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
Hi DGG - Not sure about this one... — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- just looking at library holdings, he's almost certainly notable at least as author. The article needs some extensive revisions, which I started. The revisions are enough to defer it for 6 months, & I'll get it fixed on the next round if it doesn't get fixed sooner. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Message added 02:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀ 02:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, DGG. One more professor for you. — Anne Delong ( talk) 10:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to go thru all the steps:
- .It's a complete copyvio of his official p. at Griffith University [1], where he's a visitor. . Had I not found it there, I would have looked for the one at his home university, Laval. First step with a page on any member of an organization, or on an organization). If they don't give it themselves, it's all the more likely.
- often the copyvio page is so bad that in addition to deleting it, I make clear in the message that there's no point in suggesting the give permission. This isn't that bad, tho we would do some rearrangement to put the bio before the work. If he were of very highest international quality, I might even simply rewrite.
- He's not, so the question is whether he is notable enough to support an article. He has no books , but he's in a field where not all good people do. Book chapters are normally ignored. Looking at his papers , I see not that they are not in recognizable 1st rate journals, but I know I might fail to recognize all the major journals in this subject field.
- Looking in Google Scholar (and sorting out from other "AM Gould" s by subject-field, I see the most cited has9 cites, which is clearly not going to be enough. (there's one possible with 33, but looking at the publisher's abstract to see the author's institution, it's not likely to be him)
- Double checking with his publication list, because the article specifies J. L. Hist. is a reputable journal , and in ISI, & I would expect a publication there to be cited, I look for a list at the other references listed. At Cornell, where he was a visiting fellow, I find only the identical bio; The CIRA p. does not list members. The Laval one is the p. for a Laval Journal for which he is a book reviewer (another indication he might not be notable, for one would not normally include that if one had anything more substantial).
- I then look for his faculty page at Laval, and find a listing as Anthony Morven Gould. It doesn;'t lead to a web p., just an email, browsing around the site, Ii find in Expertise under Recherche (only in the French version of the bilingual site) [2]. Under its "Les sites individuels des professeurs chercheurs" I do not find him. I then go to Google and find [3] and find a little more, but still no publication list. Every academic has a CV with a full publication list, tho they are sometimes not accessible on line. His does not seem to be.
- There's a problem with his title "Professeur agrégé" In the French university system, this is not a full professorship and does not carry tenure (it's primarily the rank of teachers in the higher secondary schools ) In Quebec, I do not know; they do not follow the French university system. Looking at University of Montreal, I find it corresponds to Associate professor, not full professor.
Therefore, I would suggest you simply mark it for delete as copyvio. I hold off a little so you can see it. There's no point telling him to rewrite it, because it will not be accepted in any case, but there's also no point in saying that if it isn't necessary. I can now also clear up our articles on the various ranks. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, you really dug into that one! Thanks for applying your expertise. I should have noticed the copyvio. — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi DGG, Could you take a look at Jebi Mather Hisham when you have time. As far as I can tell she fails WP:NPOL. But per WP:POLOUTCOMES - "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics." I'd appreciate your input. Regards, NQ talk 18:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- it seemed simpler to list it at afd and give my opinion there. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jebi Mather Hisham. (I was also thinking about G11, but though the intent is promotional, the wording isn't). Good catch. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
i have read the policies for deleting, and much more, it states that an article that has an open discussion or was approved by and administrator cannot be put up for deleting again besides it also mentions there are other alternatives disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. why are you doing this for Multiverse then? Jose Cuello ( talk) 06:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Message added 02:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀ 02:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello DGG; Dennis is unavailable right now, so would you be willing to help out with my AfD mentoring ( User:StringTheory11/AfD)? I would greatly appreciate it. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 05:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi DGG, don't you think Martin & Meditations on the South Valley should be moved back again to AfC? It is almost entirely self-cited to itself. There are no reliable secondary sources. Sionk ( talk) 23:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is cited to itself as a factual description of the content as is not only permitted but preferred; it is cited to a recognized authority in literature for interpretation. (Levertov is indeed writing in the introduction to the book, which is not completely independent, but sufficiently independent for a famous authority in her field.) As for notability, the book won a significant award. I consider this enough to start with. It would obviously be even better if more were added, and I shall do that in the next few days. The informal guideline for putting an article in mainspace is that it probably would not be deleted at afd; some people interpret "probably" at 50%; I personally use a higher standard of 60 or 70%.
- The justification for this is that in mainspace the article is exposed to the general editing and reading community, and will be seen and added to in the same way as other WP articles. In draft space it will be seen by almost nobody, unless the original author should miraculously appear--which happens about 1% of the time. In fact, I consider it an error that it was not accepted initially, and a further error--my own error--that in initially reviewing it after 6 months I postponed decision rather than accepting it then and there. I went to a large part by the appearance of insufficient sources, with out looking carefully to see if the sources supported the content.
- I very much appreciate it that you are looking at material I accept--I need this sort of criticism to make sure I continue to align myself with community standards. I don't think I went to far in this one, but I know by experience that I eventually make some errors. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I just saw a note that you contested the prod of the Talk:Capt. William Bull Tavern. I thank you for that! I've been going about researching different properties and making a bunch of Good Articles in the process, bringing all that I am able to find with my research to bear on these types of articles. It may be small now, but I'll likely have it at Good Article Nominations before too long. Thanks for halting the deletion of a notable and (very much historic) property, I probably would not have been able to recreate it easily if not for your action. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 21:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I reported this at Wikiproject Biology, but it was deleted before anyone could look at it. Is it worth reviving? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I restored it to permit improvement. This is a tricky one; though I previously commented "clearly notable", I have since realized that I am not really completely sure of notability. It will need further work to improve the article as possible, and then afd can decide. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hallo David, you expanded this substantially but it's now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Jonker - you might like to have a look. Pam D 12:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
There are problems at Robert Spitzer (political scientist) and I brought this complaint to WP:AN for reasons explained in detail there. Both now and when the issue came up back in January I find that I have a hard time getting editors to understand what an academic researcher does, how it differs from being an advocate for something, and why being an unbiased researcher matters to an academic career. My latest attempt at explanation is here. Could you take a look at this? Thanks. StarryGrandma ( talk) 06:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I responded to the problem as I saw it. For future reference, I think it's generally fairer to just notify me of a problem, not guide me to what I should look at. My practice is to say who notified me, but not to pay too much attention to what position that person takes, tho I usually can't avoid seeing it
DGG (
talk ) 13:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking. My question was more a matter of wondering why I wasn't able to be more effective. Thanks for your careful response on the talk page. You are right about Spitzer working in a controversial area and needing to deal with being characterized as an advocate. I was upset by Spitzer's concern over the problems on his page back in January and now. I wish there was some way of limiting Wikipedia disputes to Wikipedia.
- I suppose more content on the page about the rest of his academic career would help reduce any undue weight. I had hoped to avoid editing there. I will wait a while and if the current set of editors don't build it up I will put in his academic development, etc. StarryGrandma ( talk) 02:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi DGG, if it isn't a bother, could you take a quick look and review - Robert E. Olds, Joseph P. Cotton, Marcus M. Haskell, Osgood T. Hadley and Henry A. Hammel These are my first five article creations, I'm in the process of creating rest of the missing Civil War recipients of the Medal of Honor. There seems to be quite a backlog at New Page Patrol. Regards, NQ talk 22:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Only the MOH citation is copied verbatim from the Public domain material. The general note added is a template {{ACMH}} . I am not sure there is a parameter to include exactly which portion is copied. NQ talk 02:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I will find a way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
1) Would this userpage qualify for G5? And 2) What is your opinion on another RfA from me, given another 6 months or so of sustained activity? Reason I ask is that in working with draft articles recently, I find that if I had the mop I wouldn't have to place G6 tags on drafts that needed to be merged (I could just do it myself), and I could delete those that were tagged with G2 also. ArcAngel (talk) ) 17:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- as far as I can tell from the block log and the SPI investigation, the user page was created before the user was blocked. It would have to be done through MfD.
- The continuing activity should include a variety of activities. You might want to recheck some of your article creations to see if they would still meet your standards, and possibly write a few more. It would also help to do definitive decisions on more afc pages, instead of just moving them. (and giving a few the complete rewrite they need would also help show content creation). Be warned however that if people want to oppose, they will use any reason they can find, no matter how old or irrelevant.
DGG (
talk ) 00:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Re: G5 - Ok, I'll send it to Mfd. Re: RFA - Yea, it can be rigorous, and I do plan to do more as far as content creation goes as from what I have seen the past few years there, that seems to be one of the main reasons for opposing - but also one of the reasons I am sticking my hand in the AfC fire at the moment.
. I also want to improve on my CSD taggings, as on the two RFA's I have been through, that was the main reason for the opposes on both. Thanks for the advice, I will go through my articles and see if they are actually up to the standards of Wikipedia.
ArcAngel
(talk) ) 00:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Re: G5 - Ok, I'll send it to Mfd. Re: RFA - Yea, it can be rigorous, and I do plan to do more as far as content creation goes as from what I have seen the past few years there, that seems to be one of the main reasons for opposing - but also one of the reasons I am sticking my hand in the AfC fire at the moment.
Hi David
Would you kindly take look at Draft:David_Germano - I'm asking as I see you made some improvements on an article about David Germano's colleague Kurtis Schaeffer. I'm puzzled why the article on Schaeffer was acceptable while the one on Germano was declined. Germano is certainly prominent in his field, and as the Editor in Chief of JIATS right away appears to meet the Criteria for inclusion (#8). He is also the founder and director of the Tibetan and Himalayan Library (www.thlib.org) - a truly major digital resource in the field of Tibetan and Himalayan Studies. Thanks Chris Fynn ( talk) 15:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I accepted it. The criterion for acceptance at AfC is a reasonable chance that the article will pass WP:AFD. In thiscase, the relevant standard is WP:PROF, and he probably meets it. (I cannot say certainly will be accepted at AfD, because there has been resistance there in the past for people in the humanities, definitely including religion, and especially in fields whose publications or career record do not fit into the convention pattern,. If challenged, let me know, I will certainly defend it, but I cannot count on seeing the discussion unless you tell me) Don't expect consistency at RfA--at least 25% of the reviews over the last few years have been unhelpful--or clearly wrong. It's a little better now, but only a little. This is a relatively new reviewer--I will try to explain to them.
- BTW, we need some basic biography--date and place of birth, dates of degrees. , DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Would you revisit this draft of an article continue to revise? First, I simply would like to know HOW to move it to the Article for Creation without losing the data and content. This is the existing link:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Carbone_Smolan_Agency
Per advice, I have deleted quotes from the agency, delete names of others mentioned and simplified so that I now hope that this will soon become the FIRST accepted article for publication in series of similar about leaders in the field of American Graphic Design. I believe that I have answered all the latest concerns raised by other Wiki editors about the story. Porterwritewiki ( talk) 21:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have moved the article (which I think you had moved to User:PorterWritewiki:Carbone Smolan Agency to the currently preferred place, Draft:PorterWritewiki:Carbone Smolan Agency.
- The first thing to do is to reorganize in our standard arrangement: there should be one lede paragraph, without any section heading, acting as a summary of the others; it does not have to be referenced, because the references will be in the following paragraphs. . The usual first paragraph of the main body is a history of the company. I would suggest following that by a section of "Works", as for a creative artist. The individual major works should be subsections of that. Then comes the awards, though it may be somewhat redundant with the works--it would normally include only national or international awards, and the more selective the better it indicates notability.
- Second the references need to be cited in one of our standard forms, which must include the title and author of the item, the place & date it was published in both print and online (if both are applicable), and (if applicable) the date the link was accessed. The best way is to use the templates--see WP:CITEBEGIN for the basic explanation. Do not use the word "see" -- it's implied by the reference. List them only once, as footnotes, not also in a separate section at the end. Do use a section at the end "External Links" for such things as their web site. If youare citing print,
- third, try if at all possible to find a freely licensed illustration, or one for which you have obtained permission. It should ideally be one of their works--a single fair use illustration is possible, if you write an adequate justification.
- fourth, try to write without using adjectives or expressions of praise of excellence. Let the plain facts show it. Write compactly. Avoid vague expressions like "such as..." Use only the last name of people after the first mention (or even better, "he" or "they"). Avoid jargon like "communicate principles and convictions"
- Let me know when you think it's ready, DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this looks good. Can you review and approve it? Bearian ( talk) 22:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Another user has nominated an additional article for deletion from the century old Welsh elections list Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aberdare_Urban_District_Council_election,_1902 I was thinking of notifying the participants in the DRV, but did not know if that would run afoul of WP:CANVASS - As this new nomination is likely to either reinforce the micro-precedent set in the previous discussion, or be used as evidence for overturning that decision, what do you think would be the best way to get wider participation and try to get a real consensus that might help inform future actions? Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not too good at evaluating the notability of academics and I know you are; what do you think of this one? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't checked the publications yet, but very likely to be notable. I did some basic editing. This is standard university-press release writing, and there may be copyvio.
DGG (
talk ) 02:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, will be adding back info and reordering per Vasant Dhar's request (ex: para about children, deleted fields, titles). Thanks, Stern IOMS ( talk) 15:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Stern IOMS ( talk · contribs)< you are an editor with a conflict of interest, and have added back material that is inappropriate. I've adjusted the article to a more standard form, used correct italics and links,and removed additional minor material. There's more needed. You may make suggestions on the article talk page, but not edit the article. We do not add material to articles on request of the subject, as you say you have done--that counts as promotion, which is prohibited. This is an encyclopedia, not a who's who.
- I should add, that looking at the material again, I see the journal is only newly established, and am therefore not sure of notability. If you insist on including puffery, claiming expertise in multiple fields on the basis of having published a single article on it, and relying of press releases and the thoroughly unreliable New York Post for claims of importance in having a key role in founding a university project, the article is much more likely to be nominated for deletion.
DGG (
talk ) 20:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- DGG, by chance I happened upon the article (via BK's talk page). Stern IOMS, I have pruned considerably: various claims made about the subject turned out to have been based on the subject's own publications. I've also removed trivial family information, and the flags from the infobox. I have no real opinion on notability--though I don't see it yet. Drmies ( talk) 21:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- DGG and Drmies, appreciate your dedication to editing this page. Will follow your advice about adding suggestions to the article talk page. Stern IOMS ( talk) 20:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't checked the publications yet, but very likely to be notable. I did some basic editing. This is standard university-press release writing, and there may be copyvio.
DGG (
talk ) 02:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
DGG, would you consider doing an editor evaluation of yours truly? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of draft
"I regret it, but it seems necessary for me to recommend deletion of the draft as unambiguous advertising. I have the power to delete it myself, but I normally prefer that another administrator agree. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)"
Dear Dr Goodman,
We apologize for any perceived impropriety - we intended our response for your academic elucidations. You may proceed to delete our message accordingly.
Also since we take exceptions to some assumptions you've stated we kindly request you delete your unsolicited comments too. Could you please acknowledge?
Wikisjt3 ( talk) 02:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI as first nominator; in particular, your views are requested on the claim that an appointment as "Distinguished Entrepreneur-in-Residence" meets WP:PROF #5. JohnCD ( talk) 14:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to offer your two cents here. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- commented - DGG
Hi DGG. This semi-retired professor is cited all over the place. I added a few book references. Can you pass your expert eye over it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The best screen for notability for anyone in the humanities is WorldCat, which immediately shows he received a Festschrift. And if anyone has an article in Grove, he's notable. As is often the case, the article is not organized to clearly show the factors that make for notability here. But it needs some adjustments: we don't include journal articles in the bibliography.
- It was immediately acceptable as it was originally submitted, even without your improvements. As a demonstration, I'm accepting it first and will fix it later, in order to clarify that any article with a reasonable chance of passing afd (which some people define as >1/2, but I look for >2/3), should be accepted. This was 100%.
DGG (
talk ) 14:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- I thought you'd like it. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- ( talk page stalker) A point of order here. Is the disambig (musicologist) really needed on this draft? I don't believe it is as there are no other articles named Frank D’Accone. ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png. Thanks.
Dogmaticeclectic (
talk) 18:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You recently docketed a page for the community service group "Lion's Heart" as promotional, necessitating deletion. I was working with user Dodger67 on it, about how to remove any promotional language and to get references and everything else properly set to Wikipedia standards. I've worked with Lion's Heart, Alpha Phi Omega, Boy Scouts of America, and other community groups. Seeing as they did not have a page, I thought it would be a good first page for me to attempt. Apparently this isn't the case. Perhaps you could offer some insight into how to improve the page?
I see that you have some essays written, and quite a bit of text about Wikipedia and how it works- I shall endeavor to read and remove any promotional language. For now, my assumption is that using the same newspaper for a few of the reference citations was not prudent, and needs to be corrected. (If you've already written topics on this, please don't feel a need to reply, I'm getting around to reading guides on promotional language, as well as the archived Talk topics on your page here about their answers.)
Absolutelyang ( talk) 03:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- I noticed that article when reviewing the afc approvals of that editor, in connection with his request for adminship, which is now pending. I consider it a characteristic example of his incorrect approvals. You removed the Prod tag, as is permitted. I have listed it for an AfD discussion, to see what the community thinks, because I think there is also no substantial notability. See my comments there, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion’s Heart DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey DGG, you're kind of the policy guru here when it comes to policies on book stuff. I'm currently in a discussion with an editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carver Trilogy and I admit, I'm starting to lose my patience a little. Long story short, someone is trying to argue that the trilogy (which is actually called "Ivory Carver Trilogy") is not notable. The individual books have received reviews (many of which can be seen in merchant pages but never made it to the Internet) but the editor is arguing that individual reviews do not count towards overall notability for the series because they don't mention that it's a series or go into depth about it being a series. He's also arguing the trade review angle and while I do understand the argument for that, there's not been an official consensus on that as of yet. (But that's sort of beside the point since there are enough reviews and articles otherwise to show proof of coverage.) Can you just step in and kind of confirm that reviews for the books can show notability for the series? And that it's fairly common to keep an article on a series even when the individual books might not warrant an article to themselves? Some confirmation from a second person would be nice, as it'd confirm that it's not just me making up policies on my own. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much!! I wasn't really getting anywhere with him. I do think that he means well, but it was just getting frustrating. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello DGG,
You mentioned the issue on this page ( /info/en/?search=Community_Child_Care_Co-operative_%28NSW%29) as "Promotional page for local co-op. All non-press release references are about general topics that only mention the organization".
Deletion would be a bit harsh - the organisation is a peak body and non-government organisation in New South Wales, Australia, and represents over 1800 member organisations. The references that you refer to have been edited out, but could you please indicate the non-press release references that should also be removed? Thanks, E.jokovich ( talk) 12:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Refs 2, 3, 4, and 5 are about the general funding of child care in NSW. (similarly 1 in all probability,, tho I can;t see it) Ref 6, 9, and 10 sre general problems. The Coop wrote no. 7, 12, 13, and 15. 8 is the bio of the director. Its reliable as a bio, but doesn't show notability. And the of list of staff members is not of encyclopedic interest.
- But perhaps I misinterpreted. Is this the main agency responsible for all childcare venters in the State, or for all independent centers ? Is it an advisory service, or an administrative service, or a service agency for its members? Can you provide a ref that shows this clearly? If its the book, page numbers and a quote would be needed. How many total centers are under its jurisdiction,or if jurisdiction too strong a word,, now many is it responsible for advising. How many staff, how many students ? I may be able to help you rewrite it for a clearer presentation. DGG ( talk ) 14:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's one for you, DGG. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Danaostomel ( talk · contribs)
I have made several revisions to the first draft I submitted. Overall, the new draft is certainly less of an advertisement and more of an unbiased article that is intended to provide information to the general reader about the company. However, I don't quite understand how there are absolutely no adequate sources. I specifically read over both articles that you provided in your initial rejection as I was writing the first draft, and I considered the sources used by crowdfunding competitors as a model including GoFundMe, KickStarter, and Indiegogo. I know that if I submit my new draft it will likely be rejected once again, but if you could please provide me with help and/or advice so that I can ultimately submit an acceptable article it would be highly appreciated. Danaostomel ( talk) 19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Danaostomel, the first step is to make the tone more objective: use Last names, not first names in referring to people, remove adjectives of praise or importance, avoid the word "you" and anything similarly addressed directly to the reader, and dont use contractions. Read the crowdfundbeat interview, and you will see why it would be considered a press release; it starts:" Deposit a Gift: the most fun, flexible, hassle-free way to raise money online for anything that matters to you."
- I'm also going to look at every article using that website as a source for anything more than routine data. And for the other articles, I expect to do some editing. There's lots of improper material in Wikipedia, but we don't want to add to it. . DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 19:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
i see you deleted the amanda eliasch article and gave your reasoning for doing so. may i then ask on what basis are you still keeping the demet muftuoglu article? comment by 69.22.228.31
- I did not delete it; I declined to accept it in mainspace, though another editor as is their right decided to do so, while making various necessary improvements. . Whether or not to delete it would be a community decision if someone chooses to bring it for a discussion at AfD; I reserve decision for what I say if it is, but my opinion will not be decisive. What else I did was to clarify a total confusion about some of the possibly notable parts of her career, and add some objective references relative to possible notability, instead of the concentration on celebrity gossip that characterised previous editing.
- As for the other article you mention, I've never seen it, but I shall take a look. There certainly is a great deal in Wikipedia that should be removed, but that's no justification for adding yet more inadequate material. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I saw from edit history you had a go at editing the page. I have made some edits too. I believe she clearly meets Wiki notability guidelines. DinkyExpress ( talk) 07:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello DGG - The write up of this professor sounds good, but I can't find much news coverage or other referencing. Maybe it's not in English, or maybe there material in academic sources. What do you think? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- we need to rely on the honors--I cannot evaluate her publication list. But fellow of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters and member of the scientific board of ENS are sufficient distinctions for notability. I've accepted it & done some basic wikfying; it can be improved further eventually. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
One more. I found and added a number of sources. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Borderline. Notability would be by Dean of a law school, which is the head of a school. Whether this meets the standard at WP:PROF is somewhat controversial--I could argue in both ways, though I think I have usually supported it, on the basis that we usually give law and medical schools to some extent as if they were independent,even when they technically are not. Whether or not the GNG is met will depend on interpretation. Using the rule that a reasonable chance is sufficient for acceptance I accepted it , and it can be decided at AfD if anyone challenges it. Better there than relying on just you and me. I have no intention of setting myself up as the arbiter of academic notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gene Stoermer has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I left my own comment on the draft. There is an existing article at Eugene F. Stoermer which looks keepable but should be expanded. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
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
Hi DGG - Not sure about this one... — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- just looking at library holdings, he's almost certainly notable at least as author. The article needs some extensive revisions, which I started. The revisions are enough to defer it for 6 months, & I'll get it fixed on the next round if it doesn't get fixed sooner. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Message added 02:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀ 02:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, DGG. One more professor for you. — Anne Delong ( talk) 10:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to go thru all the steps:
- .It's a complete copyvio of his official p. at Griffith University [1], where he's a visitor. . Had I not found it there, I would have looked for the one at his home university, Laval. First step with a page on any member of an organization, or on an organization). If they don't give it themselves, it's all the more likely.
- often the copyvio page is so bad that in addition to deleting it, I make clear in the message that there's no point in suggesting the give permission. This isn't that bad, tho we would do some rearrangement to put the bio before the work. If he were of very highest international quality, I might even simply rewrite.
- He's not, so the question is whether he is notable enough to support an article. He has no books , but he's in a field where not all good people do. Book chapters are normally ignored. Looking at his papers , I see not that they are not in recognizable 1st rate journals, but I know I might fail to recognize all the major journals in this subject field.
- Looking in Google Scholar (and sorting out from other "AM Gould" s by subject-field, I see the most cited has9 cites, which is clearly not going to be enough. (there's one possible with 33, but looking at the publisher's abstract to see the author's institution, it's not likely to be him)
- Double checking with his publication list, because the article specifies J. L. Hist. is a reputable journal , and in ISI, & I would expect a publication there to be cited, I look for a list at the other references listed. At Cornell, where he was a visiting fellow, I find only the identical bio; The CIRA p. does not list members. The Laval one is the p. for a Laval Journal for which he is a book reviewer (another indication he might not be notable, for one would not normally include that if one had anything more substantial).
- I then look for his faculty page at Laval, and find a listing as Anthony Morven Gould. It doesn;'t lead to a web p., just an email, browsing around the site, Ii find in Expertise under Recherche (only in the French version of the bilingual site) [2]. Under its "Les sites individuels des professeurs chercheurs" I do not find him. I then go to Google and find [3] and find a little more, but still no publication list. Every academic has a CV with a full publication list, tho they are sometimes not accessible on line. His does not seem to be.
- There's a problem with his title "Professeur agrégé" In the French university system, this is not a full professorship and does not carry tenure (it's primarily the rank of teachers in the higher secondary schools ) In Quebec, I do not know; they do not follow the French university system. Looking at University of Montreal, I find it corresponds to Associate professor, not full professor.
Therefore, I would suggest you simply mark it for delete as copyvio. I hold off a little so you can see it. There's no point telling him to rewrite it, because it will not be accepted in any case, but there's also no point in saying that if it isn't necessary. I can now also clear up our articles on the various ranks. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, you really dug into that one! Thanks for applying your expertise. I should have noticed the copyvio. — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi DGG, Could you take a look at Jebi Mather Hisham when you have time. As far as I can tell she fails WP:NPOL. But per WP:POLOUTCOMES - "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics." I'd appreciate your input. Regards, NQ talk 18:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- it seemed simpler to list it at afd and give my opinion there. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jebi Mather Hisham. (I was also thinking about G11, but though the intent is promotional, the wording isn't). Good catch. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
i have read the policies for deleting, and much more, it states that an article that has an open discussion or was approved by and administrator cannot be put up for deleting again besides it also mentions there are other alternatives disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. why are you doing this for Multiverse then? Jose Cuello ( talk) 06:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Message added 02:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀ 02:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello DGG; Dennis is unavailable right now, so would you be willing to help out with my AfD mentoring ( User:StringTheory11/AfD)? I would greatly appreciate it. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 05:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi DGG, don't you think Martin & Meditations on the South Valley should be moved back again to AfC? It is almost entirely self-cited to itself. There are no reliable secondary sources. Sionk ( talk) 23:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is cited to itself as a factual description of the content as is not only permitted but preferred; it is cited to a recognized authority in literature for interpretation. (Levertov is indeed writing in the introduction to the book, which is not completely independent, but sufficiently independent for a famous authority in her field.) As for notability, the book won a significant award. I consider this enough to start with. It would obviously be even better if more were added, and I shall do that in the next few days. The informal guideline for putting an article in mainspace is that it probably would not be deleted at afd; some people interpret "probably" at 50%; I personally use a higher standard of 60 or 70%.
- The justification for this is that in mainspace the article is exposed to the general editing and reading community, and will be seen and added to in the same way as other WP articles. In draft space it will be seen by almost nobody, unless the original author should miraculously appear--which happens about 1% of the time. In fact, I consider it an error that it was not accepted initially, and a further error--my own error--that in initially reviewing it after 6 months I postponed decision rather than accepting it then and there. I went to a large part by the appearance of insufficient sources, with out looking carefully to see if the sources supported the content.
- I very much appreciate it that you are looking at material I accept--I need this sort of criticism to make sure I continue to align myself with community standards. I don't think I went to far in this one, but I know by experience that I eventually make some errors. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I just saw a note that you contested the prod of the Talk:Capt. William Bull Tavern. I thank you for that! I've been going about researching different properties and making a bunch of Good Articles in the process, bringing all that I am able to find with my research to bear on these types of articles. It may be small now, but I'll likely have it at Good Article Nominations before too long. Thanks for halting the deletion of a notable and (very much historic) property, I probably would not have been able to recreate it easily if not for your action. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 21:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I reported this at Wikiproject Biology, but it was deleted before anyone could look at it. Is it worth reviving? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I restored it to permit improvement. This is a tricky one; though I previously commented "clearly notable", I have since realized that I am not really completely sure of notability. It will need further work to improve the article as possible, and then afd can decide. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hallo David, you expanded this substantially but it's now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Jonker - you might like to have a look. Pam D 12:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
There are problems at Robert Spitzer (political scientist) and I brought this complaint to WP:AN for reasons explained in detail there. Both now and when the issue came up back in January I find that I have a hard time getting editors to understand what an academic researcher does, how it differs from being an advocate for something, and why being an unbiased researcher matters to an academic career. My latest attempt at explanation is here. Could you take a look at this? Thanks. StarryGrandma ( talk) 06:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I responded to the problem as I saw it. For future reference, I think it's generally fairer to just notify me of a problem, not guide me to what I should look at. My practice is to say who notified me, but not to pay too much attention to what position that person takes, tho I usually can't avoid seeing it
DGG (
talk ) 13:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking. My question was more a matter of wondering why I wasn't able to be more effective. Thanks for your careful response on the talk page. You are right about Spitzer working in a controversial area and needing to deal with being characterized as an advocate. I was upset by Spitzer's concern over the problems on his page back in January and now. I wish there was some way of limiting Wikipedia disputes to Wikipedia.
- I suppose more content on the page about the rest of his academic career would help reduce any undue weight. I had hoped to avoid editing there. I will wait a while and if the current set of editors don't build it up I will put in his academic development, etc. StarryGrandma ( talk) 02:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi DGG, if it isn't a bother, could you take a quick look and review - Robert E. Olds, Joseph P. Cotton, Marcus M. Haskell, Osgood T. Hadley and Henry A. Hammel These are my first five article creations, I'm in the process of creating rest of the missing Civil War recipients of the Medal of Honor. There seems to be quite a backlog at New Page Patrol. Regards, NQ talk 22:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Only the MOH citation is copied verbatim from the Public domain material. The general note added is a template {{ACMH}} . I am not sure there is a parameter to include exactly which portion is copied. NQ talk 02:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I will find a way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
1) Would this userpage qualify for G5? And 2) What is your opinion on another RfA from me, given another 6 months or so of sustained activity? Reason I ask is that in working with draft articles recently, I find that if I had the mop I wouldn't have to place G6 tags on drafts that needed to be merged (I could just do it myself), and I could delete those that were tagged with G2 also. ArcAngel (talk) ) 17:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- as far as I can tell from the block log and the SPI investigation, the user page was created before the user was blocked. It would have to be done through MfD.
- The continuing activity should include a variety of activities. You might want to recheck some of your article creations to see if they would still meet your standards, and possibly write a few more. It would also help to do definitive decisions on more afc pages, instead of just moving them. (and giving a few the complete rewrite they need would also help show content creation). Be warned however that if people want to oppose, they will use any reason they can find, no matter how old or irrelevant.
DGG (
talk ) 00:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Re: G5 - Ok, I'll send it to Mfd. Re: RFA - Yea, it can be rigorous, and I do plan to do more as far as content creation goes as from what I have seen the past few years there, that seems to be one of the main reasons for opposing - but also one of the reasons I am sticking my hand in the AfC fire at the moment.
. I also want to improve on my CSD taggings, as on the two RFA's I have been through, that was the main reason for the opposes on both. Thanks for the advice, I will go through my articles and see if they are actually up to the standards of Wikipedia.
ArcAngel
(talk) ) 00:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Re: G5 - Ok, I'll send it to Mfd. Re: RFA - Yea, it can be rigorous, and I do plan to do more as far as content creation goes as from what I have seen the past few years there, that seems to be one of the main reasons for opposing - but also one of the reasons I am sticking my hand in the AfC fire at the moment.
Hi David
Would you kindly take look at Draft:David_Germano - I'm asking as I see you made some improvements on an article about David Germano's colleague Kurtis Schaeffer. I'm puzzled why the article on Schaeffer was acceptable while the one on Germano was declined. Germano is certainly prominent in his field, and as the Editor in Chief of JIATS right away appears to meet the Criteria for inclusion (#8). He is also the founder and director of the Tibetan and Himalayan Library (www.thlib.org) - a truly major digital resource in the field of Tibetan and Himalayan Studies. Thanks Chris Fynn ( talk) 15:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I accepted it. The criterion for acceptance at AfC is a reasonable chance that the article will pass WP:AFD. In thiscase, the relevant standard is WP:PROF, and he probably meets it. (I cannot say certainly will be accepted at AfD, because there has been resistance there in the past for people in the humanities, definitely including religion, and especially in fields whose publications or career record do not fit into the convention pattern,. If challenged, let me know, I will certainly defend it, but I cannot count on seeing the discussion unless you tell me) Don't expect consistency at RfA--at least 25% of the reviews over the last few years have been unhelpful--or clearly wrong. It's a little better now, but only a little. This is a relatively new reviewer--I will try to explain to them.
- BTW, we need some basic biography--date and place of birth, dates of degrees. , DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Would you revisit this draft of an article continue to revise? First, I simply would like to know HOW to move it to the Article for Creation without losing the data and content. This is the existing link:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Carbone_Smolan_Agency
Per advice, I have deleted quotes from the agency, delete names of others mentioned and simplified so that I now hope that this will soon become the FIRST accepted article for publication in series of similar about leaders in the field of American Graphic Design. I believe that I have answered all the latest concerns raised by other Wiki editors about the story. Porterwritewiki ( talk) 21:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have moved the article (which I think you had moved to User:PorterWritewiki:Carbone Smolan Agency to the currently preferred place, Draft:PorterWritewiki:Carbone Smolan Agency.
- The first thing to do is to reorganize in our standard arrangement: there should be one lede paragraph, without any section heading, acting as a summary of the others; it does not have to be referenced, because the references will be in the following paragraphs. . The usual first paragraph of the main body is a history of the company. I would suggest following that by a section of "Works", as for a creative artist. The individual major works should be subsections of that. Then comes the awards, though it may be somewhat redundant with the works--it would normally include only national or international awards, and the more selective the better it indicates notability.
- Second the references need to be cited in one of our standard forms, which must include the title and author of the item, the place & date it was published in both print and online (if both are applicable), and (if applicable) the date the link was accessed. The best way is to use the templates--see WP:CITEBEGIN for the basic explanation. Do not use the word "see" -- it's implied by the reference. List them only once, as footnotes, not also in a separate section at the end. Do use a section at the end "External Links" for such things as their web site. If youare citing print,
- third, try if at all possible to find a freely licensed illustration, or one for which you have obtained permission. It should ideally be one of their works--a single fair use illustration is possible, if you write an adequate justification.
- fourth, try to write without using adjectives or expressions of praise of excellence. Let the plain facts show it. Write compactly. Avoid vague expressions like "such as..." Use only the last name of people after the first mention (or even better, "he" or "they"). Avoid jargon like "communicate principles and convictions"
- Let me know when you think it's ready, DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this looks good. Can you review and approve it? Bearian ( talk) 22:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Another user has nominated an additional article for deletion from the century old Welsh elections list Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aberdare_Urban_District_Council_election,_1902 I was thinking of notifying the participants in the DRV, but did not know if that would run afoul of WP:CANVASS - As this new nomination is likely to either reinforce the micro-precedent set in the previous discussion, or be used as evidence for overturning that decision, what do you think would be the best way to get wider participation and try to get a real consensus that might help inform future actions? Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not too good at evaluating the notability of academics and I know you are; what do you think of this one? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't checked the publications yet, but very likely to be notable. I did some basic editing. This is standard university-press release writing, and there may be copyvio.
DGG (
talk ) 02:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, will be adding back info and reordering per Vasant Dhar's request (ex: para about children, deleted fields, titles). Thanks, Stern IOMS ( talk) 15:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Stern IOMS ( talk · contribs)< you are an editor with a conflict of interest, and have added back material that is inappropriate. I've adjusted the article to a more standard form, used correct italics and links,and removed additional minor material. There's more needed. You may make suggestions on the article talk page, but not edit the article. We do not add material to articles on request of the subject, as you say you have done--that counts as promotion, which is prohibited. This is an encyclopedia, not a who's who.
- I should add, that looking at the material again, I see the journal is only newly established, and am therefore not sure of notability. If you insist on including puffery, claiming expertise in multiple fields on the basis of having published a single article on it, and relying of press releases and the thoroughly unreliable New York Post for claims of importance in having a key role in founding a university project, the article is much more likely to be nominated for deletion.
DGG (
talk ) 20:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- DGG, by chance I happened upon the article (via BK's talk page). Stern IOMS, I have pruned considerably: various claims made about the subject turned out to have been based on the subject's own publications. I've also removed trivial family information, and the flags from the infobox. I have no real opinion on notability--though I don't see it yet. Drmies ( talk) 21:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- DGG and Drmies, appreciate your dedication to editing this page. Will follow your advice about adding suggestions to the article talk page. Stern IOMS ( talk) 20:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't checked the publications yet, but very likely to be notable. I did some basic editing. This is standard university-press release writing, and there may be copyvio.
DGG (
talk ) 02:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
DGG, would you consider doing an editor evaluation of yours truly? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of draft
"I regret it, but it seems necessary for me to recommend deletion of the draft as unambiguous advertising. I have the power to delete it myself, but I normally prefer that another administrator agree. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)"
Dear Dr Goodman,
We apologize for any perceived impropriety - we intended our response for your academic elucidations. You may proceed to delete our message accordingly.
Also since we take exceptions to some assumptions you've stated we kindly request you delete your unsolicited comments too. Could you please acknowledge?
Wikisjt3 ( talk) 02:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI as first nominator; in particular, your views are requested on the claim that an appointment as "Distinguished Entrepreneur-in-Residence" meets WP:PROF #5. JohnCD ( talk) 14:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to offer your two cents here. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- commented - DGG
Hi DGG. This semi-retired professor is cited all over the place. I added a few book references. Can you pass your expert eye over it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The best screen for notability for anyone in the humanities is WorldCat, which immediately shows he received a Festschrift. And if anyone has an article in Grove, he's notable. As is often the case, the article is not organized to clearly show the factors that make for notability here. But it needs some adjustments: we don't include journal articles in the bibliography.
- It was immediately acceptable as it was originally submitted, even without your improvements. As a demonstration, I'm accepting it first and will fix it later, in order to clarify that any article with a reasonable chance of passing afd (which some people define as >1/2, but I look for >2/3), should be accepted. This was 100%.
DGG (
talk ) 14:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- I thought you'd like it. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- ( talk page stalker) A point of order here. Is the disambig (musicologist) really needed on this draft? I don't believe it is as there are no other articles named Frank D’Accone. ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png. Thanks.
Dogmaticeclectic (
talk) 18:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You recently docketed a page for the community service group "Lion's Heart" as promotional, necessitating deletion. I was working with user Dodger67 on it, about how to remove any promotional language and to get references and everything else properly set to Wikipedia standards. I've worked with Lion's Heart, Alpha Phi Omega, Boy Scouts of America, and other community groups. Seeing as they did not have a page, I thought it would be a good first page for me to attempt. Apparently this isn't the case. Perhaps you could offer some insight into how to improve the page?
I see that you have some essays written, and quite a bit of text about Wikipedia and how it works- I shall endeavor to read and remove any promotional language. For now, my assumption is that using the same newspaper for a few of the reference citations was not prudent, and needs to be corrected. (If you've already written topics on this, please don't feel a need to reply, I'm getting around to reading guides on promotional language, as well as the archived Talk topics on your page here about their answers.)
Absolutelyang ( talk) 03:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- I noticed that article when reviewing the afc approvals of that editor, in connection with his request for adminship, which is now pending. I consider it a characteristic example of his incorrect approvals. You removed the Prod tag, as is permitted. I have listed it for an AfD discussion, to see what the community thinks, because I think there is also no substantial notability. See my comments there, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion’s Heart DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey DGG, you're kind of the policy guru here when it comes to policies on book stuff. I'm currently in a discussion with an editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carver Trilogy and I admit, I'm starting to lose my patience a little. Long story short, someone is trying to argue that the trilogy (which is actually called "Ivory Carver Trilogy") is not notable. The individual books have received reviews (many of which can be seen in merchant pages but never made it to the Internet) but the editor is arguing that individual reviews do not count towards overall notability for the series because they don't mention that it's a series or go into depth about it being a series. He's also arguing the trade review angle and while I do understand the argument for that, there's not been an official consensus on that as of yet. (But that's sort of beside the point since there are enough reviews and articles otherwise to show proof of coverage.) Can you just step in and kind of confirm that reviews for the books can show notability for the series? And that it's fairly common to keep an article on a series even when the individual books might not warrant an article to themselves? Some confirmation from a second person would be nice, as it'd confirm that it's not just me making up policies on my own. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much!! I wasn't really getting anywhere with him. I do think that he means well, but it was just getting frustrating. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello DGG,
You mentioned the issue on this page ( /info/en/?search=Community_Child_Care_Co-operative_%28NSW%29) as "Promotional page for local co-op. All non-press release references are about general topics that only mention the organization".
Deletion would be a bit harsh - the organisation is a peak body and non-government organisation in New South Wales, Australia, and represents over 1800 member organisations. The references that you refer to have been edited out, but could you please indicate the non-press release references that should also be removed? Thanks, E.jokovich ( talk) 12:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Refs 2, 3, 4, and 5 are about the general funding of child care in NSW. (similarly 1 in all probability,, tho I can;t see it) Ref 6, 9, and 10 sre general problems. The Coop wrote no. 7, 12, 13, and 15. 8 is the bio of the director. Its reliable as a bio, but doesn't show notability. And the of list of staff members is not of encyclopedic interest.
- But perhaps I misinterpreted. Is this the main agency responsible for all childcare venters in the State, or for all independent centers ? Is it an advisory service, or an administrative service, or a service agency for its members? Can you provide a ref that shows this clearly? If its the book, page numbers and a quote would be needed. How many total centers are under its jurisdiction,or if jurisdiction too strong a word,, now many is it responsible for advising. How many staff, how many students ? I may be able to help you rewrite it for a clearer presentation. DGG ( talk ) 14:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's one for you, DGG. — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Danaostomel ( talk · contribs)
I have made several revisions to the first draft I submitted. Overall, the new draft is certainly less of an advertisement and more of an unbiased article that is intended to provide information to the general reader about the company. However, I don't quite understand how there are absolutely no adequate sources. I specifically read over both articles that you provided in your initial rejection as I was writing the first draft, and I considered the sources used by crowdfunding competitors as a model including GoFundMe, KickStarter, and Indiegogo. I know that if I submit my new draft it will likely be rejected once again, but if you could please provide me with help and/or advice so that I can ultimately submit an acceptable article it would be highly appreciated. Danaostomel ( talk) 19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Danaostomel, the first step is to make the tone more objective: use Last names, not first names in referring to people, remove adjectives of praise or importance, avoid the word "you" and anything similarly addressed directly to the reader, and dont use contractions. Read the crowdfundbeat interview, and you will see why it would be considered a press release; it starts:" Deposit a Gift: the most fun, flexible, hassle-free way to raise money online for anything that matters to you."
- I'm also going to look at every article using that website as a source for anything more than routine data. And for the other articles, I expect to do some editing. There's lots of improper material in Wikipedia, but we don't want to add to it. . DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 19:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
i see you deleted the amanda eliasch article and gave your reasoning for doing so. may i then ask on what basis are you still keeping the demet muftuoglu article? comment by 69.22.228.31
- I did not delete it; I declined to accept it in mainspace, though another editor as is their right decided to do so, while making various necessary improvements. . Whether or not to delete it would be a community decision if someone chooses to bring it for a discussion at AfD; I reserve decision for what I say if it is, but my opinion will not be decisive. What else I did was to clarify a total confusion about some of the possibly notable parts of her career, and add some objective references relative to possible notability, instead of the concentration on celebrity gossip that characterised previous editing.
- As for the other article you mention, I've never seen it, but I shall take a look. There certainly is a great deal in Wikipedia that should be removed, but that's no justification for adding yet more inadequate material. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I saw from edit history you had a go at editing the page. I have made some edits too. I believe she clearly meets Wiki notability guidelines. DinkyExpress ( talk) 07:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello DGG - The write up of this professor sounds good, but I can't find much news coverage or other referencing. Maybe it's not in English, or maybe there material in academic sources. What do you think? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- we need to rely on the honors--I cannot evaluate her publication list. But fellow of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters and member of the scientific board of ENS are sufficient distinctions for notability. I've accepted it & done some basic wikfying; it can be improved further eventually. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
One more. I found and added a number of sources. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Borderline. Notability would be by Dean of a law school, which is the head of a school. Whether this meets the standard at WP:PROF is somewhat controversial--I could argue in both ways, though I think I have usually supported it, on the basis that we usually give law and medical schools to some extent as if they were independent,even when they technically are not. Whether or not the GNG is met will depend on interpretation. Using the rule that a reasonable chance is sufficient for acceptance I accepted it , and it can be decided at AfD if anyone challenges it. Better there than relying on just you and me. I have no intention of setting myself up as the arbiter of academic notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gene Stoermer has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I left my own comment on the draft. There is an existing article at Eugene F. Stoermer which looks keepable but should be expanded. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)