User talk:DGG/Archive 171 Apr. 2021

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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

To The New - G4?

Hi DGG, just wondering if To The New is G4 eligible? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

there ae. additional sources, including The Hindu. I am very conservative about G4s, so I suggest another AfD. I suggest you request that if it should be deleted, that it also be protected against re-creationi DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

now at Draft:To The New DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

For David Goodman: Draft page Robert Ehrlich (physicist)

Dear David, I found your comments on my first attempt to provide a new Wikipedia page both germane and helpful. I've extensively rewritten the draft. Can you review it again, please? I had follow-up from two other people, and (in order to be tactful here) will simply say that I'd prefer that you be the one to take things forward. The draft is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_Ehrlich_(physicist). If you care to contact me directly via email (which is my usual preferred means of communication), my address is . And by the way, I am a retired librarian. 24.210.152.37 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not post your email address on WP. the consensus is that it's unsafe. It may or may not be particularly unsafe, but I must follow the consensus here. I'll post on the draft or its talk p. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and for your work on the draft. I have created a talk page for it. I wonder if there's something further that I should be doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.152.37 (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Evidently I forgot to sign my previous response. I am aware of the user talk guidelines and am attempting to follow them (they are lengthy, it's easy not to see something.) I don't see anything about email addresses. But briefly, on this talk page, at the bottom I saw something saying "You've got mail." I wonder if this is an internal email system to alert people about a change to their talk page, or something else. 24.210.152.37 (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at the talk page for the draft in process for Robert Ehrlich (physicist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_Ehrlich_(physicist). I have added a section to the talk page. This section, titled Categories and References, is with a view to editing the Ehrlich draft further, if that will help getting the draft approved.2603:6010:4E42:500:D8FC:CFB9:1B64:2873 (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Judith Okely

Hallo DGG, you had commented on the draft]; I've sourced it, expanded, and moved to mainspace. I trust you're OK with this. She does seem to be notable. PamD 15:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

very nice job. Glad you rescued it. What frustrates me is when I comment and nobody responds. I comment in the hope that people will, just as you have. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places

• https://www.kshs.org/resource/national_register/nominationsNRDB/Sedgwick_GuldnerHouseNR.pdf

Did this ever make it? I ask because there is a User talk:Drmies#Furniture emergency! Uncle G (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Uncle G. Yes. [1] no. 45 , the NHRP indicator is at the bottom. And I think the date stamp on the doc. you listed indicates acceptance. . DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Aha! It is dangling from National Register of Historic Places listings in Sedgwick County, Kansas. Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Karlin Lillington article

Hi DGG, I am working now on further referencing re. the above, which you moved to Draft, but I would like to seek guidance on what was considered not ready for mainspace. I have reviewed, copyedited and referenced thousands of articles, and I am careful in my drafting and research, and test with ORES - and I just can't quite see what was so fundamentally lacking. Perhaps a tag or two, but you did not have time to provide comments (I am aware that you are very active but de-mainspacing is a big step, something I have not had happen before). Were you unhappy with the number of references drawing on the subject's own articles? This can happen with a journalist, and many of these pieces are in the highly-supervised aegis of The Irish Times. The subject is a noted commentator, recognised as such by the leading book on Ireland's paper of record (one of the few of its journalists with multiple mentions in the professorial text - as cited). Thanks, SeoR (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC) I apologize for I could have handled this better. --

I've commented on your user talk page. But speaking generally, it is not easy to show the notability of journalists, and it has become quite difficult to distiguish promotional writing from good faith writing that unintentionally imitates it. DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

mail!

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Journal of Paramedic Practice

Thank you for your input with this, I am trying to add more independent sources. user RandyKitty has again placed a speedy deletion on the page, and as I understand it, as I am page creator I cannot (should not) delete this. I agree the article is currently not perfect - which is why it is held in drafts. I am working to improve it - and it does now have more independent citations. I would welcome your advice, as I feel Speedy Deletion is not the best option. Thanks in advance. Tannim101 (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It will not be speedy deleted--but it will not pass, unless it can show notability and remove the promotional portions. I commentedat the draft. DGG ( talk ) 11:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Please review Draft:Silvan Loher after changes made

Dear DGG (talk), I have now made changes to attend the suggestions you made to this project (Draft:Silvan Loher) which was initially declined on 25 November: adjectivations and wrong phrases deleted, a secondary reference to a national press source added, also a critique commentary about the CD. I hope this will improve the draft to an appropriate stage for its publication in the mainspace. Very many thanks for your kind help.

Neuralia , I'm not certain about this, but I approved, Do not be surprised if someone lists it for deletion; my current view is changing from the former, "I won't approve unless I'm prepared to defend it", to "I'll approve if there's a decent chance, and then the community can decide about it. " DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

AFC Acceptances

Youu may be working too fast for the script again. Any chance you can double check your last few acceptances in Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space please? Fiddle Faddle 12:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Climate List Germany

Hey, i want talk about the article Draft:Climate_List_(Germany). So the Climate List was on two state elections and had ~0.9%. So there is also a german article and so i think it is important. :) I have added the results.

Best regards KatastrophenKommando (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Your expertise

Hey, hello, hope you are well!

I seem to be back to ask you the same kind of question I've asked previously. (At least it's not about an academic this time.)

I've been trying to make a dent in old AfC submissions. I don't think that Matthew Joseph Flynn's notability can be established via the references used, but I think he may meet notability based on his previous role in government. Can you take a look? (It's five weeks old.) Thank you! Julie JSFarman (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I would not consider a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense to be a role conferring notability. I would barely consider an Assistant Secretary of Defense, of which there are many at any given time, to be inherently notable. BD2412 T 04:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

In terms of GNG, there do not see to be substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices . The Politico ref is a routine single paragraph announcement about the appointment, and everything else is less substantial. I couldn't find anythign else quickly, but I didn't do a thorough search In terms of position, sub-cabinet positions do not imply presumed notability , DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Karlin Lillington article

Hi DGG, I am working now on further referencing re. the above, which you moved to Draft, but I would like to seek guidance on what was considered not ready for mainspace. I have reviewed, copyedited and referenced thousands of articles, and I am careful in my drafting and research, and test with ORES - and I just can't quite see what was so fundamentally lacking. Perhaps a tag or two, but you did not have time to provide comments (I am aware that you are very active but de-mainspacing is a big step, something I have not had happen before). Were you unhappy with the number of references drawing on the subject's own articles? This can happen with a journalist, and many of these pieces are in the highly-supervised aegis of The Irish Times. The subject is a noted commentator, recognised as such by the leading book on Ireland's paper of record (one of the few of its journalists with multiple mentions in the professorial text - as cited). Thanks, SeoR (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC) I apologize for I could have handled this better. --

I've commented on your user talk page. But speaking generally, it is not easy to show the notability of journalists, and it has become quite difficult to distiguish promotional writing from good faith writing that unintentionally imitates it. DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Journal of Paramedic Practice

Thank you for your input with this, I am trying to add more independent sources. user RandyKitty has again placed a speedy deletion on the page, and as I understand it, as I am page creator I cannot (should not) delete this. I agree the article is currently not perfect - which is why it is held in drafts. I am working to improve it - and it does now have more independent citations. I would welcome your advice, as I feel Speedy Deletion is not the best option. Thanks in advance. Tannim101 (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It will not be speedy deleted--but it will not pass, unless it can show notability and remove the promotional portions. I commentedat the draft. DGG ( talk ) 11:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd welcome your input on how it does not fulfil either Criteria 1 or 2. The talk page has justification for both now. Tannim101 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Please review Draft:Silvan Loher after changes made

Dear DGG (talk), I have now made changes to attend the suggestions you made to this project (Draft:Silvan Loher) which was initially declined on 25 November: adjectivations and wrong phrases deleted, a secondary reference to a national press source added, also a critique commentary about the CD. I hope this will improve the draft to an appropriate stage for its publication in the mainspace. Very many thanks for your kind help.

Neuralia , I'm not certain about this, but I approved, Do not be surprised if someone lists it for deletion; my current view is changing from the former, "I won't approve unless I'm prepared to defend it", to "I'll approve if there's a decent chance, and then the community can decide about it. " DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

AFC Acceptances

Youu may be working too fast for the script again. Any chance you can double check your last few acceptances in Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space please? Fiddle Faddle 12:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Climate List Germany

Hey, i want talk about the article Draft:Climate_List_(Germany). So the Climate List was on two state elections and had ~0.9%. So there is also a german article and so i think it is important. :) I have added the results.

Best regards KatastrophenKommando (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

repleied as a comment on the draft. DGG ( talk ) 11:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Your expertise

Hey, hello, hope you are well!

I seem to be back to ask you the same kind of question I've asked previously. (At least it's not about an academic this time.)

I've been trying to make a dent in old AfC submissions. I don't think that Matthew Joseph Flynn's notability can be established via the references used, but I think he may meet notability based on his previous role in government. Can you take a look? (It's five weeks old.) Thank you! Julie JSFarman (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I would not consider a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense to be a role conferring notability. I would barely consider an Assistant Secretary of Defense, of which there are many at any given time, to be inherently notable. BD2412 T 04:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

In terms of GNG, there do not see to be substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices . The Politico ref is a routine single paragraph announcement about the appointment, and everything else is less substantial. I couldn't find anythign else quickly, but I didn't do a thorough search In terms of position, sub-cabinet positions do not imply presumed notability , DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. Declined, fancy photo and all. JSFarman (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

DGG if I could please get you to take another look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_Ayesh.

Thanks for your help. Most appreciated. Smilingbandit (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Changes made to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_Ayesh based on your input -- any language that could be seen as peacocking changed, previous citation 24 removed, a few more added, and final line removed. Smilingbandit (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Anuj Choudhary

Greetings. I noticed via WP:BADAFD that this article had been tagged by you and linked to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Booster Nutrition. That discussion is now closed and the article on the company has been deleted, but the founder wasn't actually mentioned or co-nominated in that discussion. I've therefore taken the liberty of untagging the Choudhary article, with no prejudice against a separate nomination. Thank you for you understanding. --Finngall ^talk 00:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, looks like Praxidicae did the deed. (shrug) Whatever works. --Finngall ^talk 18:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Claudio de Reyes

David, thank you for reviewing my draft.

However, I do not agree with your evaluation "This is essentially speculation, over many centuries based on extremely minimal evidence" since many articles in wikipedia speculate based on extremely minimal evidence (e.g. Leif Erikson - He is thought to be the first known European to set foot on North America, etc.).

Jreyes101 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

References

• My role as a reviewer is not to judge articles, but to judge whether there will or will not be a consensus on wikipedia to delete them. I am supposed to know enough about our deletion process, WP:AFD, to be able to predict what will happen there. I do know enough, as far as anyone can, for Ive participated in a few thousand of discussions there over the last 14 years, and watched many more, and also participated in about half of the discussions at our final deletion review board, WP:DRV. What can happen there is not totally predictable--there are occasional errors, and sometimes unrepresentative participation. This is Wikipedia, and a clear consensus has a right to decide to make an exception to any guideline under our basic principle, WP:IAR. Different reviewers have different standards of what they send on--the usual working practice is to to pass a draft unless it has better than a 2/3 to 3/4 likelihood of passing AfD. (in practice very few none of the drafts I pass ever get deleted.) I'm not perfect, and I therefore do not review a draft more than once--some other reviewer may disagree, and it certainly happens that drafts I do not pass are passed by someone else, and some of them are kept, some deleted. So in any case you have the right to a second determination by another reviewer. If they should pass it, I will then decide if I want ot bring it to a discussion at AFD, and the consensus decides. But in this case, I am the second reviewer to decline it, though I have more experience than the first one has so far had. In addition two addition long-term reviewers with very wide experience have left warnings on the draft that it might not be acceptable.

There are two ways of stating the principle here, WP:EINSTEIN, and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". There is excellent evidence that Leif Ericson landed somewhere n North America, as did a number of other Norse explorers. There remains some doubt about just who landed exactly where, but there is excellent well-accepted archeological results, as well as the rough consistency of a number of the the explorer's accounts. This draft on the other hand tries to build a genealogy with a gap of a thousand years. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Laboratory Jacques-Louis Lions

Hello, David,

Did you mean to restore this draft? You left a comment but the content had been deleted earlier today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

thanks. That what comes of trying to restore a draft and add a comment at the same time. Sometimes it works right. DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I see evidence every day of the dozens of drafts you comment on or turn into redirects or bring over to main space. Occasional mistakes are expected with such a high level of daily activity! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Request on 16:54:53, 15 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 24.101.83.131

• 24.101.83.131 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Naoki Terada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Thank you for reading this and sorry for taking up your time. I have been working on an article with my partner for quite a while, but it has been denied multiple times. I believe you were one of the first reviewers on this article and I was hoping I could get some insight into how I can get this published.

First here is the article in question.

---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Naoki_Terada

My first question is why has this article not been approved when the Japanese version has and is basically the same thing just translated?

Japanese article ---> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AF%BA%E7%94%B0%E5%B0%9A%E6%A8%B9

Also, I have been speaking with another reviewer, but I could not get a good answer from them regarding this. The other reviewer kept mentioning sources, but my partner found other similar articles that have much less sources than our article.

Article 1 ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arata_Isozaki

Article 2 ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazutoshi_Sat%C5%8D

Any insight or help you could provide would be great since my partner is really eager to have this published and we have been working on it for a very long time.

Thank you!

24.101.83.131 (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in my response:

In addition to myself , several of our most reliable reviews have declined the article. The notability rests on Good Design Award (Japan) but there have been over 35,000 such awards.

Each language WP sets it's own standards. We have articles the jaWP probably would not accept, and vice-versa.

Arata Isozaki won two of the most highly prestigeous international prizes for architecture. That sort of prize is what shows notability .

Kazutoshi Satō is in another field entirely, a game where I have no ability to evaluate the articles. DGG ( talk ) 14:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Edits to draft page of Robert Ehrlich (physicist) made April 15, 2021

I've documented those edits, and further questions, in the talk page for the draft.2603:6010:4E42:500:9869:B813:E466:894C (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for approving the Robert Ehrlich (physicist) article2603:6010:4E42:500:3111:3BAF:2C52:E49A (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Viggo Mortensen on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Promotional material on global health institutions?

Hi DGG, I'm a newbie looking to work on the Burden of Disease pages. This is my master's thesis topic which I'm currently writing. Would love to have a chance to ask you some questions.

I noticed you were involved [a debate] on Riceissa's work that first stemmed from his article on "Animal Charity Evaluators". This led to an investigation into the rest of his work, especially Vipul's paid editing. Riceissa was also [[2]]. Can I ask you some questions on what went down, especially the following:

(1) Your key concern about pages on organizations, "What I am much more concerned about is the articles on organizations" (2) How widespread and urgent this was, considering your [on a different talk page] that "This particular case very much needs discussion, and preferably not just between the two of us."

Can I ask some detailed questions about this incident, here or elsewhere?

Thanks for considering!

--Whiskiz (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This was 4 years ago. I said "What I am much more concerned about is the articles on organizations.The articles on people will be easy to deal with, because most of them are borderline notable at best and should simply be deleted. " This does not mean the articles on organizations were more troubling. It means, in context, that there was no possible reason to keep the articles on the individuals, because they were pure spam and not notable enough to be fixable. In contrast, the organizations might be notable , and the articles on them fixable , so there are a number of different ways to consider dealing with them. (to be continued) DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Appropriate to remove the cleanup and notability on a page?

Greetings DGG,

We've never worked on any projects, except for one article.

Anyways when I first created the Carlos Felipe de Habsburgo article, I will admit I had no experience on how to write articles or know how to properly go in par with the citations. I will comment and admit I thought at first it was appropriate since the same article in Spanish was written similarly (which got removed months later in the Spanish version).

Thank you for placing both the cleanup and notability tags on them, and they've been useful. But now that I got a bit of free time, I decided to clean up the page and make sure everything within the article, was in-line with the citations, and whenever possible, write it as neutral as possible, without any "yellow journalism","libelous", and sensational content. I wanted to know your opinion if it's appropriate to remove the templates, and if not, I don't mind going back and fixing it.

Thanks for taking the time to read into my thread. JayzBox (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I left the notability tag, because it remains uncertain whether nobility who are no longer recognized are generally notable. AfD discussions have gone both ways. I appreciate your coming here. (as advice, the Spanish WP sometimes has less restrictive notability policies than the enWP. An article there does not necessarily imply there can be one here also. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

April 21: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC with with Environmental focus

April 21, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC with Environmental focus

Welcome to Wikimedia New York City! You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! As this WikiWednesday is just the day before Earth Day, we will have an environmental focus. Wednesday April 21 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki). 7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)

--Wikimedia New York City Team  00:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maternal Health Task Force

courtesy ping as you dePRODded. Hope you're doing relatively well my friend. StarM 00:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

turns out to be a rather complicated situation of organizations moving from one place to another, and all of our related articles out of date. I commented, but i hope someone else will take it in hand to clean up. DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Rebecca Wallace-Segall

I saw that you voted to keep this article in an AfD in 2013. I was preparing to nominate it for deletion again, as I am not seeing notability deriving from founding the organization, but I would like your thoughts on it first. Does your opinion remain the same? BD2412 T 05:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I would now vote to merge with the organization. Unless you think that would be opposed, do it. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Who's to say what others might think, but in retrospect I would consider that the best outcome. I'll make it a merge proposal rather than an AfD. BD2412 T 06:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed, at Talk:Writopia Lab#Merge proposal. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen E. Knudsen

I am not sure why I am receiving this message. I disclosed my connection to the subject as follows: This user has made a public declaration indicating that he has a conflict of interest with regard to the following Wikipedia article(s):Karen E. Knudsen. Also, Karen E. Knudsen was published at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_E._Knudsen. I worked with ‪Jimfbleak who approved my connection to my subject as I disclosed the conflict. Karen E. Knudsen is not the account holder and did not write the article.

Thanks, User:Irish breakfast 72

I donot see that you have received any deletion notices. As you say, the article has been approved. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Karen E. Knudsen

Draft:Abdul Waseh Basit

Hi David, thanks for leaving suggestions on my draft. I have now made changes according to your comments. Specifically, I have added the 5 most cited articles according to Google Scholar, and removed some minor material. I welcome any further advice on how I can improve the page. Thank you for the help. Ongjjay (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Ongjjay , you need to indicate the number of citations. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits made on the page and the comment. I have added the h-index and total number of citations Ongjjay (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ongjjay, please find good alternative references than your own website for information about forthcoming products, or remove the text they support. This is especially true for anything that is a claim to be therapy for a human disease. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ § Why my wikipedia page got rejected?

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Why my wikipedia page got rejected?. Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi DGG. I posted the above because you seem to be quite good at sorting out issues involving articles about academics. I know you don't venture into the Teahouse all very often, but perhaps you can help this editor out or at least assess whether the draft has potential to become an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. FWIW, I wasn't aware that you'd actually had worked on this particular draft when I posted the above. I did so because I remembered you previously helping out with a similar question recently asked at the Teahouse about a similarly declined draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, DGG

Thank you for creating Sankaran Thayumanavan.

User:Robert McClenon, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This appears to be an autobiography.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Robert McClenon}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, see my note on the Teahouse page. I've extended it beyond what I said a few hours ago--I needed to break off to eat dinner. You did a very fine first review, but the contributor did in fact follow up appropriately, COI or not. If you want to add a COI notice, please do. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about Rejection of Pima Community College Foundation

Hello,

You recently rejected the article I created for PCC Foundation. You said that the subject didn't warrant it's own page because it could fit on Pima Community College's page. I do, however, believe that it should be its own separate page. It is its own separate non-profit organization and is actually not run by Pima Community College anymore. The Foundation has its own Board of Directors that runs it, which is completely separate from the Board of Governors that runs the college.

The Foundation really is a separate entity from the college. Seeing as there are articles that have less cause to have their own article, is there any chance you could reconsider your verdict? Are there any other things you believe the article would need to have in order to more clearly showcase its need for its own article? Please let me know if you have any other questions that I can answer.

Thank you for your help BrookeLe13 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)BrookeLe13

In the case of public institutions, such as this one , it is almost always considered advisable to ask for financial support from the alumni without the funds being under the control of the government body. This helps isolate the school from politics, and help ensure that the donations supplement the government's budget, not replaces it. They are therefore always legally separate from the institution, or there would be no point in them. However, they exist only to serve the purposes of the college, as an auxiliary. I do not think we have ever had a separate article for such a foundation (I may be wrong, and if you have found any, please let me know) , including any of the most important universities that have foundations, and even including those such as Texas A&M or University of California, where the university foundation play an especially large role.

There are some split articles that fall under special accepted cases, like a list of alumni of a college, where the list can be too long for the article. And there are a few thousand split articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have actually seen an article about a foundation. The one I saw was the Jefferson Scholars Foundation which performs that function for The University of Virginia. I see what you are saying, but I think that an organization with its own history would be hard to fit into another page smoothly and in a way that made sense without taking away from the main topic of the page. Thank you again BrookeLe13 (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Brookele13

thanks, I will take a look at it. DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

and it's been desleted as promotional -it isn't even a college's foundation, but a special scholarship scheme within a college. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it for me BrookeLe13 (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)BrookeLe13

Notify admin 02:54, 15 July 2013

I was alerted to a 02:54, 15 July 2013 logged action of deletion. This is a draft version for your review in 5,544 pending submissions. Any feedback is welcomed and critiques will be taken to heart. ~

12tyros, I moved it to Draft:Brendan Wallace It will not be immediately deleted, but it is not going to be accepted unless unless you can establish notability independent of Fifth Wall, and remove the over-personal material. This is an encyclopedia not a gossip column. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Alissa Kole

Hello,

I have seen some pages with every publication they have made. I just copied a similar format. She has contributed to various international conferences and economic plans, including the United Nations and G20. How is she not notable for Wikipedia? I will ask other editors to make the tone neutral because I am not sure on how to do this. Thank you!

Neomar995, the draft says, "She is the author of a number of books published by the OECD, Wiley, Springer..." Looking at the publications, none of them are actually books, but are all either reports or journal articles. The only time we list all the publications are for authors who write books, but what she has written are not books, but reports and journal articles. Peer-reviewed journal articles are worth listing if they are in major journals, and have been very highly cited; reports, almost never, unless there is good third party evidence that they have been in some way influential. The only way to show that is with substantial 3rd party reliable published sources , not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices. This draft does not have any such refeences. Unless you can find them, thee is no hope of an acceptable article.

Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in the format of a press release, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. I will review it as soon as you inform me that you have provided the necessary information. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)`

Hey DGG,

Thank you for taking the time to reply me. Well, I know Alissa Kole personally, but I am not involve in any paid editing. I think it's my fault for copying the format and content structure from another page. I am unable to find that page, but that author had similar listing (reports, articles, etc.) i.e., they had listed each and every article that was published, whether significant or not.

Anyway, I asked for help, and editors have removed most of the part. So, I don't know how I prove her notability, but she is a well-known Economist throughout the Middle East and Europe, as you can see in the videos/conferences (that were listed). She was a key member for OECD. She contributed to Ted talk, United Nations and G20 too. Many governments consult her regarding their economy status. If many countries consult her on her opinions, then she must be of some importance, right??? Her articles are also published regularly on Harvard Law site and many other big sites.

Please tell me what can be done to make this is a successful experience :) Do I need to remove more content? Neomar995 (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

CRC Advisors

I'm shocked that you accepted this articles for creation submission. If you check the sources in the article, hardly any of the content is verifiable. Sentences like "Of particular focus will be judicial confirmation battles, and a broader effort to reshape the federal judiciary, promote a deregulatory agenda, and expand the place of religion in society," sourced, by the way, to The Daily Signal, which I don't think is even an WP:RS (not that it even verifies the content that is attributed to it, but still). Could you explain your thinking on this? I think a speedy deletion is in order. Marquardtika (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Marquardtika, I accepted it because I think they can be shown notable, and might well pass an AfD. . That's the criterion. The fact that they engage in their right and far-right activities is of course sourced to right wing sources, but it's enough to establish what they do. and why they say they do it. Personally, I think the point of the article is not to promote them, but b giving a NPOV account, to make connections clear. I would not be surprised if someone sources it in a day or two. I will also say that some of this is experimental--I am trying to see what the proper limits of AfC ought to be. As for speedy, G11 dos not apply, because there is not a single word in the article to make them sound at all attractive except to those who already hold their ideology. As for A7, an assertion that they are the coordinating body between various right wing movements is an assertion of importance.

What I think the article really needs is an expansion, to include the other groups mentioned, as well as better sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Special delvery mail!

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Maliban Biscuit Manufactories Limited

I removed your tag from Maliban Biscuit Manufactories Limited, as there was no reason given for the tag in your edit summary or on the article talk page, and the tag alone does not provide enough information to help other editors improve the article. Ibadibam (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Guidance on Draft:Wendy Videlock

Hi DGG, I've been editing a draft for a potential page for poet Wendy Videlock. I noticed you had commented on the page in November that you believe she did qualify under notability guidelines. This is something I agree with, but I'm not sure how to move forward. I believe the page accurately reflects her notable contributions (e.g. like you said, being published in many anthologies, or even being a finalist for Colorado Poet Laureate for instance). Do you have suggestions on further edits or pathways forward? I'm relatively new to the editing space for Wikipedia, so appreciate any help! Shivpp (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Shivpp, remove the table of the individual poems; instead, in the list of anthologies, mention which poems were included . Give refs for the comment about any for which there has been individual critical comment. (the intro to an anthology, explaining why the poems were chosen, should not be quoted specifically.) Interviews she has given don't show notability . Remove minor and peripheral material, such as her paintings. The reviews of her book are significant, if they have been actually published and are not just entries in a blog or publishers' blurbs--do not in any case quote them from their website, but from where hey were published. How does she earn a living? Does she have a teaching position? Fix up these things as best you can, and then ask me again, and I'll review it. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Clothing

Hello ​ Sir, I have recently made some edits in the subject [[3]]. Kindly have a look. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

RAJIVVASUDEV , what you have is fine, except that almost all of it is based upon a single book. It would greatly help to use additional sources. DGG ( talk ) 13:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ​ Sir, Thanks for your advise. Warm regards RV (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Olalekan Jeyifous

Hey, I am thinking of moving (Draft: Olalekan Jeyifous) to article space. You had objections on notability some time ago. Since then the artist received the 2021 United States Artist Prize, is currently exhibiting work at the MoMA and has some other notable projects since. What do you think? Soupmaker (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker

I've accepted it, on the basis of what I myself have seen of the current public attention he has been getting. Maybe I'lll add some more when I see it at MOMA. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Kurt Appel

Dear Mr. DGG, I am currently trying to improve the draft for the article on the professor of theology and religious philosophy Kurt Appel. On the draft page, you have commented that there are still "reviews needed" to meet the notability-guidelines. Since I am new to WP I would like to ask you what kind of reviews are suitable for providing enough evidence: Do you mean reviews of his works by others that have been published in academic journals? It would really help a lot if you could give me some examples of what kind of reviews would qualify (I am thinking about adding a few references to the journals in which he holds important positions (notably the Journal „Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society“ (JRAT) that is published by BRILL) etc.) Thanks a lot in advance, --Marianowitsch (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Marianowitsch . What is needed are substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources, not press releases, blurbs, blogs, Amazon, or Goodreads. Since his works are academic works, they would be expected to be in reliable academic journals in the field. His being a member of a n editor board is not significant--only editor in chief counts. In the bibliography, works he has written and cowritten are considered significant; works of which is has been a coeditor, much less so. Journal articles do not normally counts at all, and are omitted in the humanities unless they can be shown to have been influential. A description of his interest, must be based on third party sources, especially when it amounts to advocacy for his ideas. I am very much interested in getting articles onnotable people in this fields into Wikipedia , but it is very difficult unles the meet the requirements of WP:PROF for a named professorship, or head of a national society, or have been the author of many influential books. I think at this point it is simply too early in his career. DGG ( talk ) 13:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and detailed answer! It's a bit overwhelming to be a newbie on WP ;) so your advice helps me a lot! --Marianowitsch (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope I am not being a pain by asking further questions but I have started to work my way into the rabbit hole of WP and some things seem to get more and more confusing: I was trying to find out how articles about other professors in the field of theology show the notability of their subjects, just to get a better grasp of what matters/how to do it and I came by an article about a German prof. of theology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniela_M%C3%BCller). I am not trying to badmouth her academic work or sth. - but I wonder how her article manages to meet the notability-criteria: is it simply the fact that she is the editor of a book-series that is enough to proof academic notability? Or have the criteria simply changed over time and articles that were written before can't be judged by today's standards? Thank's in advance for your answer! Marianowitsch (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Stefanie Tompkins (head of DARPA)

I agree with your statement that we should have an article for DARPA's director. So I improved Draft:Stefanie Tompkins and would like to see it in mainspace. Would you (or some talk page stalker) please review it? Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, I reviewed it myself, but feel free to improve the new article. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hoffman & Associates Article Draft

Hello and thanks for reviewing the Hoffman & Associates draft. If you don't mind, I think a little more feedback could help be determine which way to move with this draft. Would you say that it's possible to correct the tone enough to eventually pass review? Or do you think the subject has a notability threshold issue that a tone adjustment couldn't really help. Thanks and any feedback is appreciated. SBCornelius (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

SBCornelius It's hard to tell whether it's fixable until you try. The first step is to bring it up to date--the articles talks about project planned in 2019, and similar dates, without indicating what's happened to it. The second is to reword to avoid using the name of the firm more than necessary. Then let me know. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for the help.SBCornelius (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reviving my page

I just want to thank you for helping revive my page Central Powers intervention in the Russian Civil War. I made it in May of 2020 but did not continue to try and improve it so it could stay a proper page and not be a draft. I did not expect to see it return again as I came back to look on the russian civil war page but found the page I made in the theaters box. So I just want to say thank you for doing so and looking forward to the page thriving [[User:JoshRamirez29|JoshRamir

Hello DGG,

Since you are an admin who has expressed concern about the use of "Discretionary Sanctions", I thought it might be best to ask you: is there an quick and easy way to see if any given article has DS applied? I wish to stringently avoid such articles entirely until (and unless) the serious issues you and others have identified with this policy are fixed, but even for an article that I know from discussion elsewhere has DS, I don't see where it's marked that way.

ShashakiroSH (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

ShashakiroSH There are several lists: Wikipedia:General sanctions and WP:DSTOPICS, but you also need to see WP:Arbitration_enforcement_log, to see exactly how each of them works. The sanctions are not necessarily placed on each page in the area.; the ones that have been are listed in CATEGORY:Pages with discretionary sanctions editnotice, I know it's absurdly complicated; but you will get a warning if you edit any of these. . DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Request on 14:15:28, 3 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by JulieKB1953

• JulieKB1953 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sara Bradley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)