degree which makes it totally unsuitable for you to make any edits on his article. Promotionalism applies to promoting either one's own cause, or that of somebody else--we allow neither. We welcome you to work on other topics, but I must advise you not to work on him or his company, or anything connected with either. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Two professors

Hi DGG. Here are two drafts about professors: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Lowry and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Josef Bigun. I am not going to have time to work on them - my Anne Delong/Afc submissions for improvementlist is getting too long and they would need to much work in areas about which I know nothing. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Long's [11] shows authorship of major textbooks, Bigun is named chair and IEEE Fellow. It can be enough to remove the inappropriate lists of publications from Bigun and ck both for copyvio in Google and on the university web site. I'll do it. It's better to rewrite in standard format, but not necessary--I have sometimes been letting that go, for if something is notable and non-copyvio and non-promotional and readable, it's good enough. However, I understand about backlog; yesterday I deleted as copyvio an obviously notable person that I would previously have rewritten.

Looking at your list, I see I too have had doubts about how to handle many of them. I will however go through it also. OK if I mark what I do? My (several times longer) list is currently off wiki--I may put it on if I can think of a simple way to do it.

But we need to recruit someone else also--I expect to have substantially less time for this over the next 2 years. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead an add anything you want, or delete if you find a copyvio or something. I have been trying to keep the list short by moving anything finished to User:Anne Delong/AfC content rescued from db-g13, and you'll see that I have been noting ones that were handed off to you or others. I have also deleted a large number from my list and let them go for one reason or another. I think 550 saved articles plus a whack of content merges is a good start. I know Rankersbo has been working on some of these too, and a few others have stepped in occasionally, but you are right - I thought it would taper off after a while, but there are so many old ones that keep reappearing because no one has had time to work on them. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that nobody has had time to work with them, but that very few people are devoting any time at all to them. 100 people each doing 1 a day would remove the backlog. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

University of Florida in popular culture

Hey, DGG. Could you review the items on the stand-alone list and the AfD comments by three different editors? The fact there are not more than three or four significant list items is a very strong sign that there is not a enough noteworthy content to justify a stand-alone list. The stand-alone list is mostly composed of t-shirts, baseball caps and other trivial mentions that have appeared in books, TV programs and films. These are not significant occurrences of the University of Florida in popular culture -- they're insignificant trivia. Speaking as a three-time graduate of the university, I find the present list to be an embarrassment. After the meaningless trivia is removed, the remaining short list that's left could easily be incorporated into the main University of Florida and/or Florida Gators main articles. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

3 or 4 significant items is enough for a list. But I will certain review them further, in the course of preparing a more elaborate defense of why we should keep the article. I apologize for such a brief post at the AfD, but that's all I can manage tonight. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naqshbandi Hussaini Golden Chain

Since you suggested a merge (which was the result of the discussion), and since you have the tools, would you care to perform the merge please? It's been a fortnight since the discussion ended and nothing's been done to implement the result. Regards, Bazj (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

the conclusion of the afd was a different merge than I suggested, It was proposed by Cerebellum (talk · contribs), who is also an admin. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: I apologize, I refactored your comment for a typo which was messing up the {{User}} template. Just an FYI Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cerebellum, would you care to do the merge please? Bazj (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: Cerebellum appears to have been on a break for the last few weeks. Can I ask you again to do the merge? Bazj (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Staffan I. Lindberg

Hello again! Here's one I've been fixing up. Can you give it a notability check? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

One very important book, considerable other work, including ed. of another book. Not quite certain, but good enough DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Recusal query

Hi DGG. I think because we've interacted on the talk page of one of the articles involved in the case, in my editor review and also co-nommed one candidate in the past, some might view your participation in the case as being involved. I'll leave it to your judgment whether to recuse or not, but thought it better to leave this note in advance. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 04:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I consider myself neutral. I am just as puzzled as Seraphimblade as to where the truth may be, and I would like to find out in an objective manner. As I recall, my participation in the editor review was to ask you one question, which you answered. But since I have worked in the area, and to avoid any implication of potential unfairness, I have recused. You are of course aware that this leaves me free to comment, as any editor can. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 04:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Simian

Could you look at Draft:Simian? You have a better grasp of the criteria for books than I do and I'm not sure about the quality of any of the reviews given. --TKK! bark with me! 04:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

already in WP as Simian (graphic novel). It's difficult to tell notability as Indian newspaper sources are not fully reliable in the creative arts--they are influenced by PR to a very considerable extent. There are no US library holdings, which is not surprising, as US libraries are extremely weak on all Indian topics. There's no union library catalog for India, and no periodical index that I know of. It's published by a mainstream publisher, so I see no reason to nominate it for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher W. Jones

Hello, DGG. Here's another professor page that I have been fixing up. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

ed. of major journal. I'm always glad to look at these and touch them up, but you are very reliable in identifying the ones that are clearly notable, and are fully qualified to go ahead without me. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

RM Hogg

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)

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,[12] 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 [13] 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[14] give a ref to the Guardian obit, with a quote, Sept. 20, 2007. This information alone is enough for an article stub. (I'v e gone into the details as an example of the way I check these things) DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Mitchell Gaynor, M.D. page

Hi David,

I sent you an email about this, too, but perhaps it's best to post about it here. Thank you very much for reviewing the page that I created about Mitchell Gaynor, M.D. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mitchell_Gaynor). I see that it was deleted due to copyright infringement. I see that it was too close to this page: http://genechanger.com/about-dr-mitchell-gaynor/. I will rewrite it so as not to violate any copyright. A volunteer on the Wikipedia Help Page named +Huon also mentioned that many of the references don't appear to be reliable third-party sources, but rather websites or organizations that Gaynor is affiliated with. Sorry about that. I would like to work on these things and revise it.

Two questions: 1. Since Mitchell Gaynor, M.D. is an experienced oncologist who has written numerous books and has appeared in print, radio and TV media, is it fair to assume that he's notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? 2. I will delete or replace any sources that are Gaynor's personal sites, such as GaynorWellness and GaynorOncology and GeneChanger. Any others that don't make the cut as sources? 3. Any other specific suggestions that would improve the page and get it approved? (I'd just like to streamline my revisions as much as possible to be efficient.)

Thanks very much for your help. This is my first time creating a page, so I value your feedback and patience as I work to get this right.

Best, Jane JaneB11 (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Jane

what is really needed is reviews of his books, substantial reviews from recognized third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or blogs or mere announcements or Amazon reviews or reader reviews. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

Hello! Apropos this message that you left in my talk page, I was unaware that I reviewed the page! In any case, has the page been reviewed now? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I left some comments. II would suggest you expand he article to include a fuller consideation of he social and political context. Oneuestion is obvious: do they become US citizens as a result of their serice? DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent points. I will try to expand. And yes, the recruits become citizens, usually at the end of their Basic Combat Training.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There was, if I recall correctly, a forunner of this program in the Vietnam War era. It differed in awarding accelerated US citizenship after the end of the enlistment period. — Neonorange (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

21C Media Group

AfD was closed as "no consensus" after zero comments over almost 3 weeks. Should I renominate or PROD or just leave it alone? Not sure I've ever gotten an AfD where literally nobody commented. CorporateM (Talk) 18:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:PROD, it can not be used after an adfd, regardless of the result. You mint want to renominated in a a month or so, rather than immediately. No-response adds are rare now, but they used to be fairly common. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

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

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

You're not going to believe this but ...

Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. just got added to wiki. Even after your two warnings last month: [15] and [16]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I redirected. I can not take admin action here, so if there continue to be problems, unless some other admin chooses to act, it will be necessary to take it to ANI. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I reverted the promotional mentions the editor added to the rest of wiki after (re)creating that article. The article (re)creator, Daniellagreen, has created 13 articles/templates on the Gernatt family, 7 of which have been AfDed. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haddowali has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James R. Hedges IV has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article: Bahadir Kaleagasi

Hello Mr. Goodman. You seem to have tagged the article I just created for WP:Notability. I have included references from The Financial Times, The New York Times, and Today's Zaman - all of which are categorised as reliable sources - and I am currently in the process of cleaning up the references to keep them up to Wikipedia standards. Could you please let me know what I can do to fulfil the criteria? Thank you! EpicureanCat (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Give the full information for the references, author, title, date of publication , link,

avoid using vimeo and youtube as sources

Give some infer about the books, including substantial reviews from third-party independent reliable sources,

also, the article will be improved Give some more basic bio: birth, Harvard degrees, positions.

I changed the tag to "under construction" DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you have a look again please? I worked on it for several hours, it should be up to standards now. Cheers! EpicureanCat (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I made some additional copyedits for conciseness. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. EpicureanCat (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Educational institutions

The policy page says a rather vague "educational institutions" (and links to Types of educational institutions) - certainly, the exception has historically been broader than degree granting institutions (e.g., elementary schools fall under the exception, though they don't grant degrees, Colleges (in the Canadian English sense of the word) don't grant degrees, but ain't A7 eligible, etc.). WilyD 08:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC) anyway, its at add now. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you are right--schools like this should be done by Prod or CSD because of the difficulty in some cases of telling what they are. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)