User talk:DGG/Archive 85 Feb. 2014

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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

Speedy Deletion of YouNow

Hi DGG,
It looks like an article I created about YouNow has been deleted. The notice did not include any information about why. My first post in May 2013 was taken down by Jimfbleak. He gave me constructive feedback which I incorporated and the post was accepted and had been live for more than 6 months. Can you let me know what the new problems are so I can address them? Thanks. skeats111 —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It has not been deleted. I have merely proposed it for deletion in a procedure whereby it would be deleted in 7 days if nobody objects. Since it seems clear you are objecting, I will instead list it for a discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouNow. Your contributions to the discussion will be welcome at that page. What will help most is additional 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 can add such references, the article will probably be kept. Please note that accepting an article at AfC just indicates that the accepting editor thinks there is a reasonable chance the article will be accepted at AfD , not that they guarantee it. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

& it was deleted at afd

Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon

Please join Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014, an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! There are also regional events that day in Brooklyn, Westchester County, and the Hudson Valley. --Pharos (talk)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stability of Boolean networks

Dear DGG: Thought you might be interested in the above discussion. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Edward Pomorski

Tough. There's one book about him, but published by the organization he was involved in/founded, so COI. (Leon Kaźmierczak (1979). Dr Edward Pomorski, Prezes Honorowy Związku Polaków w Belgii. Union des Polonais de Belgique.) Outside that, as far as I can tell on Google Books, he has a two sentence footnote bio in a single reliable book: Jacek Leoński; Leszek Wątróbski (2006). Polska tożsamość na emigracji. Uniwersytet Szczeciński. p. 41. ISBN 978-83-7518-057-2.. According to it, he was the founder of said organization (roughly translated as in Free Poles Committee in Belgium, a Polish activists there, translator. Not much on Google; [1] and [2] mention his role in Polish education in Belgium. "the last Minister Plenipotentiary of the Polish Government-in-Exile" from the article sounds nice, but is most likely a bad translation, or at least I am not seeing anything related outside the fact that he was a "School Inspector" for said government during WWII. He published a textbook, maybe one more book, having difficulty veryfing if it was his. Uh. I don't think he passes notability, there just aren't sources to prove he did anything beside being a minor official and activist. Out of his orders, Polonia Restituta 3rd class seems most significant; I am not finding stats for how many were given during his time, but the modern Polish government issues about a 100 or so of this (3rd class) awards per year. I would argue against its notability (however, I am also quite annoyed recently by the claims that all Iron Cross holders are notable and the resulting spam of German Nazi soldier bios, so...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

agreed. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wei Yang Brian

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wei Yang Brian, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'd prefer it went through AfD given another admin accepted the article from AfC. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked at just a single, "sourced" paragraph of this thing; and I thereupon found that in reality about half of it wasn't sourced. I thus have reason to believe that the article is crap. -- Hoary (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wei Yang Brian. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And it was deleted.

Preston Long

Hi DGG. If you have the time, could you comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preston Long (or here on your talk page). I had originally !voted delete, but after fixing up the article and adding a few references, I'm rather sitting on the fence now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Those were pretty much my thoughts. Voceditenore (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WIll you look into an ANI thread

Can you look at [[3]]. 24.9.243.108 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Servisomething

Please let me know if I've managed to shed some light on that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD discussion

At your convenience could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Dranias. The article's subject seems to be taking heated exception to my AfD nom. Am I missing something here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

done. As usual, I wrote my reply on the basis of my own take on the article, not what you & he had said. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was asking for, a neutral second opinion in case I was pulling the trigger too quickly. Sometimes I do miss things. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the similarity between the two on the AfD when it comes to comments I get the feeling that this IP [4] may have a close connection with User:NickDranias. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow! This is fast turning into one of the more bizarre AfD discussions I have been a party to. Honestly when he posted his first heated objection, I wondered if I might have screwed up and missed something. But his endless stream of almost histrionic posts have left me firmly convinced that I got this one right. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the user's talkpage User talk:NickDranias he appears to saying that the policies do not apply to him legally, DGG do you have any advice on what to do on this one? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I brought the issue over to ANI - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have bothered with ANI. The article can just be deleted in the ordinary way, with him saying whatever he liked under as many names as he cared to use. The best way to deal with sockpuppettry affecting a single discussion is to answer any genuine problems, do what is needed in the situation, and ignore the irrelevancies.

There is in fact a genuine problem with the word notable as we use it. People tend not unreasonably to regard someone saying they are not notable as an attack, even as libel. Even the clumsy "articleworthy" would be an improvement, because it clearly implies we're only concerned with the relative triviality of being or not being a suitable subject for a WP article, not true notability in the way everyone outside WP uses it. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that "articleworthy" would be an improvement.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's more of a mouthful, but I prefer "meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria". I get very tired of explaining to injured egos in every COI AfD what "notability" means in the idiosyncratic Wikipedia sense. "Articleworthy" isn't necessarily an improvement. The subjects (or their friends/family) simply latch onto "worthy" and take it as an accusation that the subject is personally unworthy. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Term "notability" I concur with the most of the above comments. It's confusing and prone to cause offense among the uninitiated. If someone wants to make a formal proposal to change the term to something a bit more innocuous I would probably support it. Just drop me an FYI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

first thing is to have something to change it to: RfCs work better if the brainstorming is done first, not if the RfC covers multiple possibilities. To continue, let me modify voceditenore's to "Matching WPs inclusion criteria" DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• "inclusion criteria" can be either "prominence" or "notability".  How about "ArticleNotable".  Unscintillating (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The concept we call notability is not the only inclusion criterion. There are also all of the provisions at WP:NOT. (And one level further, NOT and WP:N tell us whether an article could be written about a subject, not whether a particular article should stay in WP.). DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I decided I'd rather comment. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

12th man assistance requested

I'm still learning the edit functions of Wikipedia so apologies in advance if the format/content of this request is out of whack!

I have been involved in some edits on the 12th man article but everything is heating up over there and I would like to ask for some help determining what may or may be appropriate with regards to content and response. A few months ago I was warned that I was engaged in an edit war which was true. Since then, I have attempted to utilize the talk pages first but am having difficulty with one specific poster and the revisions that he would like to make. I selected you for a request for assistance as it appears that you have special expertise in sourcing and the value/weight of various references. Much of the dispute as you will see is based on arguments/discussions as to what is or is not acceptable sourcing and how the information should most appropriately written.

No one involved in the current disputes with this article (myself included) are impartial. Instead we have a poster from a rival university and multiple posters from Texas A&M who are at odds over what information is relevant. It seems to me that it should be possible to acknowledge limited documentation of some claims while still acknowledging that these claims have been made. But I'm not certain that I have done a good job in explaining or justifying such a compromise in my talk page comments. I now have a poster who continually is suggesting that I go to the Texas A&M library and conduct research, with the implication that if I don't, then he is justified in using his suggested revisions instead. Again, it appears that you might have the background to make some true, non-biased comments and suggestions as to the best possible compromise and solutions. Any help or advice that you can offer is certainly appreciated both for the sake of this article and also for my own knowledge with regards to wikipedia policy. Macae (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have read the article and looked at the talk page. Frankly, I don't see much difference between the versions. The only thing that is really necessary is to make clear that the state of things is not completely clear. My advice is simply to disengage. There are much more significant problems at thousands of articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Within the last day or two, there apparently have been several additional source files located that document some of the claims that were made. So hopefully, there will be even less areas of dispute going forward. Macae (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Charles Fritz Juengling

Hi DGG. At your convenience could you take a look at Charles Fritz Juengling. It popped up on my NPP queue and I didn't think the subject was up to WP:N and WP:PROF. The creator disagrees. So I wanted to get a 2nd opinion before I pull the trigger on AfD. There are a lot of sources and maybe they add up to something that I'm missing. Thanks -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As you observed, the wording of the article indicates good reason for doubt. The "book" listed is only his PhD thesis, but I need to check for additional publications, because I think the AfD will involve some considerable protest, even though the conclusion is fairly obvious. Similarly, Sybil Gibson Higley. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

OK I think I will pause on this one for a bit. I think I may have exceeded my weekly quota for epic AfD discussions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

COI help

This guy/gal has pinged me a couple times. I honestly don't know if they are just trolling or if they don't understand. I'd rather not deal with it personally for... well... lots of reasons. I thought you might be willing to explain a bit to them. CorporateM (Talk) 19:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a little different than usual, because his request as a request is reasonable if he hadn't offered money; the subject is clearly notable, and there's a decent quality deWP article to translate, If he paid money for that one, they didn't do badly. Even the guy he paid 100Euro for the enWP didn't do badly for the money. I wonder who he is. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's good to know - I rather presumed the German one was crap, just due to the cost, but didn't really look at it. They kept pinging me asking about my pricing saying they wanted to hire me, but I shrugged it off. It is very unusual (and makes me uncomfortable) for companies to try to conduct business right here on Wikipedia.

Hey, do you have an interest in collaborating on Diners Club International? I'm trying to find an editor that wants to collaborate on it. I've just gotten it started on their origins story, which has a lot of contradicting versions, factual errors and whatnot. My draft probably needs some trimming, but I start most articles being too comprehensive at first as I get my arms around it. I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 14:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I will look at it, but I can't actually do much, because I am overwhelmed with trying to cope with AfC; even once we rescue what we can from the backlog, there will continue to be a much greater number of submitted articles than the few of us active there who know what needs to be done can do with sufficient care. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

ariel fernandez

hi I noticed that you have been looking at some of the same articles as I have.

• Epistructural tension
• Dehydron
• Ariel Fernandez
• Wrapping_technology
• Instituto Argentino de Matematica (this one is not bad)

A user "Ariel Fernandez" created some of this and heavily edited them; that user later created a sock account "Arifer" that was blocked; now there is a user named Haydee_Belinky who is doing edits like this; the account appears to exist solely to promote Ariel Fernandez. I have never dealt with something like this and don't know what to do. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this all together: I had not noticed them as a group. This is my old subject field of molecular biology, and I understand the work; though my detailed knowledge is not current, the principles are clear enough; I gather you also understand the subject field. The person is notable, and so are both the concepts of the dehydron and the related principle of protein wrapping or possibly target wrapping (which I think would each be a better name than wrapping technology). The references for the two concept articles are however almost identical, and so probably are most of the papers in the literature discussing them, tho I have only started checking. I am less certain that the concept of epistructural tension is notable, but it needs further checking. Unfortunately, the manner of writing and referencing is in effect confusing, because the references are structured in such a way that it is impossible to see who is the author and what is the exact title without looking at the article; nor is it clear without examining them which ones are primary research, which ones are reviews by Fernandez and associates, and which ones are outside reviews or outside editorial comment. At the least, some rewriting will be in order. Whether the two concept articles should be combined needs considerable thought, as would the question of which should be the title of the combined article; I'm going to bring it to the attention of some WPedians in the subject.

I know you saw the concept articles as promotion, and listed them for G11; I removed those tags because I thought the articles themselves basically informative. I think G11 goes by the effect more than the intent--we cannot easily judge someone's intent, and a person who intend to publicize something can effectively do so at by writing an absolutely neutral and helpful article on it, though of course they most often don't succeed in that. In any case, G11 is probably the most fuzzy of the CSD conditions, and on those fairly rare occasions where a CSD nomination of mine is declined, it's usually a G11 & I accept it as a valid decline if anyone sees it differently.

This is like the common situation where a contributor out to promote something tries to write as many articles on the same subject; very common examples are a company and and its CEO and sometimes also its product, or an author and his single book. If these are sufficiently important, the separate articles may be justified; much more often, the notability is marginal, & it's better to have one article--usually deciding on the basis of which one is the more likely to be expanded (which is generally the author, who may be expected to write more books if the first is successful; for an organization, it can be hard to specify--the person may head multiple companies in his career, the organization may have multiple ceos if it continues--the solution varies. I generally advise people in the situation to pick one themselves, on the basis that one strong article will be more likely to be kept than two weak ones. The present situation is not extreme -- the article on the person is relatively modest, and was so even before your good edits to it. There seems no clear reason why Fernandez could not have continued editing under his own name, if the account under his name is indeed him, and nota student or publicist. I doubt all the work is by a publicist, because the material is more scientifically literate than university press relations people usually accomplish. These could possibly be successive people and not puppets. The admin who previously pursued the sockpuppetry issue seems not to have been certain of the situation with respect to him, and neither am I. In any case, that side of things is not my specialty here, and in this case I don't think it matters much; I'd prefer to focus on the articles. (our attitudes towards COI editing seem to differ a little in general, but I doubt we would disagree on any clear-cut situation) , the general problem is not dissimilar to "good faith POV pushing", which is not something WP handles in a very satisfactory manner.

The first step is to ask the current editor to clean up the references to the proper format, which will make the situation more understandable. I will draw their attention to this discussion; and we will see what some other people who understand the subject think about it. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Where do you find the time?

You're the busiest guy I know. Anyway, I sent an AFC requester your way, you have looked at the requested article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael L.J. Apuzzo. You should consider volunteering for WP:OTRS, I would recommend you without hesitation; it's fascinating work ad you get to meet some really interesting people. My favourite ticket was from Ronald Neame. See you around the 'pedia, Guy (Help!) 00:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you are on OTRS! Great. I am really happy about this. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm retired, & think of this as my 4th career. But even so I actually don't have the time to do everything I try--too much of what I do is done more cursorily than I would like, and I've completely given up the idea of doing substantial article writing. OTRS is one of the things I find time for only rarely, but I like to keep a finger in everything I can. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_L.J._Apuzzo#Michael_L.J._Apuzzo

If there is something that I can do to expedite this article to become published, please let me know. Many thanks for your time! By the way, JzG sent me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.120.4 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I just gave you some detailed advice on your talk p. User talk:207.151.120.4. I would simply have fixed it myself, but I had difficulties rewriting some of the statements in the article, which were value judgements that would have had to be eliminated if they could not be sourced. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your quick response! I think it would be necessary to eliminate most of the uncited claims. I was not able to find references for those. If possible, please do what you can to get this thing up. Eliminate anything that cannot be published. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.120.4 (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bundled AfD help

I created (I think) a large bundled AfD but it's not showing up in the AfD log. Did I screw this up somehow? My eyes are crossed and my fingers cramped from all the typing & tagging on dozens of pages so maybe I messed up the code somewhere. The primary article I tagged is Constitution Party of Alabama. Not sure what I missed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have tried several times to complete a bundled AfD , and succeeded less than half the time. But looking at WP:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama you have succeeded. The state parties show up there, and I've sport checked one or two & the notice appears there also. FWIW, I usually dislike such nominations because of the usual different notability of the different articles nominated, but that is not the case here, This is one of its few valid uses, and it makes a good example of when to do it. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the plug. I feel better knowing that I am not completely code illiterate. But oddly it still isn't showing up on the AfD queue for 9 Feb. Hmmmm. For the record this is only my second time trying this and it didn't work the last time. The only reason I did it here is because there were just so many near clone articles that I think I would have ticked some editors off by flooding AfD with so many nominations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

User Wikiuser224-0-0-9

warned. Let me know if it continues & I will block. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

[5] etc. Divot (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say hello

I've found myself a bit more active of late -especially with a return to my old museum stomping grounds and I wanted to say hi as you were one person here who always encouraged me. Hope all is well. StarM 23:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Very glad indeed to see you back again. DGG ( talk ) 15:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm enjoying it. Funny how just looking something up draws you back. Stay warm and dry. StarM 01:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Crown Sydney

Hello. As this is now a contested PROD, I thought I'd let you know. Personally, I think this is a case of CRYSTAL as there doesn't seem to be any criteria for which this building would pass GNG at this time, given the fact that it doesn't exist yet. There's lots of coverage in the article now about the funding and construction of it, but that in itself doesn't make it notable. Would you concur with an AFD on this one?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

needs editing for tone, but I have usually thought that if there is sufficient material on the planning of a really major project, the project can be notable as a project even if it never gets built. Considering the $1 Billion cost and the conspicuous location, I think it's major enough. I think it's reasonable that someone might look at an encyclopedia for it. The practical question is whether this might be better merged into Crown Resorts. I would not support deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, since there's a Sri Lanka project listed on that page, it might be better suited as a subsection of that article for now.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Up to you whether to pursue it. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've put a merge tag on it, so I'll see where it goes from there.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 17:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mladen Veselinović

Hi, DGG. The person in this article has the same name as a notable player, but it was sorted out at Wikiproject Football had he has been declared non-notable. However, someone there edited the article to disambiguate the two. Can it still be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If it has been edited (other than by a bot) it is not stale. I can not think of a clear way to deal with a situations where two people in a profession have the same name but one is notable and the other not. There would presumably need to be some sort of hat note on the page of the one that is notable, but for clarity it would have to provide the same key info as an article would ( nationality and team). I however don't usually follow disam discussion because I do not personally agree with our basic principles on naming: I think every possible bio article should have at least the birth date in the title to avoid future problems, and the title of every article on an organization of branch of one that has a potentially nondistinctive name should include the location. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A losing fight

I think the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama bundled AfD is not going to fly. The argument is that state branches of national parties have inherent notability if they ever had access to the ballot. I don't agree obviously, but that's where most of the comments seem to be going right now. Unfortunately I think it's going to set a terrible precedent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've commented; I did not expect the opposition so I didn't comment until now. Just for the avoidance of doubt, notifying me is not canvassing--I had a prior involvement, and anyway, I might quite possibly have changed my mind when I read the arguments there. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Colonial Properties

I proposed deletion on this, and wish to notify you. "Non-notable REIT, very run of the mill. Unsourced." Bearian (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm removing the prod; it's a NYSE listed company, and I think we should include all such; I also think we should include all companies with over $1 Billion capital. It should be possible to find a financial report to source that. If you think it a suitable test case, bring it to AfD DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Resource Description & Access has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

being merged DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Trope (literature)

This article seems to cover two very different definitions of the word. How do you think it should best be handled? Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

See also Trope (linguistics). I need to check some sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that just a redirect to the present article? My inclination would be to make the existing article about trope as a recurring literary device, motif, or cliché, in a creative work. I would make a pointer to Wiktionary or disambiguate the other definition given of trope as figurative language for artistic effect. I don't understand the example given for that use. And I fear though that my perspective may be biased based on my understanding of the word and how it's used. But the article seems a mess. Perhaps User:Drmies can help clear things up. Thanks for looking into it for me. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry--I wrote too quickly.

After a very quick check: The usual meaning from ancient times through at least the middle 20th century is figure of speech. The use for such extended literary devices such as plot elements is a more recent development. My preliminary feeling is that I would try to cover them both in one article. When & how the transition came will be an interesting investigation--it is possible that the transition came first with film and video. I would not make any changes at this point until we know what we're doing. This is a subject for inquiry, not debate, and making changes without prior analysis of the sources is not productive. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As it happens I brought this up in class today (Marie de France's lays) and had a hard time defining it. It is, on the one hand, a general term for "figure of speech", and that's the least interesting sense. (The Washington thing is an example of metonymy.) The more interesting use is, as you point out, Candleabracadabra, the "recurrent motif" meaning.

I see other problems, some arising from that confusion. For starters, Category:Tropes also contains Category:Tropes by type, which contains the usual suspects more commonly called "figures of speech", which has its own category (Category:Figures of speech, duh). Note that Category:Metonymy falls under three categories: Figures of speech (appropriate), Literary techniques (hmm), and Tropes by type (no different than figure of speech). But this is something best left aside for now.

I'm going to mull this over. I do wonder where those lists in Figure of speech come from, and if we need to reproduce, if that's what we're doing, a classical division that is fraught with difficulties. For instance, if schemes focus on synax, as the definition in our article seems to suggest, and if trope focuses on semantics, then Cataphora shouldn't be listed as a trope, since it's a syntactical device. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. After some mulling, I see that there are other complexities here, and the primary meaning of "figure of speech" may be less boring than I thought, given Tropological criticism (ah! a redlink!). I will mull some more, with Curtius and Auerbach. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as the figure of speech definition (dicdef in Wikiparlance) an example that avoid the use of brackets, politics, and isn't U.S. centric would be more useful. The Trope disambiguation page is also of interest. It includes an article on a Wiki of the motif type tropes. Are those literary? Would Trope (cultural), Trope (in pop culture) or Trope (artistic) be more apt? At any rate, I apologize DGG for cluttering your page with this discussion. I will continue it at the article talk page. Thanks to you both for your insights. I hope that something is done with the page to make it more useful. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not apologize. What I like are interesting discussions of substance to balance out the problems with the junk and the mechanics DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I just beefed up the introduction with the help of two dictionaries (of literary terminology). I'm afraid it doesn't do much to address the question here, and in fact I added one particular definition. I think, Candleabracadabra, that the topic you're looking for is the covered in (or foundational to) Tropological criticism--still a redlink, but now also in article space. And that was my understanding of trope also: I treat locus amoenus and senex amans as tropes, for instance--the "motif" definition, which is, unfortunately, not expanded on in the brief entries in the Columbia and Penguin dictionaries, though the Columbia entry on tropological criticism points that way, somewhat, while still focusing on literary figure as the basic definition of trope. I wish Curtius and Auerbach were more dictionary-type writers. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to userfy the page

Hello, I'm a student and I have a problem. About one month ago, I created pages named First Business Financial Services Commercial National Financial Corporation Jacksonville Bancorp Premier Financial Bancorp North Valley Bancorp United Bancorp, Inc WVS Financial and Meridian Interstate Bancorp, but they had been deleted because the companies do not assert notability. But these companies are my homework and my teacher requires me to create them. I know you are very busy as an admin, but would you please userfy the pages? I'll improve the quality of the pages and I can also learn from it. Thank you! ReganChai (ReganChai) 00:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've done it, but I have some doubts that it will be possible to improve these articles to meet our current standard of notability. Business concerns are not necessarily notable. According to our formal guidelines, it requires 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. The key problems with that guideline for companies of this sort are: (1) the word "substantial"--this is currently interpreted to require more than routine financial information, and there's usually not much else available; (2) the "reliable sources" are usually interpreted to exclude local newspapers, because they do not use sufficient editorial discrimination, but will cover any sort of business whatsoever in their area, (3) the "independent" sources exclude sources based on the firm's own press releases, and not only local but even national business journals are notoriously likely to base their coverage on press releases, or even just reprint them. According to our informal practice, we are likely to regard companies on the NYSE as notable even with borderline sources; we are much less likely to regard companies on NASDAQ as notable, unless there's something special in the way of sources. We also do not accept listings of executives other than the CEO, or at most the President and the Chairman--details beyond that are considered more suitable for the firm's own website.

This is not necessarily the way I would do things if I set the rules for WP the way I think they should be set--I would be likely to be considerably more inclusive. But the consensus is what governs here, and it is pretty solid on this.

I see from your talk page that you are or were a student at Peking University, Is the course there? Normally we very strongly advise that instructors of courses work with a WP course ambassador or some other assistance from someone experienced in WP. One of the purposes of this, is for the WP ambassador to make sure that everyone is working on topics that will be reasonably sure of making acceptable articles. When there is not such formal assistance, & if it is Peking it may be impossible to arrange it, it is good to ask here for advice before starting. I or anyone else who works with new users will gladly give it. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. We have reflected the fact to our teacher and our teacher has build a course page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uttsinghuajoint2014/Course_Page.

Hello DGG. On a tangent based on your comment about this elsewhere, in what way would it be unsafe (for either or any party) to offer assistance if a Canadian university were not also involved? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the general state of opinion by the government of China about WP, I would be concerned about the effect on someone's career unless it were clear they wanted to take the risk. It's true that another university is involved doesn't necessarily eliminatye the risk, but it shows they have at least thought seriously about what they are doing. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on a few months' experience with the NNU class project, the government (and the educational authorities) don't really care so long as one is not, shall we say, creating problems. Although there are topics to avoid, of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Lying

DGG, I'm shocked and disappointed that you stoop so low as to say, "whoever can get the other person to start using terms like "lying" often wins regardless of the merits". [6]

It sounds like you have given up on all core principles of civility, AGF, and so forth, and recommend using political spin tactics to 'win' arguments on the wiki. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I was giving a warning to another person than you about their use of the term, I consider what I said an exact observation of what often happens here, and my advice to be careful not to fall into the trap of using intemperate language is one I have given here openly many times. Interpersonal disputes at WP are usually won by the person who can keep their temper the longer. This goes along with my advice never to bring a issue to AN/I or ANB if there is any way to avoid it, for I have rarely seen anyone do that and come out the better for it. . The way to win arguments at WP is to avoid them if possible, but in any event never to become personal, never attack, never respond to attacks, and discuss only the issue. That way one has at least have a chance of winning if one is actually in the right. Such is the reality of things: it is almost impossible to win an argument here, but very easy to lose. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Technology & Management

Hi DGG. Could you pull the speedy delete tag from Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Technology & Management for me. I had a brain fade and forgot you can't CSD schools. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

actually, that only applies to A7; schools can be speedied for other reasons. You had tagged this for G11, promotionalism--however, I did remove the tag, because it is not hopelessly promotional--I was able by some removal of material to deal with most of it. Usually, it is possible to deal in this way with promotionalism in a school article, but sometimes one is so overtly an advertisement that it is simpler to remove it. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly notable periodical - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spore (agricultural publication)

Hi DGG, please could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spore (agricultural publication)? I declined an earlier version of this submission, and the submitter has revised it somewhat and also commented in some detail on my talkpage at User talk:Arthur goes shopping#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spore (agricultural publication). I'm unclear on whether it passes the notability requirements for periodicals, and don't feel it appropriate to review it again myself. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The guideline for accepting articles at AfC is not that we are certain they would pass afd, but that they have a reasonable chance, and this has a reasonable chance. It is a professional magazine, not a scientific periodical, and the standards for such are undetermined.The GNG makes very little sense, and indexing and library holdings are often not particularly relevant either. To make this one even harder, its circulation is predominantly not in the countries where we have either good indexes or library catalogs. There are for good measure almost none among us who have much judgement in topics concerning agriculture. On the basis of the material in the 2nd and 3rd paragaphs, I've accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Childline South Africa

Please consider rescinding your request for speedy deletion of Childline South Africa. I reviewed the page when it went through AFC and, call me biased, but I don't think this rises to the level of blatant self-promotion. Note: The "Partnerships" section was created after the article was accepted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. My apologies, for though we do not have a rule, I think it is usually against the spirit of WP:CSD to speedy an article approved by a reliable WPedian, unless something like undetected copyvio is found. Even if it gets much worse, it can be reverted to the approved state. I do not think personally I would have approved it, but people can differ about things like that, and when they do , speedy is not appropriate. My question now is whether to try to fix it or send it to AfD. I see almost no independent sources (the citations are written in such a way as to obscure that). I'm as concerned about the services section & the overdetailed infobox, but I suppose both can be dealt with. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

José María Sicilia

Hi, I have added some stronger sources to José María Sicilia, if you are interested. Cheers. Span (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are sufficient; I think it would pass AfD under WP:CREATIVE, so I've accepted it. But it would be good to have more solid evidence of the other museum collections than just his gallery write-up--the only really solid evidence is a true third party book or article, or a source from the relevant museum. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Maggie Goes on a Diet

Hey DGG, I was looking at the page for Maggie Goes on a Diet, as you recently edited it and it came up in my watched page list. I hadn't really looked at it since I initially edited it way back when, but I'm concerned that there's no actual long term coverage for the work. It got quite a bit upon its announcement but I'm not really seeing anything long term. There aren't any actual reviews for the work either, just reactions to the announcement of the concept. I'm debating listing it at AfD- what do you think? It could probably go either way, as the coverage was fairly intense during the brief span of time it had. I think that I was expecting it to get some reviews or at least some coverage in a journal akin to how My Beautiful Mommy did, but it hasn't. I'm willing to userfy it if it fails AfD, as hope springs eternal (and all that noise) that it might get it years later. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wait, hmm... seems like it did get mentioned in a recent Oxford book. I'll put it on the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I also consider the book marginal, but, like you, decided not to send it to AfD because of the references. Whenever there are significant reviews and very low library holdings, there's usually a reason. Sometimes, it's the sort of pornography or books about non-vanilla sex that libraries tend to avoid (the traditional excuse librarians give for the censorship is that the books will be quickly stolen). Sometimes it's a book on unusual religious or political beliefs that they will try to buy only a few of the most popular; similarly for non standard health. They would have brought this one if it had become popular or widely reviewed, However, the references are sufficient to justify keeping the article, and it will or at least should pass AfD. I do not know why you think we want long term importance or long term coverage. It's a book, not a news event. We don't limit ourselves to the classics. We're not EB. And when we say popularity is not notability, it goes both ways. I'm not sure I like having the article, but I can't think of any reason to reject it & I would support it at AfD.

I suppose I should mention that I consider NOT NEWS a mistake altogether, but it's widely accepted here & I don't usually challenge it. What I prefer is the limitation of NOT TABLOID, but there is a great deal of our accepted coverage of popular celebrities that I think ought to fall under it & not be included--I don't usually challenge that either. It's not my personal encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

A rather weird article

When you get a minute (I have no idea where you find any free minutes) can you take a look at Antisemitism in South Africa. At a minimum the thing sounds like an op-ed piece with a strong whiff of WP:FRINGE thrown in for good measure. It popped up on my NPP queue and I am seriously considering sending it to AfD. But I want to get a 2nd opinion before that. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not see it that way in the least. I see nothing much wrong with the first half of the article, except that it could probably use some historical background and more detail. I linked to the main article, South African Jews--if there's a problem , it's the bland evasion in that comprehensive article of the less positive aspects of the situation during the post-WWII period of Apartheid But there needs to be a distinction between the periods of official and socially approved unofficial antisemitism, and the remnants today. For the second half, we have the problem of differentiating individual statement of opinion with general views, a problem which affect a great number of WP articles. (It's encouraged by our normal sloppy method of referencing, in which a source is a source, and we ignore context) There are dozens of good secondary sources for both articles that ought to be used. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for the input. I will defer to your judgment and leave the article as is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Trotula

Dear DGG, In April 2013, you asked for revision of the page on "Trotula." I have done a major intervention on the page, bringing it into line with published scholarship and breaking it down into topical headings, as you suggested. I would like to ask if you would now be willing to reconsider your call for revision of tone, which currently stands as a red (well, orange) flag at the top of the entry and raises questions of its quality. Thank you. Historian1098 (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• • magnificent editing. My knowledge of this is only from the traditional text, many years ago, and I was not aware of the more recent work, so gladly did I learn. But I think three points remain. First, unless there is some evidence of her being an actual individual and not just a name associated with a text, I do not see how she can be called "Historical" without some qualification. Second, there seems to be considerable overlap between the article on her, and the article on her work; either they can be combined, or the one on the person abbreviated a little. Third, perhaps the conclusions should be qualified, with an "apparently", or "according to current views". DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you restore some articles to my userspace?

Hi,

Can you restore the full history of Hoagie Haven and Tony Luke's to my userspace? I've been working on some NY metro food articles. Thanks!

Also is it possible to restore the talk page of 53rd and 6th so that if the DRV is overturned, which is looking favorable, I can immediately move the article to it's proper page? Valoem ^talk 17:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Valoem ^talk 21:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

all three done. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request

Hi, DGG. Regarding your edit here, can you clarify what you mean by "consider merges"? What do you suggest that page could be merged with? Note that its contents have already been fully merged into {{animation editors}}. --Waldir ^talk 03:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

you said it was redundant with a category and with a template--but we often have all 3 for they serve different purposes, and redundancy with a category is very rarely accepted as a reason to delete a list. Perhaps though there are some articles on the general topic the list can be merged to. If not, I see no reason to delete it, so if you disagree you will need to use AfD DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

USS LST-594

Greetings. One of the things I'm trying to do is work on articles which need copy edit work. On the above article, I noticed that you were the reviewer who rated it a "stub" article. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on what class the article would be after my edits. Being somewhat new to this, if you think it should be upgraded, how would I go about doing that. Thanks in advance. Onel5969 (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can change any rating, except for using GA or FA, which have their own procedures. I changed the AfC rating to class C. You do it by editing the project banner on the talk page. If you open the talk page's edit window, you can see my change. Each project does its own. Personally, I consider ratings relatively unimportant as compared to content. When I accepted it the sourcing was below par--it's better now. Most similar articles are rated start or C class--there probably isn't enough material to go higher I gather that the ship was never actually in combat? Combat details are what would have the potential for more elaborate articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the ship was never in combat (or it would have received some type of action citation). I linked to a journal of a crewman who was on board, but did use any of his anecdotal information in the article itself. And you're right, I exhausted just about every online source, as well as the one book I could find on the subject.Onel5969 (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ecosia

Hi DGG, My name is Shannon from Ecosia. We had a Wikipedia page you deleted in 2012 (16:31, 4 November 2012 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Ecosia (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)). Quite a long article exists in German (albeit with many inaccuracies), and we wanted help create the English entry again, obviously as neutrally as possible, but we're not sure how to have it reviewed before posting something that doesn't meet the guidelines/standards. How can we check what we'd like to submit? Thanks! --EcosiaSearch (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the article in the deWP. I see the article there is more up-to-date, but otherwise similar to what you submitted here. What you need to do is write so as to emphasize less the virtues of being able to contribute to a good environmental cause when using the service, and making much less detail about just to what extent you are green. The way I look at it, the article has to be addressed to the general public, not prospective users.

Unfortunately, I am uncertain whether or not any article on the service will be judged notable--it is a rather small company based on the value of the 80% charitable contributions & by implications the profit. The enWP does not consider Alexa rank in judging notability. If you are associated with the firm, as seems to be the case, the recommended route for making an article is to use WP:AFC according to our WP:COI policy, which is different from that of the German WP and I think also from most of the Scandinavian WPs. In particular, you may not use a corporate user name here--you have to use some made-up user name, or clearly individual name, , and say on the user page the account is being used by someone affiliated with the company. ( I agree it makes no sense whatsoever, but it is a firm policy here.) Good luck with it. I shall let the community judge. DGG ( talk ) 11:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Mathew Martoma stuck in AFC

Hi DGG,

Surely this subject is notable: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mathew Martoma? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

He's notable, and it is ready for mainspace. Anyone can move it. Nothing is ever stuck in AfC, But yes, it's good to check with someone else when, like here, it's a BLP where the negative material is the basis of the notability. The article is justified because of the conviction and because it's part of a very major case involving multiple parties. For clarity, the material in the infobox should also go in the text and be expanded a little. Place & date of birth & birth name & year of all degrees go in the article as well as the infobox. The undergraduate major has unfortunate ironic implications--though sourced, I would leave it out. I would normally omit spouse and children from a negative BLP. In this case the spouse apparently took a role in the defense and was covered by the media, so I suppose her name can be included. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, I know you are very busy. Just thought I would let you know of this discussion that might be of interest: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Mathew_Martoma_stuck_in_AFC. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Charles Burton

Hi! Thanks for your comment at the AN/I about the Charles R. Burton article. As I noted at the top of the complaint, I have not done this before and hope I'm doing it right. Please explain to me why you think the discussion doesn't belong at AN/I, and what my next step should be. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

AN/I does not properly deal with editing disputes. the question here was where to put the emphasis in an article. The article talk page is where to discuss it, and I've commented there. (I know that recently AN/I seems to have become increasingly a way of settling editing disputes, which are at the bottom of most cases there--this is a wrong use of ANI/I, and I increasingly avoid it, for almost everything said there is not relevant to matters where an admin is of an particular value. or that an admin can solve. We are only supposed to be knowledgable about WP policy, not content. It's therefore not your fault that you followed what seems to be the fashion,, & there is no implication of that in what I said. . DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Another editor gave me a link to creating an RfC, which you noticed I did. (And thank you for your input there.) I was actually going to AN/I on the basis of policy, objecting to personal interpretation overriding RSs. But no matter. I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luohan, Royal Ontario Museum

I saw the alert for this on the Museums project. I just cleaned it up a bit -- but I don't know how AfC works at all. I actually think maybe the article should be a broader one about a Luohan (currently one line in a DAB) vs. this particular one, but like I said - I don't know this world. As always, your insight is appreciated. StarM 02:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I deferred it a few days ago with that in mind. The way AfC works is that any experienced editor can and should just go ahead and do what they think reasonable. I've saved a number of articles from deletion with the intent that they be converted into something different--usually an article for a particular book to an article about the author. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm going to move it to Luohan (Buddhism) in draft space and play with it some until it's ready for prime time. Thanks, as always. StarM 02:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Err maybe not. See here when you have a moment. THis topic is clearly of general interest. Thanks! StarM 03:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Picsolve International

Letting you know that I have restored this article which you PRODded, following a request at WP:REFUND#Picsolve International. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I will try to remove the promotionalism. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Joey Ciccone

Hello I am wishing to retrieve the article Joey Ciccone so that I can edit it to make it acceptable. Thank you. Knockonwood (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

commented on your user page. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Lloyd Bancaire Page

Dear David,

It seems you have deleted Lloyd Bancaire Page. We are representing the firm and would like to resolve this matter at the earliest.

Warm Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupclr (talk • contribs) 07:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

E.Coli

Hi DGG,
I saw your name in here so I am asking for your help. I have nominated E.coli for the good article but I would be very much glad if you can put some light on phylogeny chart issue mentioned in Talk:Escherichia coli/GA1. Thanks RRD13 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Same editor with two accounts in same argument with you

You had an editor log in with two different accounts for the same argument with you. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_December_15 User:✄ and User:Stifle are the same person. He posted in the same thread as two different accounts at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_February_24 as well. Seems a bit deceptive. Dream Focus 22:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume he used his alternate account inadvertently. I've done the same with mine, and even carelessly used it for double !voting. You should call his attention to it, as people do when I make such an error. Stifle and I are occasional opponents, and have for many years held different opinions about the scope of Deletion Review, but I have great respect for both his work in general, and his arguments at DR in particular. Without him DR would become a chaos. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Luohan (Buddhism)

Hi, Can you please extract this from the AFC mechanism? The subject is utterly notable, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Museums#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FLuohan.2C_Royal_Ontario_Museum. It needs repurposing into an article on the set, which I can work on once it is out of AFC. The original creator has not edited since last August - some college project no doubt. But the references are useful. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

done. but so you could have done yourself, as could any good faith editor prepared to explain & defend what they do. There is no rule that a previous reviewer needs to approve. Nor should there be, considering the irrelevance of most reviews. (Notification is polite, but should simply be built into the notifications system.) In some situations there are bugs in the standard macros, and rather then figure out what the utterly inefficient system intends to be done, I simply do a page move in the ordinary way. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I have done this in the past, but I worry it messes up their statistics, which I assume somone is watching. It seems a pity if articles that are useful from AFC don't get counted. Thanks anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Work Stress Claims

Hi, I would like to know that why this page got deleted. It was not any promotional or advertise article, that article was belong to one of the UK's leading firm which provide legal information about how to reduce or manage stress at work.Alex.shawn (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Alex.shawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.shawn (talk • contribs)

Three reasons, any of which would be sufficient. First, the article does not give any indication that the firm might have any importance all all: the only thing the article says is that it is a registered legal advisor. Second, the page contained a large section of general information about Work stress claims in the UK and work stress in general, which in the context can only have the function of advertising for people with this problem to consult this particular firm. WP is is not a business directory, and it does not do advertising. Third, a previous article with essentially the same content was deleted by an essentially unanimous community decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Work Stress Claims only a month ago. We already have an article on the general topic of work stress, at Occupational stress.

We also have a rule against use by a single individual of multiple accounts. I see involved in this and closely related articles several other accounts who have edited essentially nothing else. This does not avoid scrutiny, or succeed in giving the impression of there being multiple independent individuals supporting an article If this recurs, all of the accounts will be blocked. DGG ( talk ) 10:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Frank Gruber (entrepreneur)

Hi there DGG, hope all is well with you. Small world that it is, Frank Gruber (entrepreneur) happens to be an acquaintance of mine, and someone suggested he reach out to me about the deletion of the article about him. So I looked into it, and read the recent deletion debate, and of course found that you were involved. Two questions, then. First, any impressions of whether there was a chance for notability but the article didn't show it? Second, would you be willing to userfy the past versions in my userspace so I could have a look for myself? Let me know when you find a moment. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

of course I will userify it--it's at User:WWB Too/Frank Gruber (entrepreneur) There is always chance for notability--if there are substantial accomplishments not discussed in the article. But the problem is that the evidence for Tech Cocktail itself is rather borderline,--and there's also an article on his present colleague at the company Jen Consalvo, which has almost no chance. I suggest merging a sentence or two only about each of them into the article on the firm and making redirects. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. My initial read on it is the same: notable company, coverage of its two founders' coverage too closely tied to merit standalone entries, redirects being the best thing for now. I'm going to investigate a bit further and see if I find anything else. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Shari Olefson (attorney) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shari Olefson

Dear DGG: I see that you have been involved in discussion about this article before. The draft was written by someone else, and the text doesn't appear to have been copied, so it can't be merged and I don't see the point in redirecting it. Most of the references are primary. Can it just be G6'd? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The version in mainspace is an acceptable article, though it needs some more data on the books. The AfC is unacceptably promotional . I therefore deleted the AfC, giving reasons G13 and "better version in mainspace"; I think this is what you had in mind. There are other solutions: if there were acceptable material in the AfC, it could have been merged--I don't see why it matters that they have different authors. I've done it a few times by accepting the afc under an alternate form of title to get it in mainspace, and then merging--I think it's clearer than trying to merge a draft into an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I just wanted to check with you since I saw that you had taken an interest in the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Southern Sociological Society

I haven't ever approved an AfC, but I think this one is ready to be mainspaced. If you agree, would you do the honors? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Piotrus, done. It would be good idea to add the list of successive Presidents if it's readily available, because it might indicate appropriate bios that we need. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)