User talk:DGG/Archive 59 Dec. 2011

Hi David, as you see, I've been renamed and the 50,000 edits barrier was no problem at all. Thanks again for that tip! Could you have a look at the article on the Journal of Pakistan Medical Students? It was started this year and claims to be included in "PakMediNet" and Ulrichsweb (I have no access to that). Do you think this suffices for notability or is this just one more of the never ending series of opportunistic OA web-journals popping up all over the place? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I share your doubts about student journals in most fields, but this is not from a particular university only, but national. However, it's too new to tell, and there's no significant indexing yet. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article has been deleted twice since 11/13 (three times since last December), most recently yesterday morning at 1am. (delete log) The only sources are primary sources or scammer complaint sites. The creating editor is fighting consensus. Jojalozzo 02:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

he has so far improved it a great deal over the original submission, and a little beyond the state at AfD,; I think it right to encourage editors to lerarn how to do better editing. If he does not improve it further in a few days, I will probably decide to work on it myself to make the necessary improvements. If neither he nor I do, or if you don't think what I can finally do is enough, a second AfD will settle it, but its appropriate to give him--and me-- some time. You may not trust him to do anything with it, and I wouldn't necessarily blame you, but perhaps you will agree I have enough of a record in rescuing articles like this, and even much worse ones. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I respect your judgment. I posted this here before I noticed your addition to the talk page. I worked on the second incarnation a bit and then gave up when I couldn't find any real secondary sources. I'd be content if we could find any sources that established notability/notoriety beyond the local business community (it really is a national operation). Jojalozzo 03:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't have to be national, to be notable. A large local business with enough sourcing for notability can be also; the problem is when sourcing for something asserted to be national is just local papers, then one wonders, and needs to verify further. this is the type of business where it is reasonable to be skeptical--I've seen a number of greatly exaggerated article about MLM's. That I intend to rewrite does not mean I will succeed in doing so even to my own satisfaction--about 1/4 of the time I try it, decide it is impossible, and delete. If I find I was wrong, I have no problem saying so. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your evenhanded actions in the Davina Reichman mess. I very much appreciate your attention in that matter. JFHJr (㊟) 06:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Same here. Good timing.— Racconish^Tk 12:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good morning. Should I NOT have started the DRV on SuperKombat? Was my action pointy? I certainly don't want to be the police, but I'm concerned about the way frequent abusive socking and gaming has twisted a series of discussions; this one in particular was just ridiculous. I'm also disappointed with the quality of the followup I would normally expect from a trusted sysop like HJ. Since at some point I expect to put myself forward as an admin, I don't so much care about getting my way as better understanding the whys and whens. BusterD (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is not a subject where I even attempt to judge notability or sourcing. Yes, it was probably a mistake to appeal a non-consensus--it isn't worth the trouble, especially when the closer is known as a reasonable admin in such matters. There is a considerable degree of discretion in when to do non-consensus. The most that usually happens is a decision to relist--that sometimes is the result if a non-consensus is closed as a non-admin close. Simpler to do a second AfD in a month or two. But best would be I think to nominate the individual meets for deletion as not separately notable, starting first with Local Combat, which seems even with my lack of background an unsupportable article, and when you do the others, suggest that a merge would be acceptable. Thats the usual compromise I prefer in borderline notability for situation like this, to make one single reasonably strong article. If I had been closing, I might have closed that way, as suggested by Temporary for Bonaparte—or perhaps relisted.

What you should look for in DRV cases is a true supervote, where a closer goes against clear consensus of established editors with arguments founded on their interpretation of policy, based on the closer's different interpretation of policy. As a non admin, it's much more difficult to go to DRV for incorrect speedies--and in fact I asked for the tools with the stated intention of mainly using them to check such speedies. (Though in practice these days there's so much abusive promotionalism, that what I mostly do with the tools is deal with it.) DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

David, I wonder if you could help this user at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#removing ISBN codes from citations - I can't think of anyone better qualified. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Enormously. I learned a lot from that too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just read it. Fascinating - I never knew all that! In the UK, we quite often find the old ASIN numbers for older works, too. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG: I am new to posting entries on this site, and am not even sure if I am responding to your advice via the appropriate channel. I have rewritten the entry and ask for your opinion on whether this is acceptable.

Education Under Fire (EUF) is a campaign initiative founded by former real estate developer David Hoffman to address the Iranian government’s denial of the right to education for ideological and religious reasons. The Education Under Fire [1] initiative focuses on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s violation of Article 26 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights—“Everyone has the right to education...higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.” Among those being denied access to higher education in Iran is the entire Baha’i Faith community whose youth have, since the early 1980s, been systematically denied access to any of Iran’s universities. In response, the Iranian Baha’i community established the Bahá´í Institute for Higher Education (BIHE).

The BIHE has faced a series of government attacks over the years. In May 2011, the Iranian government raided dozens of homes, confiscating computers and materials and detaining a number of BIHE professors and administrators. The Iranian government also bans students from pursuing higher education if they have expressed views, joined organizations or engaged in activities that are construed as critical of the government. In addition, the authorities have attempted to prevent instruction in several fields in the humanities and social sciences and have dismissed faculty for ideological reasons.

External Links:

• pweb site
• NYT
• bihe,org
• http://iran.bahai.us/
• [2] Iran press watch

Frwrldpce (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

this is an suitable place to ask, & I will get beck to you this evening. But the question is, do you have sources from third parties about the specific group, or the activities of the specific group? The NYT article does not mention the group. DGG ( talk ) 13:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

having looked at the other references, they don't seem to be specific either. Unless you have references that are specifically about your organization, there's no chance for an article. As I said on your talk p., the merit of the cause does not mean the organization is notable. No matter how good and important something is, we are not here for promoting it. The only way we promote in any sense is by example: we demonstrate the value of free culture, public access to information, and cooperative work towards a common goal. All of this is highly compatible with your movement, but our articles don't promote even ourselves, but report the world as we find it. The best advice I can give you is to identify people who are written about extensively in reliable sources, and add articles about them with those specific references; the articles can give their intentions, if there are sources for it, but cannot directly promote them. . More generally, our coverage of this part of the world needs improvement, and the more people know about all related topics, the more they will understand the politics also. If given fair information, people will come to their own conclusions. Any advocacy needed must be done elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG,

Just giving you a heads-up about the latest update on our template testing. Please peruse when you have a minute. Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

It still needed major improvements, and, as an indication to you or anyone of what is needed, I made them. I removed duplication, bios of the founders, multiple excessive internal and external links, I shortened the wording, and removed half the many mentions of the name of the company. I;m not sure its notable; the only 3rd party refs seem to be 2 University web pages for job fairs it participated in and an apparently PR-derived article in a newspaper. I give you a week to add others, and then I shall restore it to main space and send it to AfD for a community decision. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear Kind Sir,

I am appealing to you for help with this. I am attaching several articles and letters that I believe might support the fact that, when re-written, might be a suitable place for providing education and enlightenment on this situation. Please note as well that the documentary is being screened at universities across the country free of charge as a public service. I have attached links to recent articles and letters from notable sources that might be relevant. I am hoping that you can offer some assistance to a person who has been presented with a task and is a little overwhelmed. I also have a letter written by Elise Auerbach of Amnesty International. I don't yet have a link to it, and can't attach it, but have cut & pasted it below. It will be posted on their Website shortly. Any assistance you can offer to make this information suitable for posting on Wikipedia, is genuinely appreciated.

Open Letter from Philosophers Condemning the Action of the Iranian Government][http://news.bahai.org/sites/news.bahai.org/files/documentlibrary/857_philosophers_letter_en.pdf Telegraph Article: [3]

[4] [5] [6] [7]

Amnesty International Letter Text: The Iranian government systematically excludes individuals from pursuing their education as a form of punishment for exercising their right to freedom of expression—whether this expression takes the form of peaceful political activism or religious affiliation. The deprivation of the right to education is a violation of internationally agreed upon human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to which Iran is a state party. Among those systematically banned from higher education are members of Iran’s Baha’i community. In response, the Baha’i Institute for Higher Education (BIHE) was established to provide an opportunity for Baha’is to obtain their education; sadly, this peaceful institution has also been declared illegal, and many of those involved in providing instruction have been arrested, detained, and charged with criminal offenses. The targeting of the BIHE is part of the pervasive discrimination and persecution faced by Iran’s Baha’i community, the most glaring examples of which are the twenty-year prison sentences imposed on seven leaders of the community, currently imprisoned under substandard conditions in Raja’i Shahr Prison. The new documentary film “Education Under Fire” movingly presents the decades-long persecution endured by Iran’s Baha’is, featuring interviews with members of the community and human rights activists, as well as rare historical footage. But it is also the story of courage and commitment in the face of human rights violations, as Baha’is who love learning and education make heroic efforts to provide this gift to young members of their faith. Amnesty International is sponsoring this film and encouraging its members, activists and the public to view the film and to take action to urge the Iranian government to uphold its obligations under international law and to end the persecution of the Baha’is in Iran, to release all prisoners of conscience, and to cease depriving Iranians of the right to education on ideological and religious grounds. Elise Auerbach, Ph.D. Iran country specialist, Amnesty International USA Frwrldpce (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is one of our basic principles that Wikipedia does not engage in promotion of anything. It's an encyclopedia, and committed to the neutral presentation of information--that's our purpose. The assumption is that the free neutral presentation of information will result in people understanding matters in the world, but how they understand them is their own responsibility. Now, we do have an article Bahá'í Institute for Higher Education, to which some of this information could appropriately be added, particularly the Telegraph article. But when you do this, do not include the text of the message, summarize what it says in one or two sentences, and give a link to the full text. I and probably other editors will check the article later today, and revise what is written there to fit our style, as usual. It might conceivably be possible to do an article on this campaign also, but the first step is to add information to the existing article. I shall make sure there are appropriate cross references to it from the various names of what is discussed there. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sir: I have added two recent articles regarding the BIHE as you recommended, and will await your suggestions regarding perhaps getting the Education Under Fire initiative published. We do have a letter written by the Iran Country Specialist of Amnesty International USA which sponsors the film and urges the public to view hte film and take action. I humbly await your response,

With Warm Regards, Josephine

Frwrldpce (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG: I've added the citations you suggested as well as a new article citing the sentencing of the BIHE professors. I still need to put in the "recognized religions" - have to verify that and will add it shortly. You see, I work full time in addition to helping with this initiative, so I am sometimes not as quick as I would like. Do you think there is a possibility to add the Education Under Fire initiative? As always, you help is genuinely appreciated.

Best Regards,

Josephine--Frwrldpce (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I adjusted your external link, and will adjust the references. But to actually include a section, we need specific references to the campaign or the video from 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear David, I have added several links to the BIHE Wiki page and would ask respectfully that you view these additions and advise as to whether they would warrant having a page for the Education Under Fire approved. I really do feel that these additions would qualify Education Under Fire as meeting the Wiki requirements for an entry. I look forward to your feedback. Bahá'í Institute for Higher Education Iran Human Rights Podcast Harvard Edcast - Not your typical Rainn Wilson college tourCNN.com - Iran Bans Bahai UniversityHarvard news Rainn Wilson tour Education Under Fire CNN Article on BIHE and Education Under FireDigboston.com - Article on Rainn Wilson & Education Under fire Frwrldpce (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi: Please check out the new link on the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education. http://digboston.com/think/2011/11/rainn-wilson/ - It is an article talking about Education Under Fire being screened across the country and actor Rainn Wilson on the panel. Do you think that we can get a Wiki page for Education Under Fire with this new activity?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&action=edit&section=92#

Hey DGG, I saw that you took off the prod on the Mian Sadik Ali Khan Kalhoro page saying it's in the public domain. Thanks for correcting my mistake. I just wanted to ask some questions about it. I understand that it's ok to use because it's in the public domain but is it ok for it to be copied exactly. Should it be reworded at least? Maybe the page could use a rewrite tag or something. What do you think? DaffyBridge (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Remember that our content can be used by anyone, even copied exactly and in full, as long as attribution is given, and it works the other way also. We encourage copying from us, and we also encourage suitable copying from good PD or otherwise free sources. It is legitimate to copy exactly, provided it is made clear just what content on the page is copied exactly--it sometimes is 100%, but often the contributor adds a little of their own--in this case, apparently the first sentence. When somebody adds to it, the quotation marks need to be kept, so it can be distinguished what came from where.

However, it's rarely a good idea. Updating is very often a problem: PD text sources are often out of date, sometimes to the point of total distortion; they inherently omit important newer discoveries or interpretation or criticism; sometimes they show old-fashioned ideas that would never be written that way today. Some show racism or nationalist or religious or life-style prejudice. e Content is often a problem: some are too specialized, some are promotional or advocacy, some are original research, some are unclear. Style is also a problem: they can often be written too formally, or too personally, or like a school paper, or like an academic paper, or an essay. Sometimes they are incomplete: the old EB for example tends to have articles with an old fashioned anglocentric didactic tone, followed by whatever specialized sections the author decided to include, until the editor truncated it.

this particular one is old fashioned historical narrative, perfectly usable as a source, when complemented with later interpretations of the events described. But the part included in our article omits almost all of the subject's career except for one particular battle, for which it gives no context. The actual source from which it was translated is not given in the excerpt, though it almost certainly is specified in the printed book from which it was taken. Not copyvio, but a really low quality article. For an article of this low quality, the question is whether it's better to delete it, or add to it (or replace it or use some of it) My preference, and what I think is most in the spirit of Wikipedia, is always to keep what we can. We should of course remove anything which is really unsuitable, and then it;s there for improvement. Even if I can't do so, or don't have the time to do so now, over the years someone else will come along who will be interested. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for a very thorough response. Yeah, hopefully some people will work on it eventually. I don't know enough about the topic to do much. DaffyBridge (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

Hoping you can help me out or advise me. My article got deleted although it clearly meets WP:BIO. The deleting admin is on a wiki break, so I am turning to you for some guidance. What might I do to improve my article so this won't happen again? Thanks in advance.Todayilearned (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see the article is now at User:Todayilearned/Noel Ashman. There's a feeling that I share about considering being frequently interviewed as evidence for notability, and too many of the refs were of that nature. It shows the person is a easily interviewed figure in the scene, but that can be publicity, not notability. The studio 54 link (when the club he owned was not the famous club of that name) didn't help—and it fooled me, to the detriment of my AfD comment). I think and said at AfD 2 the article should have been kept. There is at least one really good reference, ref 7 from the NY Post. There seems to be some degree of prejudice against people whose notability is in a nightclub or society scene anywhere, which seems a little silly to me considering how greatly we over-represent entertainers. The only thing that will do much good is more good references. That would at least be justification for rewriting, in the hope of a more sympathetic hearing--the results at AfD are variable, depending on who shows up. But I think the people who commented before are watching it and will comment again. In terms of structure, the unnumbered references need to be integrated, but the final version was not written promotionally--there's nothing much to fix in that respect. Black Kite could not have closed otherwise in view of the discussion, when he;s back he may give you advice, but there's no point asking him to reconsider the close. Perhaps you would get more useful advice from some of the people who !voted delete. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

DGG,

Thank you for your insight. Here are some additional reasons I would strongly encourage re-publishing the New Atlantic Ventures article.

The firm is one of the highest ranking in the DC area.^[1] And, aside from serving as an investment partner to firms like New Enterprise Associates, Benchmark Capital, Steve Case's Revolution, LLC, the investors have been behind some noteworthy technologies that have shaped how we communicate, use energy and consume information over the Web.

New Atlantic Ventures’ Thanasis Delistathis was an investor behind DivX, which helped bring video to the Web. The firm’s Scott Johnson was an investor behind EnerNOC, featured on Wikipedia and cited for its notable contributions to energy efficiency. New Atlantic Ventures’ John Backus was an investor and board member of Mobile 365 which helped bring text messaging to the US. It was later acquired by Sybase.^[2] Backus is also an investor behind Invincea, which came out of the Defense Advance Projects Research Agency DARPA and is a pioneer in Internet security, blocking cyber threats like spear phishing. It was spotlighted at the RSA Conference earlier this year because "The company's management team [has] a record of proven success...and RSA sponsors...believe the product has potential to 'make a significant impact on the information security space.'^[3] and The Washington Post provides additional insight on Invincea.^[4]

I'm hopeful that gives you some context on the firm and a thoughtful explanation on why the firm would be a strong candidate for Wikipedia.

Meghanroman (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker)Meghan: 1. What is your connection to this firm. Have you read our guidance about conflict of interest? 2. Are you aware that notability is not inherited; i.e., that contact with or funding from a notable entity does not convey any kind of "notability-by-inheritance", but that instead notability must be earned? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

the accomplishments of the principals elsewhere is irrelevant to the notability of this particular company which is judged by itself. Such accomplishments may be good advertising for the company, but the rule here, as Mike says above, is WP:NOT INHERITED. The suitability of a firm for inclusion depends not upon its intrinsic quality, but upon the sourcing: the rule is WP:CORP. The only relevant reference of those you give above is therefore the first—which, unfortunately, has a misleading title: the firm was not rated highest, but second-highest. However an argument could be made that just enough good faith importance is shown to pass speedy deletion. Therefore, if you insist, I am willing to restore the article, and send it for a consensus determination at WP:Articles for Deletion, where the standard is not mere indication of importance, but the much higher standard of actual notability according to WP:Notability; the discussion there will be judged by a different administrator. Although such discussions can be a little unpredictable, I would estimate that the chance of the article being accepted there would be close to zero, and I do not see what benefit that will be to anyone. The best advice I can give you is that what would be more useful all-around, is waiting until there are at least 2 references providing substantial coverage of the company itself from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not ' blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases—and at that time, rewriting an article. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you mind undeleting Medium duty truck? I delined the speedy on it, but the tagger didn't care and reverted me. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

sure, but should it be turned into a redirect? I thought the A10 made sense, but I'm guilty of not checking the history. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've made it a redirect to Truck classification. When I declined the speedy, I suggested that it be a redirect if it were A10-worthy; I asked you for undeletion because I think it helps to have the history present. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

If someone complains about your keep closure because of the deletes and merge (which someone might), I will back up your decision because I was about to change my delete to keep. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; this was a good example of where the available information justifying the keep was added during the discussion. In such a case, a closer should judge on the basis of the conclusion that has been arrived at, not the initial comments. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

This case was actually a bit different because the change in the capitalization wasn't from an article but from another redirect. However, having two redirects, Lines per Picture Height and Lines per picture height, with different capitalizations doesn't hurt, after all. Thank you for the advice. --Canyq (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your co-nomination of my successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, do you think that inclusion in Westlaw is sufficient for notability of a law review? (I know this has been addressed before, but cannot find it...) Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I shall have to check this one. DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you again David, but htis will be quicker than me asking at the RS noticeboard: I've recently been more or less told that self published books by notable authors that are on sale in bookshops and held by libraries, and regarded as authoritative woks on local history are not reliable and the references to them as sources are to be deleted. I'm a bit concerned about this as I'm about to list a rather large article I mostly contributed to for FAC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

it varies; some are OK,if there's evidence of their being used by good historians. But in point of fact, many published by local publishers are just as unreliable. I think historians tend to create them all as primary sources needing interpretation. Where's the discussion? (but my experience is with RS for N, or for BLP; FA has it's own way of doing things, & I have never involved myself there.) DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

One of the shorter discussions is at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire, but one editor now appears to be challenging a reference <redacted & rephrased by request of Cusop. KP> on our Malvern articles, and I do not believe this to be particularly helpful - I have confidence in the GA and FA reviewers rather than a relatively new user who unilaterally removed referenced text and refs.. The books are by notable artist and historian Rose Garrard, some of which have been commissioned by the town council and other trusts. Some of her artworks were unveiled by the Royal Family. Thanks again for looking into this - there's no point in spending hours preparing these article for review if they will not succeed anyway. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

If they're semi-official or official they should stand without much trouble. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I believe that I must be the user referred to here, and I have to say that Kudpung's description of the situation is inaccurate and indeed a personal attack on me. I have edited exactly one Malvern-related article, St. Ann's Well, Malvern, going back to August, where I questioned the reliability of a source, and have commented on the same source at one other page, Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire. To call this "delibertely hounding the entire suite of my our Malvern articles" is simply an exaggeration so gross as to become positively mendacious.

Kudpung reverted my August edits and came to my talk page to give me a patronising little lecture [8] stating "Generally, any references that are not used to deliberately create a false impression of notability can be used [...] recognised publications on sale in bookshops and available in good libraries are certainly acceptable" — a position completely at variance with WP:RS in general and WP:SPS in particular, and a position they now admit to being uncertain of. What Kudpung did not do is to engage at the talk page Talk:St. Ann's Well, Malvern, where there was already a perfectly sensible discussion, started by me, about this source, and mentioned in the edit summary in August. When I commented on the same question [9] at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire he responded [10] with a bullying accusation of hounding, and some clear assertions of ownership which I see he has repeated above ("my our").

As to the source in question, artist Rose Gerrard. From her own web page [11], she has written two history books, both of which appear to be self published. I have seen no evidence that she satisfies the condition "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (my italics). Her reputation as a sculptor and artist, and lecturer in art, is quite irrelevant, as is the notability of the people who unveiled her art works.

Astonishingly it transpires that Kudpung is an admin. Is this really appropriate behaviour for someone in that position? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Being an admin is irrelevant to questions of this sort

in editing an article, all editors are equal, and only the quality of their work and arguments are taken into account. Of course, in many cases, we do make a preliminary estimate of the quality on the basis of what we know is the editor, and Kudpung is widely known as one of the most reliable and careful of all editors, and I rely on him within his field, and for general judgment also. (Not that he (or I or anyone) haven't made mistakes from time to time: this is communal editing, and we correct each others errors, in the spirit of trying to get the best possible articles and without getting angry at each other. Now, there's a pretty firm rule that self published sources do not count as one of the sources for showing notability, because the whole point there is that it needs to be shown that others think the person notable. But in supporting material in an article, we use the best sources available, and the degree of their reliability depends on the individual situation. (as I said, what standard the featured article people may use is their own look-out -- Kudpung participates in that process and knows their rules, I prefer to do other things.) Each case is decided by the opinions of the community. I would amplify Kudpung's statement above in that the necessary reliability of a source depends on what it is being used for: things that are very unusual need unusually strong sources, and negative information about a living person requires unimpeachably strong third party sources. Neither seems the case here. rather, it's routine facts about a locality Unless there's some good reason to challenge a particular fact, we're usually pretty flexible, and self-published sources are widely used here for such purposes. Whether it's good enough for FA must be decided by the people who participate there, not by any of us individually—or even the three of us agreeing!. Remember, that while we have the standard of WP:V, it's a goal, not an accomplished fact, and nothing here is intended to be a Reliable source in the sense that academics use it, though perhaps the Featured articles may be an exception. 21:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, frankly I find this astonishing. WP:V is a core policy and WP:SPS is a part of that yet you both seem to regard it as optional. I'm not interested in FA, I'm concerned about building an encyclopaedia. You say it's "routine facts about a locality", but if you look at the material I originally challenged, it's about the connection between ancient Celtic godesses and local saints, which is the stuff of quasi-academic speculation and needs to be handled exceptionally carefully if the result is to reflect mainstream scholarly opinion.

The reason I brought up Kudpung's admin status is that his conduct towards me, as described above, has been, I believe, unacceptable for any editor, and I would expect admins to be held to an even higher standard. You did not address the conduct issue. Do I assume that you regard this and this as appropriate in the circumstances? Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

This reference may ultimately satisfy curiosity about Garrard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am not in the slightest bit curious about Rose Garrard, although I do not accept that her self-published history books are reliable sources. However, since Kudpung has refactored the incorrect statement about me, and our respective positions on sourcing have been laid out, I see no reason to trouble you further. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stillpower

FYI, I closed it as no consensus but then self-reverted because I saw that it was relisted the second time only yesterday. You then closed it as delete. I also think your rationale has a bit of a supervote twinge to it, also considering your commentary in the AFD - in my view, there was not a quorum here. causa sui (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I could simply have said G11, and deleted on that basis. I almost did. An article amounting to a testimonial is exclusively promotional and cannot be fixed by normal editing. I have also nominated the author for afd, Saying that all the keep arguments are invalid when they are as thoroughly invalid as they were here is the proper role of a closing admin. It will be an interesting experience being taken to deletion review for a delete closure, (If you do, please post this as my reply, as I will be off-line for a while.) DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, it's a crap article and I don't have interest in wasting people's time just for the sake of process. But I think that the fact that two admins (the one who relisted it, and me) thought the AFD should run its course should give you pause. If it really doesn't, I'm not invested enough to press you on it. Regards, causa sui (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I find myself getting much more intolerant of promotionalism lately,probably in response to the increasing amount of of it. I'll keep what you aid in mind or the future. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Per [12], please check the talk page comments at Talk:Kevin G. Nealer for reasons. I prefer to avoid AFD on BLPs, making effort to expand an article or otherwise use PROD. If I didn't follow the PROD rules perfectly, I apologize. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

checking that corporate bio, I think he might be notable as an author or because of the government position; I shall check further. considered in light of the item just above, here's obvious a broad area were one must use discretion. I assume your comment about afds is because of the negative comments on the person it invariable attracts--this has been bothering me lately also; possibly we should at least courtesy blank such afds routinely? Do you know what's the current status of whether afds are all marked NOINDEX? if not, they ought to be. Myself, I do not like prods for borderline articles like this, because there's so few of us who pay attention to trying to improve them & afds get more attention. I recognize the dilemmas, and it is possible that what scales least here is our deletion procedures. My solution for that one is adopting subject specific standards instead of GNG, not in addition to, but instead of, to dispose of more one way or another without the need for as much discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG, I just wanted to let you know that I modified my article on the ESI Group to address the issues indicated by the tags that were placed on it. I would greatly appreciate it if you could please look the article over again when you have a chance and let me know what you think. Thank you as always!Michael Leeman (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

looking;will do some more soon DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I don't know if you have time to answer this, but it would be much appreciated. I know the use of the WP:Rescue tag is often quite controversial, although I don't really take much issue with it when it's used properly. However, I've seen a tremendous increase in cases where the rescue tag isn't being used because the article needs to be improved, but simply because someone wants it kept. The rescue page makes it clear that the reasons to use the tag are when articles

• Need references
• Are written poorly
• Lack information readily available
• or Need cleaning up.

However, it seems to be far too often that I now see arguments boiling down to "this clearly passes the GNG, rescue tag added." As a result, I've seen a troubling rise in the often complained about cases of rescue tags bringing in !votes but no contributions to the article and discussion.

Now, this is clearly not always the case. However I've recently noticed that User:Northamerica1000 tags almost every article he feels should be kept for rescue, even the ones where he right off the bat states that it already meets notability requirements and shouldn't have been nominated, or where the nominator's issues have nothing to do with an article's GNG worthiness. I've recently tried discussing the issue with him on his talk page, and would really appreciate it if you could have a look.

I'm coming to you because you're a member of the ARS (I think? or at least you're quite familiar with it and support it's goals) and you've always struck me as a rational editor. I just worry that the tag has essentially come down to a case of "this is a worthy article" rather than "this is probably or possibly a worthy article, but needs work to show that." Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

And for convenience, here's the discussion on his talk page before it was collapsed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

myself, I pay no attention to the tag one way or the other. . I try to help those few articles where I can do the most good, using the criteria of the importance of the article, the cooperativeness and good faith of the contributor, my ability to help, and the likelihood of succeeding. If someone tags rashly, ignore the ones that can't be helped. But if he someone is tagging ones that don't need help, it does take away from the usefulness of the tag, and I'll take a look. But keep in mind that it is important that articles that deserve support get supported: If people attack a good article, no matter how bad their arguments are, they will succeed if they are not opposed. Why, you may ask, should people oppose a good article? Normally, when it's in good faith it's a desire that Wikipedia not have articles on the subject (or have only very few), usually because the subject is intrinsically unimportant. That's a question where we need a clear indication that the deletors' views are not representative . DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi David,

Thank you for your suggestions to the NU Feinberg School of Medicine page. I will look at the places you noted that require additional reference and make changes where possible. I will also work to take out more of the fluff language - most of what I added avoided those adjectives, as I am aware of the need for objectivity, but I have not had a chance to thoroughly remove fluff from sections I did not add. I also noted your suggestions to add faculty with Wiki articles, and to start pages for those without them - I will add this to my list of priority tasks.

You posed this question: "One of the sections you added was on the Prosthetics and Orthotics program. Is there some reason why this program is especially distinguished, in which case outside references to that fact are needed, or are you planning to do such sections for all the other programs?" In fact, I did not add it - user Hotflygirl added it; my recommendation was to remove the section completely, as I noted on the talk page. I wanted to give that user a chance to remove it before deleting the section and planned to remove it this week if (s)he did not do so him/herself.

Thank you again for your helpful feedback. I am still getting familiar with Wikipedia's copy editing/writing guidelines and trying to balance a "be bold" approach with one that is respectful of other editors/contributors. There is much to learn, but it's an opportunity to contribute much to society; I'm excited to be part of the process. Chicrunner79 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

good, I'm glad you're working on it. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

In reviewing the financial data, I'm running into a problem and would like to request your perspective. I find that outside of the school's webpages and those belonging to the University, the only group that publishes financial data is trade group AAMC, which requires a login to access data tables. This seems to be a problem with Accessibility (WP:SOURCEACCESS); do you advise that it's better to leave off the financial data completely, use the school's web site, or keep the locked data tables? Other medical schools seem to reference their own web sites for financial data, and the entry on American Medical Schools contains locked AAMC pages, so I wanted to verify the correct approach in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicrunner79 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

References can be from anywhere relable. In general , a reputable organization's own posted financial data is reliable. But there is no harm in giving the other reference also: we cite from even material not immediately available to all readers, including pages requiring login, articles behind paywalls, and even printed books. External links are different: there we only use freely accessible pages DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear David,

I hope this finds you well. My name is Sabino and I am a current student in Professor Moglen's American Legal History Course at Columbia Law School.

I am currently developing an article on early gun control laws in New York State/Colony. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Early Firearms Regulations in New York State ‎

My article was rejected today and the reviewer advised that I should be adding to "Gun Laws in New York".

However, I do not feel it is appropriate to add to this article as the Gun Laws in State X articles focus on current standards rather than historical firearms provisions. I would also like to deal more with proposed laws, or laws called for by the public which were not passed as I work on my article further. This is another reason I feel the two pages should be separate. Please advise.

On a related issue, Eben suggested that I inquire whether I should take any special steps regarding the creation of my article since gun laws tend to be a hot topic and such an article might garner significant commentary from those with varying views on firearms regulations. Please advise.

Thank you so much for your help.

Best,

Sabino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciorc (talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

at its current state of development , it would do best as a section in that article. I have made the section, Gun laws in New York#History. Copy a paste your material into there from the wikitext of the article for creation. In the article summary say you're moving it from the AfCreation page as suggested. Put a comment about the course project on the article talk p, explaining what you've done. You need to do it instead of I so your user name is on the edits you wrote. If unclear, ask me here. Then I'll clean up behind you. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG,

I have revised these two articles per your recent comments (primarily about the PixelMEDIA article). If they look okay to you, I plan to then revise my other articles in a similar fashion. Can you please look these two articles over when you have a chance and let me know if they are okay? Thanks!Michael Leeman (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG, I revised the PixelMEDIA article per your comments. I'd appreciate it if you could please let me know if it looks better now. As always, I am grateful for your time and input!Michael Leeman (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Ankit Maity's talk page.
Message added 16:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 16:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear David, I'm not sure if I've entered additional information on the talk page correctly because I have not had a response from you in quite some time, so I am starting a new section, and again am not sure if I am doing this correctly. I have added a significant number of links and references to the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education Wiki page that references Education Under Fire and would sincerely appreciate a response as to whether these news references would quality Education Under Fire to have its own Wiki page. This is such an important issue, and I do believe these new references would qualify us. Your response will be genuinely appreciated.Bahá'í Institute for Higher Education

Best Regards,

Josephine Mulcahy Frwrldpce (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• First of all, i did some further editing to the BIHE page; I reduced he political background, and asked for citation to what remains of it. Adding it should not be difficult.
• For the film "Education under fire" I continue to see references available only one for the Boston U, MIT, and Harvard student newspapers and one article from the Boston Herald. I can find no indication it was ever shown publicly elsewhere. I do not think it very likely that you will be able to make an acceptable article with only that. Rather, add a section on it to the BIHE article--this will be a more satisfactory solution, certainly more satisfactory than an AfD debate which ends in the article being deleted. Then, if you ever get significant coverage in major national sources, it can be expanded into a full article. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You've expressed a concern that the article might be a copyvio. Given that I couldn't find any references on GNews, I've nominated the article at AfD. If you have better luck that me finding sources, please let me know. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Notable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Every river in the world that can be verified. The AfD is heading for a snow keep DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sentence length (linguistics) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentence length (linguistics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cnilep (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

responded DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG, I have revised this article per your comments on the Discussion page. Hopefully, I have been successful in addressing your points. I'd be grateful if you could please review the article and let me know if the advert tag can be removed. I will of course be happy to make further changes if needed. Thank you very much for your time!Michael Leeman (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's a real problem: looking at the company's website, the article does not make clear what the company actually sells. Most of the references describe obsolete products or product names. The product is no longer called Edgefort. Neither free version mention appears available, though a trial version is. I am reluctant to suggest a full version history, which would be overcoverage. It needs rewriting both for clarity and proper proportions. DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG, I revised the text per your comments above. Please let me know what you think. Thank you as always!Michael Leeman (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG, per your 12/17 comments at the article's Discussion Page, I revised the text. Also, to address the advert template I removed (I believe) any unnecessary mentions of the company name, excessive product details, etc. Please let me know what you think. Thank you as always!Michael Leeman (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG,

Hope you are having a good day.

Regarding the deletion of the article "Akhtaboot", please note that I have read all the rules of Wikipedia and I tried to abide to all of them. In case you considered the article promotional please check the amendments that I made to the article to make it non-promotional:

Amendments to "Akhtaboot’s Social Recruitment" section: will remove all the fan pages from this section and will replace the content with the following: "Akhtaboot uses social media networks such as LinkedIn, Facebook and twitter to spread awareness on the available job vacancies in the Middle East. To cater to the socially oriented Facebook users, Akhtaboot Facebook app allows job seekers to create an account, upload their CV and apply to any job of their interest directly from within Facebook. Akhtaboost transforms Facebook into a job seekers’ personal career center."

"Career Connect" section will be totally removed and moved to the "Services" section with the following content: "Career Connect provides companies with their own integrated and branded jobs section, with the ability to post unlimited job postings and receive job applications directly onto their Careers section on their own website."

These are the sections that I felt need to be change. If you recommend changing anything else please let me know because it not in my intent to add anything promotional or do anything against the rules of Wikipedia. Please note that I am open to any suggestions or criticism that will help improve my article.

I have added many links to press releases and articles about Akhtaboot so I think that wouldn't be a problem. If this is not the case please let me know as I want to improve my article and I need your advice.

Awaiting your feedback.

Thanks.Article123456 (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Article123456 (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Article123456 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply 

Note there's a copy of the article in Article123456's user space that perhaps should be speedied, too. ^Bongo_matic 18:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC) (done-DGG)Reply

The problems remain that the bio of the founders, & the paragraph on the origin & Social recruitment section & the core values are all unsupported promotional content , especally in the detail to which they are written. . The Services section, even , discusses the pricing. The only significant content is the list of awards. It might be possible to make an article, so I'm not blocking re-creation. Place it on a subpage of your user space, and ask me to look at it. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can't find a draft of my article so i can edit it for recreation. Shall I create again from scratch?Article123456 (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Article123456 (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Article123456 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I moved it to User:Article123456/Akhtaboot; but it might be even better if you started over; just start a newpage under the title User:Article123456/Akhtaboot2 DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Will do and will ask you for revision. Thanks.--Article123456 (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can you please check the recreated article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Article123456/Akhtaboot2#External_links and let me know your feedback and comments. I have added many references and used neutral non-promotional words. Thanks. --Article123456 (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It still needed major improvements, and, as an indication to you or anyone of what is needed, I made them. I removed duplication, bios of the founders, multiple excessive internal and external links, I shortened the wording, and removed half the many mentions of the name of the company. I;m not sure its notable; the only 3rd party refs seem to be 2 University web pages for job fairs it participated in and an apparently PR-derived article in a newspaper. I give you a week to add others, and then I shall restore it to main space and send it to AfD for a community decision. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. I will add more references this week.--Article123456 (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I have added other references, I tried to reduce the number of press releases as much as I can. Can you please let me know if I need to do other amendments and can you please tell me the decision of the AFD community. Thanks. --Article123456 (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your temporary restorations of File:CNGS layout.jpg and File:CNGS.jpg are appreciated, but was it necessary to blank the image description pages with {{TempUndelete}}? That doesn't prevent the use of these images in the same way it does for articles, and the presence of the restored images at the top of the page may prevent folks from realizing there's deletion discussion and fair use rationales hidden in the history. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I always do this. Anything else causes me to be asked why I did not blank it. The notice on the page should say to look in the history, Especially for something deleted as copyvio, rightly or wrongly, I will not restore to the visible article version until there is a decision to do so. In fact, unless there's a reasonable likelihood of it not being found copyvio, I will not restore at all without a decision. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, yes, but for images, it's almost always the image itself that's a potential copyvio, and never the image description page. That's the case here; and you blanked the description pages but left the images that are the actual problem intact. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

David,

Why was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_Direct deleted, literally, right away before giving me a chance to work with you to make it wiki-friendly? In the past I was given the opportunity to edit the page to make it informational to users rather than something you deem as an 'ad'. I really don't appreciate your lack of flexibility here as there really was no real marketing ploy here, just real information about my company.

As I mentioned, this was all true and accurate information about my company. I don't understand why I am not allowed to create a Wikipedia Article about mine but these companies, who are in the same sector as I am, can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bealls_%28Florida%29 And pretty much any company on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Department_stores_of_the_United_States

I really don't see why I wasn't given the opportunity to amend my page to make it up to your standards. I would appreciate a reply on this and an opportunity to work within the rules of you and Wikipedia.

Submitted respectfully. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanouncer (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I deleted it 40 minutes after tagging, 49 after you started, which I consider reasonable for an article that describes the company and shows no indication at all of possible importance, considering that it is other than a local business with three locations. Additionally, it was written in a thoroughly promotional style, describing the early experiences of the owner that led him to open the business, and considering such details as the hiring of individual employees.This is human interest advertising, not encyclopedic content. The comparison you make to Beall's is absurd--it's a national company with 500 locations. Jeremys is another matter, & I will probably nominate it for deletion unless I can find something to show more than local significance. What you need to show notability are references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. If you have them at hand, I'll restore the article so you can add them and make the changes I suggest. Let me know. If not, I can still restore it to your user space for a while to work on it, but unless you do have references, it will not be accepted by the community here. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi David. I seem to recall that we may once have possibly been in disagreement over the notability of schools. Without prejudice to you opinion (and I can't really remember exactly what it was), there is a discussion taking place at this project that may be of interest. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think I've been there. There's such a simple rule to follow: high schools yes, others no, that I can't see why anyone would bother except those who really want to argue the details of sourcing for 50,000 individual articles. I can see Wikipedia as a good place for those who like to argue, and sometimes I'm one of them, but there are more interesting things to argue about--some of which even have significant consequences, and a few of which represent the highest goal of human understanding, helping development of one's ethical principles. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah, we seem to have been in total agreement after all. I can't understand why anyone would want to drag this peren issue up again, especially so soon after the last one floundered. There is better work to be done than flushing out thousands of high school articles for deletion or even arguing about it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Alden Loveshade's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dear Editor:

Why hasn't the Anaphora Literary Press's wikipedia site not gone back up - it's been nearly 2 weeks since you said you were working on editing the page and posting it back up. I would like to speak with a Wikipedia supervisor about this matter if you keep the posting up that Anaphora is not "notable" enough for you to post a site to it - I feel that this is libel and is a clearly unfair judgment of my press. If you insist on not having an Anaphora page up - please delete the thread on your website that state that you deleted the entry because it is not note-worthy - which looks like slender, without a properly justifiable cause. Thank you in advance for looking into this matter. It is not appropriate, in general, to keep deleted encyclopedic entries online - I've never read an encyclopedia before that has name-only listings for companies with notes like, "this company was deleted because it is not notable." I think making a change to your overall deleted-page viewing policy is a positive step for Wikipedia to take.

Cordially,

Anna Faktorovich, Ph.D., Director, Anaphora Literary Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.244.239 (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, I see no way of making an acceptable article here, until you have references providing substantial coverage of the company itself from 3rd party independent published reliable sources—and at that time, rewriting an article. The article has been at User:Alden Loveshade/Anaphora Literary Press Since it seems clear that nobody is presently about to work on it, I have removed it. If it has been included in any outside indexes, it should soon disappear. If you ever should want to work on it, let me know, and I can restore it for improvement in such a way that it will not appear in Google or other indexes.

If this is not what you intend, please let me know. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am by no means an expert on libel law, although I have worked as a journalist for many years. It does seem to me that specifically listing a publisher/person/company/etc. as "non-notable" in an encyclopedia does seem perilously close to being a legal issue. It might be a matter for Wikipedia to consider for its own protection.

In regard to this specific article, the one who dropped the ball was me--that is completely my responsibility. I apologize for that, but I've been very tied up lately with other projects (to be frank, things that pay). User:DGG has agreed to restore the article to my user space, and after that's restored I will work on the article and ask DGG's advice to see if I made it pass Wikipedia's standards. While I do not accept any legal responsibility, for my part in all this, I apologize. Alden Loveshade (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

"non-notable" is a term of art, and means not fulfilling the requirements at WP:GNG, and thus considered of insufficient importance from the POV of an encyclopedia, which can be very different from the world in general. It's not a statement of importance or quality. Have you a better term to propose? DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello DGG, I ran into your post on one of the deletion discussions. I found myself browsing these since I have recently experienced a somewhat frustrating image deletion issue, which thanks to a bit of persistence on my part is now being reviewed. Anyways, I would just like to let you know that I really appreciate your point that "What people look like is a substantial aid to understanding events in which they are involved. It needn't be discussed in the article, because the picture does it better. An event one cannot visualize is not adequately understood.", as well as your stated inclination/initiative that the terms of inclusion of images in WP be relaxed. I am a strong advocate of free content, but I agree with you that in WP the top priority should be to inform and educate. – Miranche ^T C 08:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I thank you for your support. When confronting entrenched opinion, it is a good idea to proceed slowly and carefully,making use of strong and uncomplicated cases, making sure that common sense untutored in Wikipedian subtleties supports the suggestion, and judging with great discretion the accepted limits of discourse. The DelRevs you mention are very suitable cases in this regard. Myself, I also think it wise not to seek to change rules, but to suggest the suitability of an exception. We have the peculiar wording that IAR supersedes all other policies, and we might as well make use of it--the actual meaning, though, is that IAR supersedes any other policy if essentially everyone involved thinks it ought to. (If one wishes to overthrow entrenched opinion altogether, it may be appropriate to advocate more radical action for the sake of propaganda, but I doubt that I, you, or anyone here, seriously advocates a basic change in our copyright policy.) DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply & your comment on the delrev -- I personally think it's ambiguous whether the wording on the Croatian Parliament site amounts to CC-BY or CC-BY-ND, as I wrote below your comment. In regards to global WP policies, I completely agree that seeking to overturn entrenched opinion is not likely to be fertile, and that the way to go is to make one's position known and argue for a more relaxed of policy in specific cases on the basis of common sense for a naive reader. There are systematic snafu's, however, and one I was sorry to discover is that many uploaders seem to make an honest effort to present a reasoned case why an image should be included under fair use, but that their arguments are typically not addressed, so that the best way to get an actual discussion going is to push the case to a DelRev. Anyways. Glad to meet you. – Miranche ^T C 20:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, DelRev should be used more. Most of the regulars there really do care about policy, and think before they respond. It's not practical to carry every error there, but it should be used for those that represent a repeating problem, and where there is a really good case, And what would also help, is if more people particpated there. The group of regulars is a little too small. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG, I revised my Pam-Crash article per your comments at its Discussion Page. I also removed a backlink to it that was on another page (you had mentioned the backlink earlier). Please note that I tried but was unable to change the capitalization in the title. I would appreciate it if you could please look the revised article over when you have a chance. Thank you very much for your time and help!Michael Leeman (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG, I made further revisions (see Discussion Page for details). Also, can/should the advert tag be removed? I think I eliminated any excessive use of the product name. In any case, please let me know what you think. As always, thank you for your help and feedback!Michael Leeman (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

This user is a good candidate for autopatrolled rights, I think. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

done. Perhaps it will encourage him to create more of his high quality articles and spend less time pasting identical AfD !deletes. DGG ( talk ) 11:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there... Circball was deleted due to supposed non-notability. I want to know if the analysis on the three sources provided was reviewed thoroughly . These three sources makes Circball notable enough and it passes the minimum requirements of WP:GNG policy. Also, you mentioned that the "even supporters of article recognize non-notability." Where do you find that in the discussions, which part? As I read the whole discussions, no where is there a mention by supporters of article that it was non-notable, in fact, the opposite. Please review the analysis and undelete the article as the article passes minimum requirements of notability. "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. [Example, Tropang Pochi's coverage of Circball]. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate."

Analysis of votes:
1. Delete by Hobbes Goodyear - No substantial arguments here as this user only stated that sources couldn't be found. It was indeed found. This vote shouldn't be counted as part of consensus.
2. Delete by Jimfbleak - No substantial arguments either. Statements of personal opinions should not be counted as part of consensus.
3. Delete by JamesBWatson - User charged that article is being promoted. This is outside the discussions of notability. User thinks it's not "prominent" yet. Again, notability doesn't mean it's popular or famous. This vote should not be counted as part of consensus.
4. Delete by η-θ - A comment of ":p duh.". Does that count??
5. Delete by Tarc - a charge of advertising again or that it was "made up" sport that the user didn't like. This shouldn't be counted as consensus.
6. Like by Circball. Notability was argued here by providing three reliable sources.
7. Comment by GalingPinas - Analysis of these three reliable sources was provided. Additional reliable sources was also provided that confirm Circball's appearance in a children TV show by Abante-Tonite. If number of votes is the only criteria considered on Afd, then the decision to delete may be correct. However, that's not policy. Policy says that we need to look at these votes and determined if they are substantive enough to merit consensus. Also, disregarding reliable sources is not within policy just because this sport is not popular, prominent, or famous yet.
Maybe we can re-direct this to a more appropriate article such as "Variations of basketball". Also, Could you please provide me an editable copy of the Article for my records. Thanks. GalingPinas (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

A.Yes, I will move a copy to User:GalingPinas/Circball; no problem about that. However, I see another admin. has already done that.
B.When I close an AfD, my closing is intended as a summary of the discussion. Everyone but you thought the sources not sufficient. I could not have closed otherwise. As closer, I am supposed to judge if the argument is policy based, but the interpretation of whether a source is in fact sufficient I leave up to the people in the discussion.
C.I'll give you some suggestions there for improving the article enough to reinstate it. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. on A. Please delete the previous admin's copy. I think that article is incomplete. The most update one is the one that was deleted.
  

On B. Majority of these Delete arguments are not policy based. They're mere mention of policy without good-faith explanation coupled with personal like/unlike of the subject. One of them even want to relegate the subject as mere made up game only appropriate for "YMCA" and not in WP. Is that what you call policy based argument? None have responded to the analysis of these sources per WP:GNG policy. The only thing I can't think why no response to the analysis is maybe because the source, most of it, is Non-English. When one of the user used the Google Translation, it didn't come close to the subject matter of the source. It was argued that not understanding the source by its English translation is not reason enough to label it as insufficient. So, the question of deletion. It was recommended that this article be re-directed to another article (Variations in basketball) because this article has reliable sources per WP:GNG policy and it is inappropriate to delete if one is exist WP:Notability.

On C. I appreciate your suggestions to the article. Thanks. GalingPinas (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

A. I have userified the other versions as User:GalingPinas/Circball 2--these seem to be the fullest. This is a rather unusual thing to do, and I am relying on your good faith to use the material to construct a single strong page, at the one User:GalingPinas/Circball, and to notify me when I can put these versions back in the previous status.

B, there's no point re-arguing; rather concentrate on the best possible version. I do not think it should be merged into the other article now. What would be more appropriate, is after you have finished and get a keepable article, then a summary of the eventual article should get added there, according to WP:Summary style. When the time comes, I can help you with this. The variations in the 2nd half of that article are sections I am very doubtful about, with respect to notability and sourcing, and I wouldn't want to add to them.

C. My comments must wait till tomorrow, and will be on the talk p. of User:GalingPinas/Circball. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Revisions updated. Awaiting your comment on the talk page of User:GalingPinas/Circball. Please let me know when the article can be restored back to its original Circball space. Thanks.GalingPinas (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Answers provided at talk page of User:GalingPinas/Circball. GalingPinas (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Additional revisions updated. Added videos to the article. Awaiting your revisions as well on talk page User:GalingPinas/Circball. As soon as you have made some update, please undelete and restore to Circball namespace. Thanks. GalingPinas (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I have not heard from you regarding this article. I see you have recent network issues. Should I therefore get other editors help and feedback to move this article to its own Circball space? Please respond in the next 3 days. Thanks.GalingPinas (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• • • My apologies; I did in fact recheck it yesterday but did not get around writing down my opinion, The article is much improved, and much clearer. It would be a fine article except for one basic problem: it is not clear that the game has been played except as a one-time event. Your responses are on the talk p, but only partially answer the question; they seem to indicate there is a single league of 10 teams , which has held a single series of 20 games, once. I am not sure that the consensus here would consider that sufficient. There would be a much stronger case if the sport were a little more widespread, or even continued into a second year of competition. The article mentions additional television deals: it would be much stronger if these were finalized,not just contemplated., The game would appear to have an earlier history before this formal league, based on the information about the date of the rules; I presume it was played in a single school--this needs to be clarified. (incidentally, even a game played in a single school can be notable--see Eton wall game Remember, it is not me that you need to satisfy; I will put the article make into mainspace, but an AfD will undoubtedly be requested, and the consensus will be the judge. It's a question not of block or white, but interpretation ,and no admin can decide that for the community ,just interpret the community decision. (my personal opinion at such an AfD will be delete, but that's a very imperfect predictor of the actual consensus, and you may take your chances. )

But before you do that, increase your chances by the improving the article further with what you do have. First, put the information from the talk page into the article itself. Second, decrease the amount of discussion of the philosophy behind the game. Third, see if you can do with fewer videos--I think you need only the 2 for the special play. As some details: 1/ the drop ball play seems very standard to many sports, and the details aren't needed here: they belong in the formal rules, but the Wikipedia article is not intended to include all the formal rules--we're not a game guide. 2/ I continue to think the specific requirements for invoking the special rules very difficult to follow , but that seems more a problem with the game than the article. 3/ I continue to see no connection between the circular playing area ,with multiple hoops and the game--the two rules could be added just as well in an otherwise purely conventional basketball game. I suppose they are there because they were taken over from an existing game--this could be clarified. Let me know when you have made the changes, if you want to continue now, but my advice would be, to wait until next season with more television coverage. I think at that point you'd have an easily supportable article. DGG ( talk ) 10:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you for the feedback.

I have placed some of the information from the talk page into the article with additional new references.

Could you be more specific as to the Philosophy of the game that needed decreased? Are we talking about the New Games Movement philosophy? Please clarify.

1/ As for fewer videos, I have created a link to all videos related to this game. However, I'd would rather keep all the current videos in the article as they explain in pictures what the article can't do in words. Particularly the Drop Ball rule. I doubt that this is standard to many sports. I have not seen any sport that starts its game using this method of play (which incidentally, Drop Ball play is a patented method of play and was allowed by USPTO in 2011 after a Supreme Court decision on patented business methods. (see USPTO Patent #7,955,198).

2/ I agree. Once a person actually plays the game using these special rules however, it would be easier to understand the game rather than just reading about it. Will continue to improve though the wordings the rules so it's clearer.

3/ Not sure if the two special rules can be added to a conventional basketball game, and still call it a regular basketball game. The ring maybe, but not these two special rules. Let me explain. Basketball is purely a competitive game. Circball is competitive AND cooperative. Cooperative in the sense that these two special rules require players to voluntary share the ball to their opponent for the opponent to make a goal. Nowhere in basketball allows you to do that, except when a player/team is penalized and the opponent team is given a "free throw" shot. The act of giving a "free throw" shot to an opponent is not voluntary rather is a penalty imposed on an offending player/team. Circball allows for the voluntary giving of a ball to the opponent. A circular share zones are required to facilitate this Morality Play rule. The conventional basketball game does not allow for any share/care zones nor the voluntary giving of the ball to your opponent for the opponent to make a shot. Thus the necessity for the share zones, circular or rectangular. That's the only connection between the two rules and the court area.

I would rather move the article now, given additional references and clarifications to content have been added since the last AfD, and will continue to add more content as time evolve. I continue to believe that at least one reliable source (which we have here) is sufficient to pass minimum notability requirements per GNG guidelines. Not that only one source is required for all articles but that multiple sources are only required for POV issues only, not notability issues. IMHO. Therefore, I request that the current article (with your additional feedback and these improved content) be moved back to its Circball space. The next competition is being organized and I have not heard any tentative dates yet nor the additional TV coverage. But eventually it will come, regardless of the article. But per WP policy, isn't notability only refers to subjects that have independent reliable source that can be verified regardless whether the source talked about a subject that has been played one time or multiple times or played in one event vs multiple series of events? Popularity of the subject is not a mitigating factor for notability purposes, (though helpful) isn't it? Btw, the game was played both in the US and in the Philippines. However, in the US, only personal videos and pictures are available. However, the current sources in the Philippines are sufficient enough to merit an article in WP (or at least a mere stub, when only one source is considered.) Thanks.GalingPinas (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I'd rather that we give ample time for the community to read and digest these additional contents before sending it to AfD, perhaps 7 days. Then if any editor or yourself still feel strongly about sending it to AfD, then so be it. What i fear would happen is what happened in the last Afd that people just haphazardly look at the Afd, without giving much thought and without good-faith analysis nor even reading the article to just post negative feedback without supporting WP policy. Please re-consider your plan. Let's put it out there and if someone else (other than you) will want to send it to AfD, then let the discussion begin then. Not right after restoring it. GalingPinas (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your choice--i shall put it back when you want. But I shall certainly nominate it myself for deletion unless you can find references for more than the single local season. and ass I usually do when I nominate for deletion, I shall first try to help the article as much as I can by my own lights in the hope that I can improve it sufficiently, because I firmly believe in the principle that deletion is the last resort. My experience is people who think they own the article and revert back in such circumstances, usually find it gets deleted; though of course if there are major problems remaining it tends to get deleted whatever I might say or do. In this case, quite frankly, I think it would be deleted no matter what I did, because atthis point it just is not notable and there's no way to disguise it. When you want it back, tell me. You could also move it yourself, but if someone doesn't think it answers the objects at AfD, they could list it for summary deletion. If I move it, that at least will not happen. But I continue to advise you that the best course for you to have the subject covered in Wikipedia would be to wait till next season. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Speaking as an independent admin (I've been following this discussion for a few days since I watchlist DGG's talk page), I would say that the revised article is only barely changed enough to scrape past speedy deletion on the grounds that it is the recreation of a page deleted by deletion discussion, in that it does not appear to substantially address the concerns given in the AfD. I don't mean that it should be deleted that way (it's on the borderline, and I think that borderline speedy deletions are safer going to AfD), although some admins might think it should be. I definitely don't see enough to meet WP:GNG or the more nebulous idea of notability, and thus would fully expect it to be deleted at AfD (and, similarly, believe it should be taken to AfD immediately upon re-entering mainspace). GalingPinas, I don't know why you have the idea that one source is sufficient for non-contentious topics, as that's a position I've never heard before and I don't think is supported by either precedent or policy. If you are going to move it back into main space, could you at least first remove the facebook and youtube links, as those pretty much never count as reliable sources, and youtube always has a copyvio concern (Although, DGG, if you want to check the youtube links first, that might at least answer copyvio; I can't check them at work)? Also, just as a final note, like DGG, I believe that if the league were to continue for another year and get coverage in reliable sources in the next year, it would likely be notable at that point (though the article may be overly long, an issue that can be dealt with by normal editing). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• David: Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject. (These was met by the three sources cited in the original article). It does not require that any editor has already named these sources, followed the neutral, encyclopedic style, or otherwise written a good article. Let's go ahead and restore it and place this template of notability below. We have differences of opinion as to what is notability. On the outset of this talk page, I asked you if you have considered in detail the analysis that was made in the first AfD about the three sources that were cited initially. I thought these sources passed the definition and policy of WP Notability. Now I'm finding out that your definition of notability (correct me if I'm wrong) is the same as the others, that is, when it becomes popular and widely played or has at least played two seasons of games, etc. But that's not the defined policy of notability in WP. Again notability in WP has nothing to do with numbers or multiplicity. It has to do with a source that is reliable, independent, verifiable that widely covered the subject by that particular source. The three original sources that were cited passed these minimum requirement for article creation. You and the other commenters on the previous AfD are all focused on "numbers", "popularity", "not yet widely played", "new & promotional", "only one source", etc, etc. GNG guideline says that if a source can be found that falls under the guidelines provided in WP:GNG, then it's NOTABLE and keepable, period (even as a stub it's notable nonetheless if it has only one source). But then again, editors have their own definition of notability in their own mind despite the published WP guidelines. I'll just be disappointed that the AfD would be coming from you who has help in getting this article in a "much improved and much clearer" version. Yes, you can tell that I prefer not to wait until the next season or the next tv coverage, because I think this article is already notable enough today with the current sources. Did you also look at the other sources provided in this revised article? Could that be notable enough as well? It's a governmental agency that recognized the Cirball game and its inventor back then prior to the internet era. It's not published online but online publication is only for convenience. enuf said. OK, let's go ahead and restore and also put the tag below. Do as you wish but I hope you're still on board in making the article's improvement. PS, I don't own this article and being my first article ever in WP, I felt bitten by all these processes. It's a learning one for me... but that's another issue:). Thanks for all your help, David. GalingPinas (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• QWyrxian... as I mentioned to David... It's not a precedent to require one source for a non-contentious topic. However, it's policy that only one is required for "Article Creation", whereas multiple sources are required for POV issues. There's a distinction. If at least one source is found, it's already notable. Multiple sources make it better but it doesn't mean it is required for Article creation. Given that even stubs only require at least one source. Again, per WP:GNG "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity..." and "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article.... They do not directly limit the content of an article." One suitable source is enough to establish notability. I think if we focus on content (which can be improved over time) as a criteria for notability, then we're never going to get this article or any article in WP with all these deletions process. The article as it is written can stand on its own source today for notability purposes. Yes additional sources will be provided during the 2nd, 3rd, 5th 10, 1000th, seasons. But that's not the point of article creation. Notability guidelines says that one is enough to create a new article, multiple is required to get a better point of view. At this point we're not even at 1st base yet, let alone a home run :). GalingPinas (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Quoting from WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Note the plural word "sources"; note also that the coverage must be "significant". I don't understand how you can be reading WP:GNG and glossing over the key definition. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it is recognized that one source of sufficient discrimination can be sufficient--as we will accept an article on the sole basis of a NYT obit., or a single report in a reliable source of someone having competed in the Olympics, or winning a notable prize in any field. Similarly we will often not accept an article based on two really marginal sources, but ask for further. There is almost nothing in Wikipedia that is a black and white cutoff in all cases.

But, GalingPinas, none of this is the point, Qwyxian and I are not trying to prevent the subject getting an article. We are trying to help it get an article. The article will inevitably be challenged, and we are telling you what will make it more likely to be accepted. Isn't that what you want to happen? This insistence on having an article after a single season of competition between a small number of teams is beginning to look like an attempt to get an article for the purposes of promoting the sport to a successful second season. Similarly, I've tried twice to move this to your user talk p., which is the more appropriate place for discussing the details. But you've moved it back here, where you must realize it is very much more visible. But we will not allow ourselves to be used for promotion. I will not move the article at all at this point. I doubt if a move of mine into main space really would be challenged as G4, and if you move it I will not challenge it as G4, but I will at AfD. Your recourse is deletion review, and though the result at a community process is unpredictable, I do not see how the likely negative comments you will get there or at AfD will be of benefit to you, the sport, or anyone. They will just make it harder to get an article when the sport does become really notable in the future. I never advise people except with the purpose of helping them improve the encyclopedia, by making an article if possible, or otherwise doing the best alternative. I think it is well-known that I will support re-creation of any article that has a reasonable chance, because I will not put myself in the role of a gate-keeper: the community makes the final decision, and I always incline towards giving them a chance to do so. But if I am pretty sure that something is unlikely to work, it would be really unfair and an abuse of your confidence in coming to me if I advised you otherwise. I'm not sure how many admins would have shown the patience I have done, and I consider the matter closed here. DGG ( talk ) 10:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• OK, so you agreed then that notability of a single sourced article is sufficient. Therefore closing this article in AfD then was made purely on number of votes rather than substantive policy application of the issue. The issue here is "source". Which source or sources that passes GNG guidelines will allow for the creation of this article. That's the issue here--source(s), the issue here however is NOT the article or the subject of the article itself, ie wheter sport ought to have its second season to pass notability guidelines. The issue is the source, how notable is the source. I have proposed three sources. You and others have ignored these sources and the analysis thereof. Therefore the incorrect closing of AfD. Deletion review will be the best recourse as you suggested. We'll do that then. Oh btw, I didn't move anything at all. I'm new to WP and I don't know how to move stuff. As for promotional use, it's now very obvious that you have not read the whole discussions in AfD before closing it, otherwise you would have read the explanation of why the article was created in the first place, which is other than promotional use. Because we cannot agree on what to do with this article, the next recourse is delrev. GalingPinas (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Qwyxian-Please read the note #3 of that GNG guideline which say "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." it didn't say lack of multiple sources ought to be deleted or that one source alone merits deletion--which was incorrectly done with the deletion of this article. There a clear distinction between source notability vs content notability. I don't know if you guys understand that. GalingPinas (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The notability of an article can be shown in exceptional cases by a really strong single source. The source in the article was routine television coverage, and therefore not in that category. The consensus was that there was in this case insufficient sources for notability , and I agreed. I further note that after extensive work you have not been able to find additional. If you want to have confirmation, use Deletion Review; I have no interest in keeping the article out of Wikipedia, and if I thought you had a reasonable chance there I would tell you. I think you do not have one, and I advise you that taking it there will diminish your chances of ever having an article in the future. Your choice. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• David, I appreciate your sincere interest in not keeping it out of Wikipedia and appreciate all your help. But FYI, it was not just a routine TV coverage. From what my sources tells me, the journalist that came to cover the games spent the whole day 1. learning about the game, 2. asked a lot of questions on the rules of the game, and stayed until 11 pm in the evening until the last game session was finished to actually see the actual competition to be able to provide a full reporting of the games. If it was just routine, they could have just been there for less than an hour for a fifteen second trivial mention. Yet this coverage wasn't trivial, it was a significant coverage. By significant I meant the number of hours and detail coverage and explanation of the details of game that this journalist did. I thought by making such coverage, notability was now presumed to have been established, albeit it was just one source. That is why my insistence of notability today (or during Afd). No amount of convincing can be done for other editors that didn't have such information because of their insistence on multiple sources. But in my mind, notability was established for this particular case (i'm not saying every case). but for this particular case, notability was established alone by that one coverage of the game, given the journalist whole day visit. If you want verify this for your due diligence, you can call him (his name is Mark Zambrano). Verification is important and is part of GNG. so do your due diligence. Also, check the video posted in youtube for conveniece purposes and see what this journalist reported. The video has English caption and English transcription. Please re-consider. Thanks. GalingPinas (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I thought you should know that you (and Circball) are being discussed on the MfD for GalingPinas's userpage--see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GalingPinas. Apologies in advance if misrepresented your position above re: Circball itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is no longer as strange as it used to be to see Tarc and I on the same side; the increasing promotionalism is forcing me into a defensive mode which can easily slide into something indistinguishable from deletionism. This article has gotten so much more attention than warranted, which I suppose is the promotor's intention, & the net effect is to make me more reluctant to help in similar cases--which I recognize as unfortunate. I do not have the ability to screen for good faith in advance: I can only judge by trying to help, and seeing the response to it DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Whoops, I meant WP:PNT, must have got my acronyms mixed up. Any change you could restore the prod, I'd rather not have to let this sit for another week through an actual afd--Jac16888 ^Talk 02:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I realized that, after I deprodded. My opinion of what to do in cases like this depends if he's likely to be notable & if it's easy enough to translate/write from sources sufficient material to show it. On balance, I think this is probably worth making a rough translation using G Trans, which is good enough for the rudimentary prose of a straightforward list. The notability would be as an author. I could normally judge the former easily, but I can't identify Hungarian book reviews or distinguish which Hungarian publishers are important. I judge he is on the basis that most of the books are published by l'Harmattan, a major French academic and general publisher--tho I had not known before now that it also publishes in Budapest -- [13]. (the Hungarian film industry is outside my scope, but my guess is that these are not major productions.) So I'll add it to my list for the weekend: If the Hungarian "Magistar" amounts to the German "Habilation", I think he amounts to a notable academic specialist in Aquinas. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did check GNews and GScholar for references on this individual. What I found is insufficient for WP:BIO, but not hopelessly so. Given that some people feel that starting over in such a case might be the best course of action, I went ahead and listed the article at AfD. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would have really liked your giving me a chance to rewrite it in English first . DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

What are your thoughts on Seomyeon Medical Street in its current form?   — C M B J   13:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article Alba Longa is about the ancient city of Alba Longa. The Kingdom of Alba Longa had its capital in the city of Alba Longa but spread to take over other cities. Just as the Roman Kingdom included more cities than just Rome, the Kingdom of Alba Longa included more than just Alba Longa.--R-41 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I never insist on a A10 speedy if its challenged in good faith. I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Alba Longa DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Circball. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GalingPinas (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG,

We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!

1. ImageTaggingBot - a bot that warns users who upload images but don't provide adequate source or license information (drafts here)
2. CorenSearchBot - a bot that warns users who copy-paste text from external websites or other Wikipedia articles (drafts here)

We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.

Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your views at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson would be appreciated. Feel free to mention it was by my invitation, if you do comment there. --doncram 01:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I commented. I comment on many such articles and what I said is in accord with what I usually say, although in this case it seems a small minority view. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

In the discussion at WP:AN, you mentioned "Fram's confusion in reading the history also". What confusion? That that piece of copyvio wasn't originally inserted by RAN (unlike the other pieces of copyvio in that article)? Who cares? The article was completely deleted, I refused to present him with a copy, and when he gor one eventually, he said he only needed the lead, refs and categories. Instead, he only removed one paragraph and kept all the rest. He didn't attribute it to some earlier history, but made it look as ig it was all his work. Too bad, then it is up to him to take the blame for it as well. Recreating the errors other people have made isn't an excuse for them. Where does any confusion you believe I had come into this? Fram (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

yes, that was what I meant. "That that piece of copyvio wasn't inserted by him also." There are relative degrees of blame, one of the two particularly strong ones you accused him of, of inserting the same copyvio twice, he didn't do; the other, inserting it knowing for certain it was a copyvio, rests on his having inserted it the first time. I do not consider copying from one place to another on Wikipedia without correctly delineating the part copied, when he did specify the source of the rest of the material, and it was the same source, anywhere near the same degree of iniquity as copying something from elsewhere--I'd call it a technical misdemeanor. You were blaming someone else for misattributing, when you yourself were misattributing. I consider such a technical misdemeanor also, or I would consider it such except you made it the gravamen of an accusation and tried to get someone banned on the basis of your not quite correct. incorrect statement, about which all you can claim is that your's was near the truth--which it was in one sense, except it sounded much more dramatic that way than the actual situation, and in consequence had others not stepped in, he would have been banned for it. I wouldn't have put it that strongly, except you came here to discuss it further; I claim no better accuracy than you in complicated situations, and I do not think it behooves any one us to be too positively sure about a person's delinquencies. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I blamed him for inserting the same copyvio twice; he created the same article twice, and two times it was a copyvio. The first time it was his own, the second time it was a resurrected copyvio first inserted by someone else. He did not "copy from one peice to another on Wikipedia", he specifically requested an article deleted as being a copyvio, with the comment that he only needed the lead, sources, and cats and that he was going to rewrite it, and instead he copied it completely but for one paragraph. He did not "specify the source of the material", the resurrected version nowhere indicates that it is not his work but a copy of the deleted one. I have not "misattributed", please don't make up errors on my part. The situation was exactly as dramatic as it sounded. Please don't try to deflect blame from him by spouting inaccurate comments. Fram (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I continue to hold my opinion about the proportionality of things. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

While you are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't mean that you should use and proclaim incorrect information to support it. Fram (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi -- I was surprised to see your revised view at the Abbas AfD. Your understanding of why the Times Higher Education article was removed is correct (note that they never published a correction/retraction). It is however not the only source establishing that Abbas plagiarized: see retraction statement from a journal in which he had published an article containing plagiarism. There is no small amount of misinformation in the AfD nomination and certain contributions by some delete !voters. The core of BLP concern is the possibility that we might be putting untrue negative information in the biography, and I fail to see how there is a possibility of that at this point. In any event, I have been the main established contributor keeping watch over this article for the last two years -- if you have any questions about it I'll be happy to address them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have almost always disregarded the view of the subject of an article. This is an exception, based on do no harm-- one of the only 2 or 3 I've been willing to give in 5 years here. The relative weight of that is ultimately a moral issue, and, although I am aware of the unreliability of intuitive moral judgements (and the literature about it, for that matter, which is very convincing), when I actually do act it can only be on the basis of what I personally think right. This is not a game we're playing here at Wikipedia. (at least, this matter is not a game--I don't necessarily apply it to some other aspects of Wikipedia). The harm to the individual in this case outweighs the benefit to the world. Consider your own feelings, about whether calling attention to sinners is always justified. We are not the recording angel. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm normally very quick to speak up when I disagree with you, so I though it only fair to say say "kudos" when we agree. I suspect my endorsement of your remarks won't surprise you - but there it is.--Scott Mac 17:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you perhaps have a look at this article and the remarks I made at this talk page and tell me what you think? Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG. Your input was appreciated at Talk:Greg Pak on the RFC. A user asked a question there, to you, here [14] and apparently is not happy that you didn't respond [15] (next to last paragraph), so I thought I'd let you know. I figure you just didn't subscribe to that particular page - you just weighed in and had no vested interest, so moved on - as I would do, and I'm sure many others do as well. PermanentVacay (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

right. As you may have noticed, I comment on a great many things, and anyone who needs more follow-up really should ask me here. Like many active people, my watchlist is too long to be useful DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. I imagine people holding resentment because you didn't respond, like in this case, happens all the time. My guess is that what you meant by "snapshot" is something with an obvious flash involved, that looks like it was taken with a point-and-shoot camera? PermanentVacay (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

And sometimes from both sides simultaneously, if I say something in the middle. And once in a while even in case I decide not to say anything. . ( about the photo, "candid" might be the better word--like an informal photo taken of people at a meeting by one of the participants, rather than a photograph designed to present the subject. The technique doesn't matter, but the results. There are certainly cases where such a candid picture may be preferred, such as a performer in a role, but not usually.) DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

David, it looks like this article was created as a cut-and-paste move from ICSID Review, so a history merge seems appropriate. Can you handle that? I suggest that this should be done at the shorter title, as we generally only put subtitles if we need a disambiguator (and even then we often use other dabs, I think). Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

as for doing it, half the time I try this, I make a mess of it; help from someone other than me will be needed. As for which way to do it, I would use fuller titles when the brief titles are unclear. In this case I think the short title unclear because the acronym for the organisation is neither either obvious nor well-know, not even enough to indicate the subject. If possible a journal title should give some indication of the contents. Library practice changes from time to time; in the 150 years of modern librarianship, the question has never been settled. DGG ( talk ) 09:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yet another question... Do you think that listing in one single EBSCO database (see talk page) is enough? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

redlinks now, as I suggested. DGG ( talk ) 13:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, DGG. Long time no see! This appears to be a sneaky vandalism only account. Can you look into it?: User talk:173.195.62.130. Thanks, and season's greetings! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

started out like most, became subtler with experience. Blocked, but he'll be back. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

commented DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of this? There is no discussion of the book, just a statement that it exists.... If you initiate anything and there is a vote, please let me know. Good to see you the other day. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

probably all novels (or at least all mature novels, and this is one of them) of this famous author are individually notable. What it needs is expansion, with a proper discussion of the book and links to the reviews which will prove notability . Even if it weren't notable as an individual book, it would be an appropriate redirect to the author; there would never imo be a reason to totally delete any book of a notable author, except possibly a really marginally notable author, because they are always useful redirects. Redirects are cheap, and WP is NOT PAPER. (there was, btw, a fuller description, but it was removed as copyvio--I'm sure it will be replaced properly with a unplagiarized one by the very energetic people working on O'Brien articles. I';'ve left one of them a reminder.) Conceivably you may not have recognized the author, in which case I have some advice: start reading his books, preferably beginning at the start of the Maturin series. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG, I made further revisions to this article per your comments on its Discussion Page. I think I eliminated any excessive use of the product name as well as any jargon and backlinks. I'm wondering if the advert tag can be removed now. Can you please let me know? Thanks!Michael Leeman (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear DGG, I revised the PixelMEDIA article to address all comments on its Discussion Page as well as the issues raised by the three tags. I've removed any promotional phrasing as well as any text passages that may have resembled the text of others. Could you please review and let me know how it looks? Thank you as always!Michael Leeman (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for taking a look at the Grantham Institute's site, I'm trying to learn from the best way to present the material so that I can work on subject matter that won't be a conflict of interest!

Thank you again, much appreciated. Merry Christmas from the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjfibsb2 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

DGG, I realize you get requests like this frequently, but I was hoping you could look at the page Augusteum and Lutherhaus. I just translated it from German and I would like some input, as I am not sure that I have done everything correctly. It is the first time I have ever edited a Wikipedia page. As you are interested in European history, I thought you might have some valuable advice. I am particularly concerned with the sections titled "Augusteum" and "Lutherhaus Museum Today", since they are quite a bit different from the original German.

Thank you for any advice you can give me on the matter!

DopplerRadioShow (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

What you wrote is a very good article. If you are starting out this well, we can hope for many featured articles from your hands.

the enWP is not a translation of the deWP, but an independent encyclopedia with its own appropriate emphases, though we use whatever parts of each others articles we find helpful. It's reasonable that the interest outside Germany should be more on the Luther associations & museum than the miscellaneous functions of the University in the Augusteum; your change in emphasis was very appropriate, and the material you added very suitable. You needn't be concerned at departing from the German; it would be more concerning if you did not depart from it. But it should be titled Lutherhaus and Augusteum--it matches the article better, and the Luther part is the older. It's also a little hard to follow from the present lede paragraph where the Augusteum fits into things.

There's only one significant point: you need to ascribe the text you translated to the version of the deWP article you used, copying the html from the edit history. If you used a range , specify that. The place to put it is either in the edit history on on the article talk p.

Expect me to be asking you for assistance with the articles I adapt from German. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for your advice. It was extremely helpful and made me excited to do more edits. I have made all of the changes you suggested, and have put in a request to change the title (I didn't trust myself to do it properly).

I would be more than happy to help you with any German articles that you are dealing with. Leave me a message on my talk page or e-mail me at nathanconder@yahoo.de. Thanks again for your help! DopplerRadioShow (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do want User:Alden Loveshade/Anaphora Literary Press. Thank you. Alden Loveshade (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hopefully your Internet connection problem has been worked out. If so, could you restore the article to my user space? Thanks. Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response. You've had to make 13 calls trying to get that resolved? Good grief. I'm glad you kept a log--you might want to send that to whatever complaint department they have. Hope it all gets worked out for you soon! Alden Loveshade (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

While I appreciate your reminder of WP:BEFORE when proding or AFD'ing articles. please consider that while the prod may not spell it out, due diligence may have been done. If you would have done a google search on the article title before leaving the edit comment you left, you'd had seen that there is no relavant coverage on this topic.--RadioFan (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It may have been done, but if I'm reviewing the prod, I have no way of knowing it. If you want me to know something, tell me. Anyway, the criterion for keeping is being sourceable, not being sourceable via google. A search limited to the googles that finds good references shows notability; a search limited to the googles that does not find good references does not demonstrate anything one way or another, except for the exceptional cases where it is obvious that if something is notable, there would surely be sources in google. High schools are a good example: to exclude the presence of reference, it is necessary to search print sources in libraries that would have them.

and I regret that it is necessary to call attention to the fact that for about half you proposed nominations in the last month or two, people have been able to show sufficient notability for the article to be kept. In fact, in several recent AfDs , you withdraw the nominations yourself, which is proof positive that you had not done BEFORE adequately. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I've had no success finding sources for this, so I've nominated it to be considered for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Googlepedia (2nd nomination) if you'd like to take part. Seasons greetings in the meantime. - Pointillist (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

perfectly reasonable to AfD it again in that case. But I see from the AfD that you did in fact find sources, and posted them a half-hour after posting this. It's great that you follow up carefully on your suggested deletions--the nom is in the best position to do it, because they've already done the preliminary research. I wish everyone did things as well. (see the item just above this one). Myself, I find that right after I've done something, or looked for something, or written something, is the time when I'm most likely to realize I might have been wrong or incomplete in what I did or wrote, or where I looked. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's generous of you to put it that way. I suppose that in my original searches those sources were buried in the mass of results for other meanings; when I tried a different search tactic they were much easier to spot. - Pointillist (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is the peculiar idea here that effective google searching is an inherent human ability that works perfectly the first time a person tries it. In a weird way, it's the fault of google: it does work so well automatically without requiring practice or thinking that it gives the impression there's nothing to it. But the system keeps changing, and like every search system so far, the results depend not only on the input but the care in examining them. My own trick is the classic "patient librarian" meme: scan through everything until you have gone all the way to the bottom. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You know the guidelines better than anyone else I know when it comes to academics. Please take a looks when you can. I had just tagged for notability, original creator thinks it doesn't need it. Rather than debate, I would leave it in your experienced hands if you have the time. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

certainly notable, as is generally the case for full professors at a leading world-famous research university like NYU (I used the word "generally," which I think vague enough to accommodate the various views: there is considerable disagreement about whether it is "always the case,", ""almost always the case" or 'very often the case" -- my own view, as I think is well-known, is that it is always the case, and the problem is only in deciding which universities it applies to. However, not everyone working on these articles agrees with me, including some of my most trusted friends here, so I am not sure "always" would be the consensus position at this time. My argument is similar to that on many other topics--we have much to gain by not having debates about every one of the tens of thousands of articles involved. We hare more harmed by inappropriate promotional articles about academics --just as about everything else--than we are by slight variations in the standard of notability. Time spent at AfD on determining borderline notability is time that should be better spent in patrolling new articles (and re-patrolling the older ones). Much better to have a simple standard, and concern ourselves with content. But in any case, this particular full professor is notable, but, as is often the case, the article needs a little rewriting isn't done in quite the best way to show it, and I will either do some rewriting or at least offer some advice for doing it. I apologize for not going into the details here, but they'll be clear in the finished articles, where the citations will show him an expert in his subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

(and for over 100 earlier discussions on this & closely related issues from my talk p, see my topic archive, User talk:DGG/Academic Things and People talk ). DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi DGG. This is a difficult case -- at least for me -- because I think he's a good faith, but very young and marginally competent editor. By the way he's currently evading a block: see my messages here: User talk:24.209.139.161 and his previous contribs. I didn't have the heart to block him again since he probably doesn't know any better.

Some of what he does is good faith, including starting the one-sentence stubs on composers; he does, however, insert invented birth and death dates. Curiously, even these are probably good faith in that he thinks he's helping us by giving his own best guess. I've been unable to get him to respond (see his previous talk page). Some of his edits I've reverted as untrustworthy, but many have been formatting improvements to the List of Medieval composers and List of Renaissance composers. -- Let me know what you think. Antandrus (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just what we need. One of the few people available in a under-covered field like this, and messing it up. I think at least some of the birth and death dates are from Google books entries, but not necessarily using the actual text just whatever date appears in the G Books search page, which the way they do it, may be someone else entirely.

I do not think the block is wrong, as we need to prevent adding additional problems; the one article I fixed, I am not at all sure of. My access to Groves is not working right, and I do not see entires in WorldCat, so I am not sure if there are in fact any known works for many of these people, or just a listing--if only the name and century is known, it will be very hard to make articles. If there are documented or even attributed works, it is of course another matter. I doubt I can follow up any later tonight.

I haven't answered the real question you had in mind, which is do we just remove them all, or try to fix them. If he's careless, things can be explained; if he's working in ignorance of what the real sources are, he can be taught--if he can get access to them. But when someone will not listen, there's nothing that can be done. Young untutored enthusiasts can be real assets here, if they are willing to learn a little. But it's harder to talk sense into them when they're not a captive audience in a classroom. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, I re-did one of his entries last night -- Mikołaj z Chrzanowa (partially translating from the Polish wiki, and also using the few references in Grove, where he didn't have an article). I may try another tonight. The one-sentence non-articles -- easy delete or fix; but I'm dreading going through his many edits to the lists to fact-check each date. -- By the way, look at his deleted contribs for his page on himself and his compositions. I remember what it was like being a 13-year-old composer, full of enthusiasm and naivete; maybe that's why I'm not hitting him with the banhammer like some others I know would. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Greetings and happy holidays, DGG. FYI, since I mentioned this thread. He's written Jion de Jordan which is either the most amazingly executed hoax by a 13-year-old I've ever seen, or is genuinely copied from some book with no trace on the internet. I'm not at home at the moment and don't have my library within reach. Antandrus (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm hoping you can help me. I think the best way to explain the situation is with a timeline.
2006 I create article Greg Garcia. My recollection is very vague, but if I recall correctly I got the facts from the Whitehouse website.
Sometime in or after 2008 the following page is written:
http://www.isa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Products_and_Services/Conferences_and_Exhibitions1/ISA_EXPO/Events_For_All1/Spotlight_on_Industrial_Security/Spotlight_on_Industrial_Security.htm You can tell the date because it reads in part "Garcia served ... from 2006-2008". Note that 2008 is referenced in the past tense. My Wikipedia contribution clearly pre-dates that website.
01:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC) User:GeorgeLouis posts Copyvio on my talk page. Here is a direct link to the notice.
03:45, 19 November 2011 User:DGG deleted "Greg Garcia" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of (^the link above^)
I discover the notice December 1st. I am unable to access the deleted article. I am unable to view the article history. I am even denied access to my own contribution history to check THE TEXT I AUTHORED. I can't even check whether THEY violated MY copyright.
I have asked on User:GeorgeLouis's talk page several times seeking any explanation regarding the Copyvio he posted on me. His two replies have been confused and completely void of information. My third request is sitting there unanswered so far. Can you tell me what the fudge is going on here??? Alsee (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) I have replied on Alsee's talk page. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

As Jarry said there, the copyvio material was not introduced by you. There was in fact a non-copyvio version to restore, which included your contribution, and Jarry very correctly restored it. ( should indeed have checked more carefully the earlier history, and found that earlier version myself. The climate around here about material claimed to be copyvio even though the actual copyright violation is minimal, arguable, or even non-existent, is increasing to such an unreasonable extent, that it seems to have affected me also. in particular, you'll see above various comments that I am not sufficient rigorous in my approach to deleting copyvio. Although I think those arguments wrong, and am certainly not consciously changing the way I work in response to them, it does seem to be affecting me to a certain degree. I consider this a warning to myself and everyone here that even when copyvio is asserted and present, there are still often alternatives to deletion that should first be thoroughly explored. (Though I have had many occasions where I am considering alternatives to deletion, and another admin first deletes the article without looking for alternatives.)

As another matter, our notices are not subtle, and tend sometimes to go the wrong person. This is a known problem. I try to check & modify all automatic notices that are placed in response to my actions, but in practice, all active admins rely on them to a great extent. I'm one of those experimenting as part o the project for better notices. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

More generally, of the 2000 articles a day submitted here, half must be deleted. The best that we can realistically hope for is a 1% error rate, and I do not think we come near it--I think the overall average is probably 5%, which even so is better than what it was a few years ago. I try to do better than the average, but it is of course hard to measure. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) The rate is most likely actually higher. Of the 2,000, about 500 are autopatroller submissions and don't pass through special:new pages. Of those that do, around 70 - 80% get deleted by CSD, PROD, or AfD. The problem with the identification of COPYVIO lies with the inefficiency of New Page Patrolling where patrollers do not use the Duplication detector in order to evaluate, and remove if possible any offending sections, rather than immediately tagging for speedy deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Autopatrolled do pass through new pages; they are simply pre-marked as patrolled, and do not show up in yellow. I routinely check some anyway. (except the mass-produced pages, usually on animal or plant species, or rivers or villages and don't need checking, though I spot check some from time to time. I find problems, though not at a high rate. There is however a second level of checking which works for some subject areas, where the new pages are listed on the Wikiproject's page, and are checked by the people there. If this were done in all areas, it would greatly lower the number of undetected problems: for one thing, they are the only people at all likely to catch copyvios of print material. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanx. I appreciate your swift assistance. Getting hit with a misdirected Copyvio notice really sucks, but I can certainly understand the headaches trying to deal with all that cleanup. Enjoy the holidays. Alsee (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your helpful suggestions. I have improved the two articles you have marked as lacking context. The patent legislation in Canada is very different than that in the US, albeit somewhat closer to that in the UK. However, my knowledge of foreign patent law is not extensive enough to comment on the differences. I will have to leave it to others to further develop the articles in this area.

Please advise whether you would agree that the two articles now furnish more than just directory information, and if the context tags can be removed. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightone11 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see you've removed the tags, which is certainly OK. I've discussed the only one I still have problems with on your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see that you've removed the CSD tags on this article for further investigation. It certainly appears that this article consists nearly completely if not completely of information copied and pasted from elsewhere, without proper copyright consideration. There are some additional URLs that material was taken from on the article's talk page for your reference.--RadioFan (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was about to get in touch with you about this. You may in fact be right, but this is such an central article that something should be salvaged if possible.I have just rewritten the introduction and rewritten essentially from scratch one of the copyed sections, both in the language I would naturally use for the subject, which is not unfamiliar to me.

The material from elearning-fa is more of a challenge. I doubt I will rewrite the whole thing, but I intend to at least stubbify the essential parts I do not get to work on tonight. I'll also consider the overall organization-- I have considerable doubts, copyvio or no, that the organization is appropriate. SEqually, the material copied is not really up to date, and I want to do something here also. I'm considerably dissatisfied with the limited list of examples. On the other hand, the links to other articles are important & many of them can be kept. My goal is to leave it in a state where there is both a usable basic article and a framework for further rewriting in the desirable detail.

I assure you i would never have dreamed of simply walking away from it after removing the notice. But it doesn't literally fulfill G12 (not from a single source). If I did not intend to rewrite this very day, I would have blanked it. But I normally rewrite a few articles a week, though this is longer than my usual. But then, it's a holiday week & things are otherwise pretty slow around here.

If you don't think I've done enough by this time tomorrow, feel free to blank and list it on copyright problems.

Can you help me with something: the parts of the article not on duplicate detector reports, do you know if any of them are copied and from where?

BTW, I agree with you that it is a disgrace to use that important articles have been permitted to remain in such a state as long as they have--especially when the nature of the writing is such that it would appear to be very likely copyvio on internal evidence. Where I may differ from you, is that the goal is not just the trivial job of removing everything that contains extensive copyvio, but replacing them with articles with proper content. (And there would have been another option: it's probably that some of the earlier versions may be non-copyvio--but at a quick look I think that would require going back to 2006 or 2007, and I think I can do something a little better than that.

It's been here for years, so perhaps you can allow me a day to deal with the accumulated problems. Copyvio when not specially complained of is a urgent problem,l but not exactly an emergency. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are right that by the letter of the law (G12) multiple sources disqualify this article from speedy deletion, but I'm not finding any original content here, not even anything tying the cut and paste sections together. It's just a copy and paste job from multiple sources and it's not even coherent coverage of the subject. I agree that the subject is notable but I dont see anything here worth keeping. I suggest deleting the article, reminding the creator of copyright concerns, and replacing the article with a stub on the topic.--RadioFan (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Which creator: there's a very long history. the copyvio was not added recently, and it'll need a check to see who's worth notifying. It has happened that I try rewriting such as this and give up, but iI do not consider this so hopeless as to not be worth trying. As I asked, have you found any other specific sources so i don't forget to remove/rewrite them? Even with copyvio, deletion is the last resort. This does not mean that you were wrong to place the db-copyvio tag notice, just that there is more than one approach to this, and I'm choosing to take another. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've not found any additional specific sources, no. You are certainly welcome to take another approach but I'd suggestion you place proper copyvio tags on there to block the necessary parts of the article if you dont wish to delete it outright. At least while you work through this all.--RadioFan (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It looks significantly better now. Will you be deleting the versions containing copyrighted material?--RadioFan (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would certainly delete a single version containing the blatant addition of copyright, but this has a long history, in which appropriate edits have been made in between the additions of copyvio. (btw, I have one more section to rewrite further that still remains closer than I would like, and I will probably reqwrite it in a different format entirely and supplementing it to a considerable extent also. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I admire your well laid out, articulated and rational rationale there! It's a shame I can't voice my thoughts as coherently as you can, but I enjoyed reading it. And I don't just say that because you and I happened to agree on it! Have a good one, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I hate to throw more in your pot, but I can't seem to get the article creator to communicate on this article, and I've left many, many messages requesting he do so. This article was previously deleted as a copyvio, currently is borderline copyvio in some areas (they reworked the same material), and is sourced by two books that I can't find to save my life. They don't seem to exist. There is a logged in user and IP that are editing it, but I'm reasonably sure it is the same person. They keep adding unsourced material, won't reply, won't even bother to leave a summary on any edit, removed legit tags more than once (forcing me to be more forceful in my summaries, so they are reading them...) I'm suspicious of the notability, but have gone way out of my way to try to find sources for the books and clean up the article. I'm seeing a few references outside of the books on less than stellar RS, but it is pointless if the creator won't even attempt to communicate. I wouldn't call their editing disruptive, but there is a problem. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

it's a problem, & asking for a third opinion, as you are doing, is the better solution. That refs on a Japanese group of this sort are hard to find is not unexpected--the publishers is I think reputable. Some of the material is inappropriate, & I'm about to remove it. And then I'm going to stop for the night. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. My concern with a 3rd opinion is that there isn't a second one if the person creating the article won't communicate. I figured refs were difficult but possible which is why I spent so much time searching for them and have tried to not remove any material, as it could lead to sources. It is just hard to help someone fix an article if they refuse to communicate at all. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

I hope all is well. The page NPhase was deleted due to G11. Here is the log on that page: 02:30, 18 December 2011 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "NPhase" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion).

I would like to rewrite a new article on nPhase. I'm not sure what content existed before, but I will ensure that the article is neutral and provides factual information. nPhase is mentioned in an overarching discussion on machine-to-machine technology,Machine-to-machine. I initially wanted to provide information on this company, just like other companies like Verizon Wireless and AT&T.

Can I write a new article or can you reinstate the old article? Please let me know how I can move forward with this. Thank you.

Baruhman (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

First, you can easily see the contents: the page was copied from the company's website.[16], which was an additional reason for deletion. We do not copy from web sites or other publications -- not only it's a copyright violation, but, even if you own represent the company and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. And in fact, as anyone can see, that page was devoted to advocating the benefits of the product.

So you need to start over. A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases, so make sure you have such references. It also needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or person, say what they do.

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients--that sort of content is considered promotional. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, without the use of jargon or buzzwords. And we write in paragraphs, not bullet points.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so; I did not protect the article and prevent re-creation. Expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there DGG, you were recently involved, briefly, on the discussion page about an organization called Academy of Achievement. Prior to November, it was much too promotional; at present, I think the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, as I've explained in a note on the article's discussion page—and as I see you warned in your previous note on the same page. I think I endorse your viewpoint that an EduCap article could be created to address its controversies, but the treatment it is given here represents a clear case of coatracking.

It's worth noting that I've been engaged by the Academy to help resolve the matter; in hopes of doing so efficiently, I've prepared a proposed replacement (in my user space here) that I hope presents an acceptable compromise, or a workable starting point. Hope you can join in discussion on that Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply