User talk:DGG/Archive 120 Jan. 2017

ARCHIVES

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

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

Ufahamu

Dear David, Happy New Year! Health and happiness!

On a more mundane note: perhaps you can have another look at this article. As you'll see on its talk page, things got rather acrimonious between me and the principal editor of that article and I'd rather not interact with that person again... --Randykitty (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why. I'll follow up. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

donald woods foundation deletion

Hello, I wanted to know why the page was deleted?

On the birthday/death day of Steven Biko, there was a link to SB's wiki page and when you read the article,there was a link to the Donald Woods and when you look at his page, there was a red link for Donald Wood foundation and it said do you want to create a page and so I created a page. I have no affiliation with SB or DW. DBOhio (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing in the article to show the importance of the subject--there were indeed 4 references, but they were all to the foundation;'s own website. If you want to try again, make sure you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources--preferably sources internationally known to be reliable, and which are not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Quip (company) article

Hi DGG. On December 24th, you deleted the article Quip (company), due to the article being created by a banned user. Although the article shouldn't have been released at the current state, it would be great if you could restore the article and move it to a draft. There are many notable sources about the company and I am willing to expand the article to start-class and then repost it. Thank you! Daylen (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not restore articles that have been written by banned users. Our rule that banned users are banned from contributing here wouldn't have any meaning otherwise. If you think the company is notable, make an article in draft space. All that I see are some mentions Be sure to declare any conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 09:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Standard Finance

Hi DGG and Happy New Year. Just wondering if you've got any time to look again at the draft for Non-Standard Finance. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC) It'salmost there . I made a few style adjustments. Two questions: Is Loans4You a provider of what we in the US would call "subprime mortgages" or of standard mortgages for those with good credit? Since the term is used generically also, can you write a sentence saying :This is about the loa ncompany; The term " non-standard finance" is also a synonym for subpar credit provision in general) with a reference? DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – Loans at Home (previously Loansathome4u) isn't to do with mortgages, it's home credit – i.e. personal loans (actually one of the largest providers of unsecured personal loans in the UK's home credit market) so in the UK we'd just use 'home credit' as the easiest term to describe it. If that doesn't mean much in the US then 'personal loans' or 'unsecured personal loans' would be a better fit than 'subprime'. As for a sentence to distinguish the company from the generic term, it might not be necessary since we've taken any generic use of it out of the article – while it is used generically it's not used particularly widely as a Google search will show (such a search just returns results about the company). So I'd argue we don't need one but if you feel strongly about it then we could have: "This article is about the UK-based, non-standard consumer finance company. The term ‘non-standard finance’ is also used to describe the subprime lending sector in general." [This] could serve as a reference perhaps. Lastly, I noticed you changed 'the company was formed' to 'initial financing was formed' – do we need that change? 'Initial financing was formed with £48m backing' sounds a bit odd. If it needs to change, maybe '£48m of initial financing was provided by a group of investors'? Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must distinguish in some manner to avoid confusion, probably as a parenthesis after the lede sentence). . What is the difference between Loansathome4u, and Everyday Loans--are they 2 brands in the same market. What is the meaning of " home credit " as constrsted to "personal loans" if they mean the same thing, why use different words. Just fix these up and I'll accept it. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Home credit' is a standard industry term in the UK, meaning small personal loans for which payments are collected at the customer's home. I linked to Moneylender with the first mention of it, as that article redirects from 'home credit' and covers what the industry is well enough. 'Personal loans' is a broader term so doesn't really capture what Loans at Home does. It's a UK firm and UK readers will know what home credit it is, however to clarify I've put 'home-collected personal loans' in brackets after the first instance of 'home credit'. Everyday Loans is slightly different in that it covers a broader market, i.e. consumer loans, and I also linked to the consumer credit section of Credit (finance) as the first couple of sentences there also capture that well enough. I hope that's enough to make it clear what these two businesses do and to distinguish between them. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, any more thoughts on this? Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, any idea when you might have another look at this? I'll try and respond quickly to any questions. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HOgilvy, I accepted it, as I think you have improved it sufficiently that it would probably pass an AfD discussion. That of course doesn't mean that any other editor can't challenge it. DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

Sure of course, and thanks very much for your help on it. HOgilvy (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A7

Are you aware of this? It's listed on RfC Cent, but you might have missed it. Whatever your thoughts on the matter are, you would probably certainly wish to comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Apex Fund Services" article deletion

Hi DGG,

Happy New Year to you.

The article "Apex Fund Services" was recently deleted after edits I made. Can I restore the page as it was prior to those edits?

Regards,

Jerry J Kelleher (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as it was basically a cross between an advertisementand a directory listing, I don not see the point of it. If you wish to try again use {WP:AFC]], and be aware of our rules of [[WP:Conflict of Interest and our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure , DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG,

Thank you for your reply. I will take some time to review carefully Wikipedia's Terms of Use and Conflict of Interest rules before I take any further action.

Regards,

Jerry. J Kelleher (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not you...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado gubernatorial election, 2018

Hello DGG:,

I am interested in editing an article for Noel Ginsburg, listed on the Colorado gubernatorial election, 2018 page, but the previous article had been deleted. I wanted to gain your feedback before recreating it. Thank you for your time, Colorado historian (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is relatively rare that we accept an article on a candidate for governor before they even win a primary--mentions that the person is running are usually considered just notices. This of course has the side effect of appearing to give preference to candidates who have already won significant public office. The various minor items in the previous article -- tributes to his business and community interests-- seemed appropriate to a campaign advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. If you have something more substantial, try again. Please note that this is not necessarily the way I personally look at articles on politicians, but it is established practiced here. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Thank you for the feedback. I will try again with a simpler article identifying him as a candidate, but without expanding on his career and community interests. Thank you, Colorado historian —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS question

I recently learned that I was occasionally locking an OTRS ticket with the intention of following up on it later, then failing to follow up. I'm not the only one who does this. although, at the moment, I have an embarrassingly long list of tickets to address. Why am I telling you this? Because while looking into it with one of the other OTRS admins, we started looking at other tickets in the same situation, such as ticket:2014111710019831 and ticket:2014112610027751. I don't know whether you did the same thing I did (locked it with the intention on later follow-up) or something else has occurred but I'd like to figure out what we do next. I do know you have a lot on your plate now that you are part of Arb Com. One possibility is that you identified these two tickets because you had some good thoughts on how to handle them and you still want to handle them. Another option is that they should be unlocked and dumped back in the general pool. Or maybe there's another option I haven't considered.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it has happened a number of times; I will check these two . What OTRS needs is a total rewrite. I know it's not in-house software, but I don't know where we got it. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Oddly, I was thinking about the software shortcomings earlier today.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I unlocked both - I have to travel for a few days, and worried I might forget.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hull UK City of Culture 2017

Hi there, I am proposing to make additions to this page to make it an independent article, so I've changed it from a redirect to start adding some actual encyclopaedic material and I've removed the page protection that you put up last year - hope you think this is OK? The page is a little low on content now but I hope will build as the year goes on.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know., which is all I ever ask another admin to do. Are you planning to make pages for the similar events at the other two cities also? DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Hull resident with a particular interest in the present CoC which has just started, so I hadn't planned to expand the Derry-Londonderry article myself. As this is four years in the past now it will be a little harder to assemble the sources but if some people with time and interest could set up a separate page for Derry 2013 that would be great! One thing at a time for myself though.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

School notability RfC

You may wish to comment at the RfC that is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on secondary school notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Pho

Hello! I just noticed that you deleted Kevin Pho by invoking G11. I checked out a version of the page here http://web.archive.org/web/20151128223554/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Pho and do not agree with your assessment and action. The article was written from a neutral point of view, which disqualifies it from G11 speedy deletion. Here are some lines for reference:

"Kevin Pho is a physician of internal medicine with influence in social media on the subject of health care.[1]"

"Pho is on USA Today’s board of contributors.[2] He is also a contributor to The New York Times’ “Room for Debate” and CNN.[3][4][5]"

"Pho has appeared as a keynote speaker and panel member for the Massachusetts Medical Society, New England Journal of Medicine, Texas Medical Association, BlogWorld, and New Media Expo. He has been interviewed by CBS Evening News with Katie Couric and the Wall Street Journal.[6][7]"

"In January 2012, Pho was listed on Klout as the #1 healthcare social media influencer and #1 social media influencer in medicine.[13]"

One problem with the article I noticed is that the references seemed pretty barren. I did a quick Google search for more and turned up numerous sources that clearly establish his notability.

I think this article should be restored, and I am glad to improve it. Medicalreporter (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it , and another editor has sent it to AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Pho DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

where it was kept. I'm not going to proceed further now, but I may revisit it later. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historic comet observations in China

Can I ask you to take a look at the discussion on the article talk page and weigh in if necessary. It has descended into the bureacratic stupidity of claiming that the name decided on at AFD has to be reverted because it did not go through RM. SpinningSpark 17:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented. I think the current situation is satisfactory, but I will check if it changes. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand:

"possibly notable as an edit": Part of your comment when deleting a Delete Proposal here. I had already responded to the proposal (and to your deletion). Thanks. Swliv (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

typo for "editor". There is unfortunately no way of changing an edit summary--I regard it aas a bug, not a feature. . I'll do the only thing I can, which is to make another small edit and give the proper summary. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese orphans in China

Had a quick question not sure if this your field of expertise, but the last sentence in the article says:

“

These Japanese women mostly married Chinese men and became known as "stranded war wives" (zanryu fujin). Because they had children with Chinese men, the women were not allowed to bring their Chinese families back with them to Japan; most of them stayed. Japanese law only allowed children with Japanese fathers to become Japanese citizens.

”

Editor Rajmaan showed me this source which says "However, she would have to leave her baby son in China. The Japanese government did not allow the Japanese women's children to accompany them, because their children were Chinese according to Japanese law. In contrast, Japanese men could bring their children to Japan, because their children were legally Japanese."

I am unable to find any other sources regarding a Chinese ban in Japan after WWII, in fact regarding war, I've never heard in history of the defeated having the right to ban the victorious. This seems incorrect, are there other sources? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, not my field. The book is published by a reputable publisher. I seem to remember there were numerous anomalies in the Japanese responses after WWII & the way the US government treated them. The Chinese government, which was in process of collapsing, was in no position to make demands. Thereshould indeed be multiple other sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:38, 5 July 2013 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Rick L. Weddle (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: and copyvio of http://www.orlandoedc.com/About-the-EDC/Staff/rick-weddle.shtml and associated pages on their site)

Good morning. On July 5, 2013 you deleted the page Rick L. Weddle as noted above. I am Rick Weddle and have changed jobs. I am now president and CEO of the Hampton Roads Economic Development Council in Norfolk, VA. My current employer has asked that I check to see what we need to do to get the page Rick L. Weddle reinstated or unblocked. Please respond with recommendations. Thank you very much. Rick L. Weddle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlweddle (talk • contribs) 12:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might possibly be better to try one on the organization--check to see if there are enough substantial sources from outside the immediate area -- preferably in nationally known newspapers or magazines-- that are independent , rather than press releases. But first see WP:Conflict of Interest and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk at 16 Years of Wikipedia

Heard your lightning talk just now. I support both the "Radical solutions to promotional paid editing" proposals you announced on notability and restrictions on anon editors around companies newer than 1999 foundation. Are there some written proposals to refer to? - Brianhe (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there will be--one of the reasons I gave the talk was to get some feedback about just what to propose, and I am already getting some. Watch this space tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I will evangelize to the communities I'm part of, as soon as there's something to show them. - Brianhe (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)Hi, DGG! I'd like to hear that too. Link? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video from the lightning talks is now available via Commons. DGG's lightning talk is the first one, proposal #1 is detailed at 2:15 and #2 at 3:00. - Brianhe (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TravelKhana

This article is headed for deletion. As creator of the current version I would not be heartbroken to see it go, but I would appreciate a response to the concerns I raise at the AfD discussion.

If it is asserted that the press coverage is not significant enough, then this is obviously open to judgement and different interpretations. But the arguments there seem to go beyond that and imply that any press coverage at all, even in national papers, is invalid as support for notability, being taken as merely "press releases or self-published ... republishing the company's PR". If accepted this would appear to have wide implications for our whole approach to assessing notability for commercial topics, where newspaper reports have normally been admissible. Have I misunderstood?: Noyster (talk), 15:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the actual content. No source in always reliable, and it is impossible to analyze sources mechanically. the significance is judged by the people at the AfD. As a result, our determination there tend to be quite erratic, the inevitable fault of the vague specifications in the GNG. You are totally right that it does in practice decrease the validity of our system for determining notability. But if we did not evaluate sources, we would be accepting blindly material that is utterly inconsequential, which would altogether destroy the usefulness of our GNG. I learned this my first years here, when I realized I could use arguments based on the GNG to support either keeping or deletion of almost any article at afd, depending on the result that I thought best. As a consequence, I have strongly favored objectivem methods of deciding on the inclusion of articles. The consensus has unfortunately continued to support the primary use of the GNG. I consider this a naive or at least obutmoded view, that was only workable when sources of some sort were less easy to find.

Why do people continue to support it? First,, there's the desire to keep open the opportunity to find a way of rejecting content about important subjects that one does not wish to recognize, or include content about trivia that one wishes to think important. Second, there's the propensity of many WPedians to rather argue than to write content. Writing good content is much more difficult than arguing details, or writing poor uncritical directory content. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted draft because of mistaken copyright problems

Hi, the draft of a wikipedia page I created was deleted.

15:51, 16 June 2016 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Linda Michaels (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://theiscp.com/affiliates/)

Linda Michaels is an affiliate of the ISCP, so it makes sense that they used the same bio information on their site. Please let me know how to correct this and get the Linda Michaels page working on Wikipedia.

Thank you, Jen [email protected] 66.27.79.233 (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC) We can use it here with a full free license from the owner of the copyright under the formalities of WP:DCM, which irrevocably gives permission anyone in the world for using , modify, and distributing it for any purpose, even commercial. But that is not advised, for material on a website is usually written in a promotional manner, and is generally not suitable for an encyclopedia. That is the case here. It is better to rewrite. However, I am not sure of notability. You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Suitable sources for this purpose do not include Facebook, YouTube, or her own bio on her own site or that of her organization--those are not independent. They should be nationally known magazines of newspapers, not local papers or similar indiscriminate publications. (And see WP:REFBEGIN for how they need to be formatted). If you do have the sources, you may rewrite the draft. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Village Capital page -- checking back in (connected contributor)

Hi David -- I'm checking back on the Village Capital page, which has been flagged for a few years. I work for Village Capital (http://vilcap.com/person/ben-wrobel/).

You spoke with a colleague of mine in May 2015. From the colleague:

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

From you:

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

I have spent time marking up the document offline, and have a number of suggested changes to get rid of jargon, decrease duplication, remove non-neutral adjectives and also update the information -- we have changed/grown a lot over the past 18 months. Before I do anything, I'd like to check with you -- should I make the suggested changes directly on the page?

Thanks, Ben

yes, go ahead and make these changes, if they will obviously improve the article. Be sure to indicate on the edit summary your connection with theo organization. Then ask me to look at it again. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I made a number of changes. Ultimately, I want to do what needs to be done in order to get rid of the flag at the top of the page. Open to feedback and suggestions.

Also: much of the information on our results is outdated. We're currently preparing a document that we will put on our website with the most up-to-date information on number of companies that have gone through our program, number of investments, etc. Setting aside the question of what information is too promotional, I'm guessing that some of that is relevant. What is the best way to update those numbers? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benwrobel (talk • contribs) 04:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just checking back as a reminder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benwrobel (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First thing I noticed is that you can't really use Fprbes as a reference for the success figures. But 1st, he Forbes article is written by one of the outside correspondent (tho a reputable one), and 2nd, she ascribes it " According to Baird". So you'll need to say according to the company, and this is the sort of claim which really needs a fully independent source. and 3rd, that was in 2013, which must be stated, as it may not represent the current status. It's almost 4 years later.

". For example, a 2016 program supported businesses targeting 68 million adults in America that are currently disconnected from the financial system" is not NPOV, because it promotes the company by saying the problem it has to solve is important, and tends to give the impression that they've helped all 68 million. Reading the source, there is no indication how many people are actually being targeted with the actual program--and certainly not how many have been actually helped. The link with PayPal is worth including.

Is there any discussion of its problems?

It's a little on the wordy side. as you'll see when I copyedit some of the sentences. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it David. Will work on this in the next few days. The Businessweek article just came out last week (http://vilcap.tl/2jmFGXr), so that should be helpful for context on up-to-date, reputable numbers. Makes sense to add "according to the company" when appropriate -- and we definitely don't help all 68 million all at once! -- will clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.185.26.146 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijacked AfD

DGG, your thoughts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Matthew Bond would be welcome. Here's my take.

As near as I can tell, there was only one non-SPA involved at this AfD other than the nominator, yours truly. It seems as if there may have been an off-wiki invitation to stack the vote. Even the self-declared professional manager of the subject (a TV actor) created an account just to come to vote keep. It was shut down by King of Hearts as hopeless. The whole thing was a complete waste of my time.

If we can't get these things speedied, and must take them to AfD, and this is the result, there's no point in trying to delete anything anymore.

I should add, the bio was brought to this state in its creator's sandbox in ~~his~~ the account's first five edits on Wikipedia. Suspicious to say the least. Brianhe (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at the closer's talk p., suggesting several options, and will follow up. DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The headline grabbed me. I agree that was a baffling close. However, although I can see why it was AfDed (most actors with a relatively low screen-acting credit count are spam/vanity pages and AfDable), but the award is going to push this actor over the edge. I saw a similar article on an actor written by the subject himself (he even added his professional B&W headshot, which I XfDed), and would have AfDed it, but he had won a minor award so I didn't. Softlavender (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: Just going to park these links here in case the AfD comes up again: I see on his IMDB resume [1] that he also won another award, in 2014 (as Rhys Bond): [2]. That award does not have a wiki page (perhaps because of its relative newness), so it's debatable whether to list in the chart (although it could perhaps be mentioned in the article), but it does speak a bit further to notability. My opinion is that if we deleted this article now it would probably end up needing to be recreated down the line. Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Matthew Bond (2nd nomination) DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be going more along policy lines this time. Thanks. - Brianhe (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

It was good to meet you at Wikipedia Day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a redirect from a page name that you previously deleted, FYI

I just created a redirect from Master of Science in Law to Master of Studies in Law. I saw that you previously deleted an article at the page Master of Science in Law, so I hope that's ok. I don't know what was there before. I'm not 100% positive that Master of Studies in Law is the same thing as Master of Science in Law, but I came across some schools that use the acronym MSL to stand for Master of Science in Law (example), so I created that redirect. Feel free to undo it if you don't think it's appropriate. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 06:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK as far as I am concerned. If anyone wishes to challenge it, they can best do so on the talk p. of the article redirected to. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Guidance

I created the page for Draft:Creative Consumer Concepts. I note that the page was flagged as self-promotion. Would you be able to give some guidance on how I could craft this page to avoid deletion? Given the amount of outside sources, I thought that the notability test had been cleared. Any guidance you can give on this subject would be helpful. Also, can the deleted page be moved back to my personal page so I can review the content? Thank you!Joshuald (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from the Philanthropy section " We at C3 take our responsibility to bring value to this area seriously." followed by a list of donors. That "we"--along with the rest of the article written in similar tone-- makes it likely that either you're writing the article wi for them, or you've copied their web page. I see you've also writing an article for the president of the company, also in similar language.

I call your attention to our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. If you have no such affiliation, try again, after you've read our rules for WP:NPOV and WP:Copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete request - 1001 Inventions

The 1001 Inventions page was speedy deleted by JzG for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". However, my reading of it was that it was a dispassionately written article about an internationally well-known media company that produces popular films, educational publications and exhibitions. The deletion has meant that lots of other articles are affected too because they reference the now-deleted 1001 Inventions page. There seems to have been no discussions about this on the article Talk page beforehand that I'm aware of. The PROD process was not carried out before deletion of this article, which I feel would have been a more appropriate course of action. From JzG's talk page, he states that he's not online much and that you have his permission to undelete articles in his stead. I would like to request that the 1001 Inventions article is undeleted and, if appropriate, the matter is discussed on the Talk page for the article to discuss ways of improving the content as the first step. Then if no consensus can be reached then the PROD process should be initiated. Brownchamcha (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted as blatant advertising three times by three separate admins. Most additions of content were by a handful of editors with almost no other interests on Wikipedia. Odd, that... Guy (Help!) 15:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy. The first two deletions were back in 2008. At that time perhaps it could be argued the article didn't belong on Wikipedia. I do not know as I didn't read about it at the time. However, the subject has been talked about thousands of times by the media since 2008. So I would argue the issue is not whether it should be on wikipedia or not. The subject is definitely notable. If your issue is that the article is written in a way that should be less promotional then should that not be discussed first and attempts made to improve the article? From what I remember, I would also say the article was written with a neutral POV as it included criticisms of the subject as well as presenting the information factually and dispassionately. I think an arbitrary speedy deletion, without any discussion, was the incorrect decision. A discussion about improving the article would have been a better first step.Brownchamcha (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ill take a look this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being talked about in the media does not stop an article form being egregiously promotional. Promotional articles tend to be the result of editors who have a close interest in the subject, and are more aligned with the subject than with Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've loked at it. When an article about a clearly notable subject contains some promotional elements, we delete that part or ask the contributor to do so. When an article is entirely or almost entirely an advertisement, we delete the entire article regardless of the notability of the subject . In this case, it's the second category. Almost all the article about this somewhat notable subject is an enthusiastic list of presentations of the program, and equally enthusiastic reviews quoted out of context from mostly unreliable sources. At the end, there'a superficial description of the criticism, which does not even remotely offer the necessary proportionate coverage.

I have also looked at the promotional article Ahmed Salim, from which I have begun removing the puffery. We have a brief reasonably NPOV article on the film 1001 Inventions and the World of Ibn Al-Haytham . DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%, and thanks for starting the cleanup. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

undelete a page

dear DGG i am a creator of Kooshk residency page (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kooshk_Residency). i understand the cause of deletion and need the text and specially sources for edit and write an article.so is it possible to undelete this page and make it happen? can you please help me to do that? --Keivan.bonakdar (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was essentially a copyvio from http://web.archive.org/web/20151006133531/http://kooshkresidency.com/about-kooshk). You can find the material there. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G13 and AfC - discussion

An informal discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC on G13 on the G13 CSD criterion, and the future of the AfC project. You are invited to comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One Belt, One Road

Hi, can you clarify on the talk page why you think One Belt, One Road is NPOV? I want to see if I can remedy it. --Voidvector (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

except for the last paragraph,it's a press release for the government. The policy attracted a good deal of comment , not just in Hong Kong, and some of it needs to be included. The tone would also be helped b not dividing it into so many sections--there's no point in a one-sentence section--but I see that might be a problem because of linking some of them to more detailed articles--but those articles are so brief there's maybe no point in them till more can be said. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating Blair Chiropractic Society Page

Hello, As I was determined to create this page under, I have made some significant changes to it. Please consider rechecking and telling me what else I can do to improve this page Blair Chiropractic Society. Yazid Abdullah (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please read our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. The article has been deleted because there was no indication of there being any significance. To have an article stay in Wikipedia,you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you even want to do this? Wikipedia is unashamedly reality-based, the article on chiropractic is factually accurate and thus highly unpopular with the trade. You seem to promote the nonexistent chiropractic subluxation, that's a red flag right there, and it's unlikely that any article will fail to mention that this is nonsense. You also appear to specialise in manipulation of the upper cervical spine, which is the most dangerous form of chiropractic and the worst supported by evidence. Wikipedia is not for PR, so all of this is likely to arrive in the article. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith

I likely already know the answer to this question, but, if I may, your long experience may help me. If a discussion on an editor's talk page blows up unexpectedly, is a suggestion that the discussion be continued in a few days a good way of defusing the situation (as in "there is no deadline")? — Neonorange (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it can be. It can also lead to a secondary conflict such as "you're avoiding dealing with this" but if the specific situation is the advertisement for "Second Life Museum of Nuclear Warfare" placed on your page, the best course is to ignore it. I will deal with the editor involved. If it is about the Bloody Sunday disambiguation page, the place for the discussion is on the talk page for the redirect, and I've commented there. I am always puzzled by our sequences of 3RR and similar--there is no way of handling this that does not give one side or other the advantage. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's sort of circular. I think winning a collaborator should be the starting point when there are differences. Discussion may win great benefit for the project. If that doesn't work out, well, there are lots of other pages to work on. I'm still struggling with what replaces face-to-face contact in Wikipedia. I always felt, when I worked on interviews for network news, that facilitating the interviewee's expression of their points led to the best result.

On that note, have you ever thought of touring speakers as a way of building the Wikipedia movement? — User:Neonorange (Phil)

12:31:13, 24 January 2017 review of submission by IpsenGesche

IpsenGesche (talk · contribs)
- Draft:John Hands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not requesting a re-review, but it would be helpful to know which parts of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Hands seem over-inflated to you. I'll gladly change them. 12:31, January 24, 2017‎ User:IpsenGesche

162.245.21.61 (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, since this is the only article you have written, it would seem likely you are the author or a member of the family, or a close associate. Read WP:COI, and add the appropriate connected contributor tag. Experience has shown that people cannot write their own biographies here in an encyclopedic manner--they either say too much or too little.

Then, focus on the actual notability. It's mainly the authorship of a well-received book; for it, cite only published reviews: list them as references, with the quote if any in the footnote. The fiction seems less important, since they are in not many libraries, but can be mentioned, and so can the book on housing. We usually don't even list reports, or workshops, or talks.

Shorten the bio--we usually do not list details of a college career unless there's a major national-level position.

As for style, don't use Full capitals. Don't repeat the same things in several sections. And minor material, such as your amateur athletic accomplishments are not relevant to notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IpsenGesche (talk · contribs)
- Draft:John Hands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you very much for explaining. I will fix this now. I am not a member of his family, rather part of his publisher in the UK. Is that acceptable, assuming that I make the changes you note?

request for guidance

Hello DGG. We met nearly a year ago when you kindly helped me get started as a Wikipedian. I hope you are doing well. An artist monograph was published last fall by Predmore Press, an independent publisher which I control. The announced publishing date was October 24, 2016 and the book is titled Renee Radell Web of Circumstance. Award-winning author Eleanor Heartney wrote the 10,000 word essay about the life and work of my mother Renee. We filed the book with the Copyright Office. My question is whether I can add this book (and the Predmore Press website) as a reference to the Renee Radell page or what would be the best approach to avoid a conflict. The book (hardback, 220 pages, over 200 color plates) is quite comprehensive with detailed biographical information, past reviews, and a complete reprint of an article written in 1974 by Russell Kirk in the Detroit News. Thank you for any suggestions and guidance about the proper way to introduce this book to the Wikipedia community. Best, OtterNYC (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Heartney is an established author on contemporary art, especially on women artists. Many of whose book have been published by well-known prestigious publishers, though some have been published by galleries or small publishers. (And we really need an article on her. ) This book however is not yet in WorldCat, so I don't think there's any way it could be added ay all, and in any case your are too much involved to do it. Ask me again when it has gotten reviews for reliable publications. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editors

Hey DGG, what do we do about them? This fellow, JAGG102502Group has written Jaros, Baum & Bolles (JB&B) in their sandbox, and has moved into articlespace themselves using the AfC wizard. The built up seven random edits before writing about this company. I can trim the article of its cruft, etc., no problem, but the broader picture- any views? Seems completely against the spirit of community oversight, if nothing else. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I moved it back to draft for now, otherwise it's arguably WP:CSD#G11. I don't know if this is undiscloised paid editing or just clueless PR people. The latter are a lot more common, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)This is an odd one, he claims to be a PR person but only sorta kinda here on his own time to write about the same topics that he's paid to do, not these particular articles. Hard to understand (or explain). I just left a username warning. More concerning is a possible-to-probable copyvio hosting of a book published by the corp written about [3]. Naturally, copyvio issues about materials provided by the client are a frequent problem with UPEs. - Brianhe (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)#3. "JAGG" leads straight here. That's probably not a co-incidence. Something has to be done before we suffocate under the weight of this. My only thought so far (and that doesn't mean it's a good one!) is to try to modify the G11 criterion to include any page created by an UPE – which by its very nature must perforce be an advertisement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I apologize for my lack of familiarity with the conventions of Wikipedia, but I am a relatively new user and publishing an article has proven to be more of a challenge than I thought it would be. "Clueless" is probably a fair assessment. To clarify, I am a professional writer, editor and consultant. Most of my work involves architecture, engineering, environmental consulting and construction companies, though it is not limited to these professions. (AECInsight is my blog; I'm clearly not trying to hide this fact.) I became familiar with JB&B through a client who does some work for them. They are a notable firm in that they are more than a century old and have worked on some of the most celebrated buildings in the world. I also find them similar to a company that I recently left -- Fay, Spofford & Thorndike -- which was also a prominent engineering firm that lasted more than 100 years before being acquired by a much larger firm (Stantec). FST never had a Wikipedia page as far as I know. However, several other major firms in the industry do -- AECOM, Stantec, Arup and many others. So, when I decided to do a page on JB&B, I modeled it after the better (and less promotional) of these. I also looked at some direct competitors such as Cosentini, Weidlinger and DLR Group. One I focused on, in particular, was Syska Hennessy, which is slightly larger, but otherwise very similar to JB&B. With this draft, I believe I have written an encyclopedia article about a noteworthy company that just presents the facts and doesn't promote the company. No logo, sales language, direct passages from the website or marketing literature, etc.). I tried to be sure that everything I wrote was supportable by an external, reliable source, which is why there is such a high number of citations. As for any breaches of protocol -- such as the listing of partners -- I appreciate any help in resolving these (though I included this listing because many other companies have them). I hope we can resolve any problems with this article because JB&B clearly deserves to be here, as evidenced by the high number of references to other Wikipedia pages. It is one of the 20 largest MEP firms in the U.S. and has worked on such a range of recognizable buildings for such a long time. This page is the reason I joined as a Wikipedia editor (and I did try out a few edits first before jumping in, as someone astutely noted). Honestly, though, I'm a bit hooked and look forward to contributing more. As for JB&B, I appreciate any assistance you can offer in getting the page acceptable for publication and to help me get better at this. Thank you. JAGG102502 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)JAGG102502[reply]

JAGG102502 (talk · contribs) we interpret promotionalism quite broadly--it means much more than downright advertising. The distinction I usually make is that if it is aimed at a potential client, customer, donor, or associate rather than the general reader, it's promotionalism, but there are other forms also. Excess detail can be promotionalism, because it can have the effect of showing the subject more important that it is in actuality. By that standard, the article is promotional. The firm designs infrastructure, and has designed the infrastructure of many notable buildings with WP articles. It is enough to make a link to those articles, not describe the building in detail for its general aspects. It has collaborated with most notable architecture firms: a list might be appropriate, but not describing the firms in detail.

With respect to notability: This is a firm that designs building infrastructure, not overall structure. Its work affects how well buildings function, not how well they appear. It will therefore be relatively difficult to show notability, for infrastructure is not the basis of most architecture awards. The awards section in the article deals with awards not familiar to most of us--in general it is much more important to win a first prize than any lesser prize; in general a prize must be at a national, not local level. As far as I can tell from its website, not even the ACEC "Diamond Award" is highest level: several dozen are awarded each year. The highest level seems to be their Grand Concept Award, which the firm has never won.

Justlettersandnumbers, I would approve of a speedy deletion criterion for undeclared paid editing. It should however be a separate criterion, because of the difficult of proof--this does not actually appear to be paid editing according to the current rules, though there might possibly be some conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG (talk · contribs) Interesting. I mistakenly assumed that providing more detail, and the associated references, would lend credibility. Instead, it raised red flags. I could have saved time and trouble by ratcheting it back substantially. I really appreciate the explanation and completely understand. You are correct about the Grand Conceptor being the top prize in the industry and, to my knowledge, they have never won it. Your point about architecture is noted as well, though MEP engineers often share the credit for the aesthetics of a building (as do structural engineers and others). For this reason, I believe that the reference to the NYT best of architecture is relevant in this case. I will take a stab at applying the changes you suggest and hope I can get the article to a point where it meets all requirements. Thank you again. I really am enjoying participating in the editing process and hope to continue contributing across a variety of subject areas.JAGG102502 (talk)

DGG (talk · contribs) I've changed this article substantially, keeping in mind the spirit of this discussion (Is this notable? Will this inform the reader?) I'm probably still a little heavy on references, but I've seen it done both ways and chose to err on the side of too many as it's easier for someone to cut than add in this case. My dilemma is, what is the next step? Move it to article status again and hope for the best? I'd submit it for review, but there clearly was no shortage of reviewers last time. (I also added detail to my user page to give a better sense of what I do and why I do it.) Thanks again for the guidance.JAGG102502 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG (talk · contribs)I moved it back to article status, figuring you have a lot of other issues to deal with and assuming enough are watching that it should get a quick review. Hoping it wasn't a colossal waste of time. (Which it apparently was because Help! promptly deleted it. I don't think I'll write here any more because the unfounded accusation in the title is probably not helping my cause.) Thanks again. JAGG102502 (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup on Fay, Spofford & Thorndike and marked it patrolled. The sourcing is awfully weak and it's a legit candidate for redirection to the parent company. DGG likes to have "first dibs" on his talkpage so I'll stop with that and reply later if it seems appropriate. - Brianhe (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding dab hatnote removals at Nissan Caravan and Dodge Caravan

Hi David, please consider intervening/commenting on the repeated dab hatnote removals[4][5][6][7] on the Nissan Caravan and Dodge Caravan articles and/or please bring the matter to the attention of other admins who may do so.
[BTW, FWIW, soon after making my last reversion at Nissan Caravan it occurred to me to revert myself and seek admin assistance instead but an attempt to do so resulted in an edit conflict as Mr.choppers had already reverted said revert; ie. I do recognize I've made reverts as well and I am feeling uncomfortable with the quantity and general redundancy of them; however, please do note that while I have been reverting User:Mr.choppers he has been reverting myself, User:Regushee, and whomever put in place the original dab hatnotes (which had sat in place unmolested for months).]
--Kevjonesin (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented, saying to keep the hatnote, and I think that was the consensus, but I cannot close an RfC in which I have already commented. Could someone else look at this, because I think it's a matter of one idiosyncratic editor trying to justify their interpretation of the rules against clear consensus. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was more seeking authoritative comment/analysis on conduct and protocol than RfC closing per se. Holding a 'Keep/Remove' !vote while the initiating editor has already removed the items in question seems Orwellian to me. And Mr.choppers having initiated the RfC by slapping a template under the ongoing heading "Useless dab tags" seems contrary to guidelines both in presumptive POV title use and formatting. Also I question whether "Economy, trade, and companies" might be the best audience to draw on for establishing generalized DAB policy. If you know of an appropriate admin who might offer constructive opinion and oversight please direct them to the proceedings and/or bring them to my attention so that I may do so. --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

שוחרת/Corinna Hasofferett

I don't know how I have become asked on this matter, but it is outside my competency alone to get involved. Due to its special BLP nature could you please take a moment to investigate? The pages are:

Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links to journals and magazines not directly accessible via the web

Businessweek and Forbes did features on a subject I'm editing. The articles date from the late 1990's and are available as downloadable PDFs from the NYPL -- but only if you have a library card. This problem must have come up before -- what's the common practice of linking to them so they can be used as references? Can I download them and archive them? The PDFs show the hard copy of the magazines page by page. Thanks!

Sam Perkins

Sam Perkins (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You link to the printed source, using the templates for {{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} as appropriate. You simply omit the sections where it talks about the url, etc. We do not refer to photocopies of pdfs in our private collection. People who want to verify will need to go to the source, not to your pdf, which is merely an unpublished copy. . DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth_Koshy_(actress)

Check out Elizabeth_Koshy_(actress), was repeatedly created and finally salted. Now, there's Elizabeth_Koshy_(entertainer). Anything shifty going on? Warrants a CSD or another salt? I don't know the background of this case and only am aware of this since I watch Elizabeth Koshy--another person altogether. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. Here's another Liza_Koshy_(entertainer). Why are there so many new users so keen to create this...Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The creator's recent contribs (Special:Contributions/CJsteals) show that this was recreated, moved to WP namepace and then they moved their own user + talk to the article. What's going on. This is all from Draft:Liza Koshy. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:New York Daily News

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York Daily News. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Yogesh Chabria

Hi DGG,

Thanks for sharing your views and deleting the article on Yogesh Chabria. You seem quite experienced and would like your help on how we can make it relevant and post it while complying with all guidelines? I will confess that I do enjoy reading his books and watching his videos.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunitakappor (talk • contribs) 09:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunitakappor (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunita

First, read [[Wikipedia:cOI[[ and <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use> (and <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure>) and make the necessary declarations. Then read [WP:N(author)]]--you need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Most of the references in any version of the article were no more than brief notices, and the others were press releases, The material on entrepreeur.com and the Standard are basically the subject talking about himself. The Network 18 item is listed as an "announcement" which means it too is a press release. The other references are too trivial to mean anything.

"When you have much more substantial true 3rd party references, then try again--without them, it's hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 10:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPP

The current state of New Page Patrol with its backlog of 16,000 unabated since October last year is enough to turn the most conscientious admin into a rampant deletionist. 300 Reviewers and not more than an average of 200 pages being reviewed every day. Seems to me the only solution is to roll out ACTRIAL after all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificentmike

Hey, I noticed that you proposed Lendingkart Group Wikipedia article for deletion. However, i agree the article needs improvements and I'am trying my best to add more informative sources. Also, this company should stay in Wikipedia because they are one of the top ranked SME financing company in India that comes after Capital Float.

As you must be aware that it's my first Wiki article and getting little help from your end will be valuable for me. Thanks

Magnificentmike (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the article does not make the claim to be second largest.

Then, we judge whether or not the company is important enough to have an article by whether there are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements . Unfortunately, all of the references currently in thea rticle are either mere notice, or Press Releases. Evens the Times of India refs are just repeating what the company says--they make that clear on the face of the article. Therefore, they amount to press releases.

Third , the article isto a considerable extent an advertisement. It has content that praises the company, not describes it. " has been innovative" "to facilitate an easy and collateral-free working capital loans " "aids in faster decision-making"

Finally, just in case it applies, I need to make you aware of our WP:Conflict of Interest rules, and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure . DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got that!! Thanks a ton for making me aware with rules and terms of use. Will make sure to follow them strictly. Thank you so much for your kind help.

Magnificentmike (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond F. Schinazi

Hello,

This is all very new to me and I am assisting with resolving this deletion issue. Dr. Raymond F. Schinazi's Wikipedia page was deleted and I am trying to have it reinstated. I believe user JzG was the primary person on this but his page says he is taking a small break and I wasn't able to locate the "talk" area and it noted on his page that you help with issues when he's unavailable.

I initially put the inquiry into the bot talk area and the response I got was "The bot did its job, as redirects to deleted pages are deleted as well. The page in question (Raymond Schinazi) was a redirect to Raymond F. Schinazi, which was deleted by JzG. You should discuss the page deletion at User talk:JzG. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)"

Can you please help me learn how the Raymond F. Schinazi page can be reinstated without a redirect from Raymond Schinazi?

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.104.2 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

170.140.104.2, the problem is the deletion, not whether of not w have a redirect from various of the name. JzG I agree that the intent in writing the articles was promotional, and I therefore think it was probably within the sphere of G11. But he is after all not just notable, but unquestionably notable under WP:PROF, I think to the extent that this is one of the exceptions where the article could be rewritten instead of deleted. Most of it is completely standard in the form of any of our articles about scientists. But , 170.140.104.2, the tone is indeed wrong for an encyclopedia . It uses adjectives of praise that are totally unnecessary, it uses his name and title as often as possible (we normally just say " he") , it erroneously calls him the author of books for which in every case he was not the author, but only one of the editors, it does not give references to his actual most cited papers, but just talks vaguely and inaccurately about his contributions (for example. he was not the inventor of Stavudine or discoverer of its therapeutic use--similarly for Lamivudine, & seems to have had no connection at all with with Sovaldi. It uses references in the form of cite web instead of the more informative cite news or cite journal,& it uses altogether too many nonindependent references.

There's worse. The article was started already in its promotional form by an editor who never did anything else here, worked on extensively by another such editor, and finally worked on extensively by an editor who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of an editor blocked for disruptive editing. I therefore must remind you, also, about our rules on [[WP:Conflict of Interst[[ and our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure

I (& I think JzG) would say that work of this sort must be deleted regardless of notability as hopelessly contaminated. An uninvolved editor will need to a replacement article But since he is very much within my field of interest, I may start a stub article myself. If I or anyone else does, I strongly urge that you and any other COI editor stay completely away from it. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Show us a decent draft, and let others judge, but the deleted article was promotional, virtually all edits by single-purpose editors, and much of it by Leo9004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who I believe was violating the terms of use by engaging in undisclosed paid editing. I'm afraid I don't have a lot of time for spammers like that. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:01:01, 31 January 2017 review of submission by Beckcurran

Beckcurran (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Anette Prehn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I would like to address some of your comments regarding my article submission - you say it does not satisty WP:Prof criteria, but the article does not state she is a professor or academic.

She is an business woman and author of 5 published books (not 2 as you mentioned) and I have included a number of independent reviews, and have now added more.

You say it fails WP:GNG as one substantial 3rd party reference only - but there are several references to articles & interviews from some of the largest Danish daily broadsheet newspapers including Politiken, Borsen, Jyllands Posten and more. (most of which have their own wikipedia pages).

Please see link to PDF of a main feature in Jyllands Posten Weekend edition which I can include if needed: http://hjernesmart.dk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Jyllands-Posten-31.12.16.pdf

I have addressed all the other reviewers comments and the last reviewer said I just needed to include more book reviews which I have done.

I would appreciate if you can reconsider this for approval.

Thank you Beckcurran (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, considering that you have worked on one two article, the one on her and the one on her training program, Draft:Framestorm, duplicating much of the content, it seems quite possible that you have some degree of conflict of interest. Please reread WP:COI and our Terms of Use, including the rules on paid contributions without disclosure. Both articles are essentially advertisements. Wikipedia is not intended for that purpose. You are not compelled to respond, but it would clarify the situation. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]