User talk:DGG/Archive 112 May 2016

Hi DGG Here is the information they wanted deleted from the Sorcha Faal article as dichotomies such as this are never allowed to survive. Maybe you can put it back in, but if you do, watch how fast it will disappear:

In 2016, Russian newspaper Trud claimed that Faal was affiliated with foreign intelligence services:

Experts noted that the Sorcha Faal's website is a "flush tank", through which one of the groups of American military and political elite merges information uncomfortable for their opponents. "Of course, for the project are special services, but who exactly‍—‌to understand yet difficult: British MI6, Mossad, CIA, DIA (Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense) and the American National Security Agency, for example," said professor of the Diplomatic Academy of Russia Igor Panarin. "Of course, it is an element of information warfare, but within the American elite".^[1]

In 2016, Russian channel REN TV alleged, without offering proof, that Sorcha Faal was a portal for unnamed intelligence services.^[2]

Concerns that Faal was in some way affiliated with the U.S. government were first raised in 2009 by the conservative political advocacy organization Americans for Limited Government when they posted on their website^[3] a Freedom of Information Act reply from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that stated 10 Faal articles had been used by the DHS in compiling their controversial report titled Right-wing Extremism Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.^[4]

In 2016, a Faal report alleging that two U.S. military helicopters were shot down by Turkey over Syria was widely reported by mainstream Russia media sources including Свободная пресса‍—‌Википедия^[5] and Trud^[6] with the Sputnik news agency (in their German language edition) reporting that the United States Department of Defense denied this happened with Pentagon spokeswoman Michelle Baldanza stating "This is an absolute lie"^[7] and Trud still commenting on it a subsequent article about Turkey.^[8]

Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I -- and anyone -- can read it in the article history. This is exactly what I meant by charges not repeated by reliable sources--these are none of them independent sources. DGG ( talk ) 14:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)]] ==

I frankly planned to nominate as G11 but feared it may be removed, I have PRODed and the author removed that. I'm questionable whether you would like to speedy delete as is or if we'll need something like AfD (to use G4 later if needed). I of course would not be surprised if the user attempts to restart if deleted once. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• I placed a G11.Every reference is a press release, or an Indian newspaper story which is equivalent to a press release. I'll follow up if it is removed. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG Here is the information they wanted deleted from the Sorcha Faal article as dichotomies such as this are never allowed to survive. Maybe you can put it back in, but if you do, watch how fast it will disappear:

In 2016, Russian newspaper Trud claimed that Faal was affiliated with foreign intelligence services:

Experts noted that the Sorcha Faal's website is a "flush tank", through which one of the groups of American military and political elite merges information uncomfortable for their opponents. "Of course, for the project are special services, but who exactly‍—‌to understand yet difficult: British MI6, Mossad, CIA, DIA (Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense) and the American National Security Agency, for example," said professor of the Diplomatic Academy of Russia Igor Panarin. "Of course, it is an element of information warfare, but within the American elite".^[1]

In 2016, Russian channel REN TV alleged, without offering proof, that Sorcha Faal was a portal for unnamed intelligence services.^[2]

Concerns that Faal was in some way affiliated with the U.S. government were first raised in 2009 by the conservative political advocacy organization Americans for Limited Government when they posted on their website^[3] a Freedom of Information Act reply from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that stated 10 Faal articles had been used by the DHS in compiling their controversial report titled Right-wing Extremism Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.^[4]

In 2016, a Faal report alleging that two U.S. military helicopters were shot down by Turkey over Syria was widely reported by mainstream Russia media sources including Свободная пресса‍—‌Википедия^[5] and Trud^[6] with the Sputnik news agency (in their German language edition) reporting that the United States Department of Defense denied this happened with Pentagon spokeswoman Michelle Baldanza stating "This is an absolute lie"^[7] and Trud still commenting on it a subsequent article about Turkey.^[8]

Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I -- and anyone -- can read it in the article history. This is exactly what I meant by charges not repeated by reliable sources--these are none of them independent sources. DGG ( talk ) 14:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi David,

I'm confused and could use your guidance on reinstating a page. I saw recently that you removed the page Matthew Rizai and cited reason G11 unambiguous advertising. I don't understand this. This person is the CEO of a publicly traded company. The page was created years ago as a point of reference. Can you help me understand why it was deleted now? I'd like to have it reinstated but would like to know what happened so I can fix it. Thank you, David. -Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinMcCarthy1981 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. What you wrote was advertising of their services. I also removed material which you reinsert in the article on his company Workiva, consisting of very extensive closely paraphrased or directly copied quotations from other publications, mostly press releases , either overt press releases or slightly disguised ones.We do not build an article out of quotations from other sources, even when attributed. As for notability , it would depend on their being a member of the main board of the NYSE, but the information does not seem to show it,.

As you have worked on no other articles but those related to this company, it is possible that you have some conflict of interest. Please see our rules on WP:COI, which, among other things, very strongly advise you to use Draft space, not mainspace. In addition, see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure . DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This certainly seems questionable enough for AfD or PROD, whichever needed, as my searches have found nothing better and the article is not clearly saying if it's a degree-giving school thus satisfying the applicable notability. I was tempted to simply AfD but I wanted your analysis. I have also nominated another questionable article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Justice. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I also wondered if you could help at the following AfDs I had intiated, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FLAVORx, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsey White (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack El-Hai, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardo Gómez-Pimienta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenskart, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tally Solutions (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majesco (insurance software company). I also found Paul Nussbaum which currently seems questionable so I of course welcome your analysis of that (it's worth noting you actually removed an A7 speedy in July 2008). SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

please slow down on the notifications a little---I can;'t get to this many at a time. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, DGG! I submitted a comment on the article Dmitry Fedotov. I agree to delete it since the main reason of the article was not it, it was a simple stub expanding accordingly. Have a nice day. OGfromtheGut (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Gillkay (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Institute For Medical Research Israel-Canada (IMRIC) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks DGG for reveiwing my draft. I have done a bit of wikipedia editing in the past, but this is my first article, which hopefully excuses my wordy style. I have edited the draft according to your suggestions. If I resubmit will it go to you? My first version was edited by CookieMonster755 and I thought when I submitted my second draft it would go back to him unless I requested otherwise (which I didn't). I don't really mind either way, but it would make sense that if I make changes according to a reveiwer's advice, that reveiwer would be the one to see if I had solved the problems.Gillkay (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Gillkay, WP has very little organization, Whoever wants to & has the necessary experience can review a draft; it usually goes at random--most people simply take the oldest one in the queue, some, like myself, look for specific types of articles (I specialize in academic people and organizations, and certain types of businesses & certain types of problem articles) I also, as in this case, look at any submission another reviewer asks me to check. This does indeed mean that you may get conflicting directions in successive reviews, but it increases the odds that at least one of the reviews will be correct. The purpose of reviewing is only to screen out or get improved the articles that are unlikely to be accepted by the community after they are brought to article status; accepting an article when reviewing means nothing more than that the reviewer is of the opinion that the article is quite likely to be kept if brought to an WP:AFD discussion; unfortunately once more, the results of AfD discussions are not necessarily consistent or even always reasonable. Just like anyone can write articles, anyone can comment in a discussion. But the principle of WP is that it is not written (or controlled) by experts. The error rate in reviewing is very high--I would estimate that at least 10% of both the acceptances and rejections are simply wrong; in addition, at least 20% of the reviews seem to concentrate on the wrong issues. Some of the most experienced reviewers, including myself, try to check on ones other people have reviewed, especially when we think a particular reviewer is not doing it right, and then we try to explain to the reviewer. If someone persists in doing things seriously wrong, they can be barred from reviewing. At present, most of the really problematic reviewers have been dealt with. Most of the wrongly accepted articles do get removed at AfD; the wrongly rejected ones where the disappointed authors go away and are lost to us are the real problems. There is still some cleanup needed, but I will deal with it later today or tomorrow. You don't actually need to resubmit it DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) DGG, Thank you for the wonderful explanation! CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 17:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining DGG. Learning gradually how this all works. Do I understand right that you can see my changes and will be telling me in a day or so about other changes I need to make?Gillkay (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've restore the content regarding protocol, as suspected User:CFCF is doing a merge without consensus for the third time after warning. Your input may be need for or against. An ANI is looking like a possibility. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have almost never advised anyone to go to ANI. The results are unpredictable and usually unpleasant to everyone concerned. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, a while ago you helped with making the African Library Project page more neutral. I made some changes. Then someone else suggested some specific changes, and I requested those edits, but no one has made them. I know you are a volunteer, and I appreciate that, but I am feeling a bit stuck, since it has been a long time. And just as a reminder, I am on the board so can't make the edits myself. Thanks very much. DeborahWC (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, a while ago you helped with making the African Library Project page more neutral. I made some changes. Then someone else suggested some specific changes, and I requested those edits, but no one has made them. I know you are a volunteer, and I appreciate that, but I am feeling a bit stuck, since it has been a long time. And just as a reminder, I am on the board so can't make the edits myself. Thanks very much. DeborahWC (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

{U:DeborahWC}}, I'll try to get there. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So I created a page about Beth Stevenson, a Canadian producer and executive producer. The page was tagged for speedy deletion and the given reason was WP:Resume. I contested the deletion and you reviewed it and said it was promotional. I was wondering how I can change the article into one that is not seen as promotional (seen as neutral), rather one that highlights the achievements and opinions of Beth. I am new to creating pages and your help would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahdiRoohi (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, since the only material you have contributed here is on her, and on her studio, it is probably that you have a WP:Conflict of Interest--see our rules on that , and also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. Second, we do not include: the person's self-serving statements of their importance, which make up the entire 2nd part of the article; puffery and adjectives of praise, as seen throughout ; references limited to blogs, press releases, and the publications of the subject's own company. Stevenson might be notable, but experience shows that articles written by people with a conflict of interest rarely suceeed in demonstrating it. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback. I will consider the things you have pointed out. MahdiRoohi (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Mahdi

Hello DGG -

I noticed that the Bot known as HasteurBot has slated North American Invasive Species Network, in the Articles for Creation queue, for G-13 deletion. Personally, I think this article is worth saving and intend to move it out into the mainspace so it doesn't get deleted.

I am thinking this is somehow a notable organization after perusing their website. The work they are doing is profound.

FYI, I discovered this by accident because I saw a G-13 section on your talk page via my watchlist, and was curious as to what G13 is.

Anyway, from prior experience I know that you can be helpful and flexible when it comes to notability if the subject seems to warrant meriting inclusion. So, if you wish to help in any way it would be much appreciated. Also, if this doesn't work, and the page has to be deleted - well, at least I tried.--- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Giani Dhanwant Singh Sital

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

While you're examining articles, I wondered if you could look at these that I recently found that seem questionable: Izumi Muto, Yoon Kyung-byung, Julian Morris (economist), Ali Sajid, K. Hari Prasad, Bruce Guenther, Jean-Pierre Chantin and Serge Duigou. See also Mohamed Gad-el-Hak which I speedy tagged as G11 as it simply seemed too currently troubled. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Muto: not notable, Yoon notable, I will update; prodded Morris: uncertain--I'm working on it; Sajid: notable as founder of a university--actually, two in succession); Prasad: questionable--I'll check; Guenther: curators in positions like his have been held notable, need ck for copypaste; Chantin & Duigou: uncertain, checking importance of their books ; Mohamed Gad-el-Hak is probably notable by WP:PROF, and should have been rewritten not deleted--I may rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate your opinion on the notability of Robert Buntine and Arnold Buntine before I improve Arnold and write Walter Buntine, The Buntine Lecture, and The Buntine Family. Castlemate (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

there is currently no consensus that headmasters of UK grammar schools and analogous Australian schools are notable; I would be prepared to defend it for the most famous schools, but I am not familiar enough with the Australian system to know which would count there, and I don't want to judge on the basis of those I personally recall having occasion to notice. If Arnold is notable, its because of his sports career: he would appear to meet the current NSPORTS criteria on the basis of his playing for St. Kilda, but I'm very far from an expert in this area. Robert might well be notable as a coach. From what I have seen, the standards there seem uncertain, and the decision at AfDs seems to vary--but, as I said, I'm very far from being an expert. I can't tell about the proposed articles without some more information--but as a matter of strategy, it will be easier to establish notability of individuals than of a family. I know this isn't very helpful, but it's the best I can do. DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Castlemate (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello DCG, your comment: 

"1/ his work on boxing injuries--but unfortunately the source used to show the significance of his paper was published a number of years before his paper". My response: I think you were looking at the Bibliography listings and not the Reference listings. All references to boxing injuries were chronologically correct. Your second comment: "2His early use of MRI -- but this is only for the use in a private clinic, not the early use in medicine in general, where there was no evidence he was not one of the pioneers." My response: Same issue--I believe you are looking at the Bibliography list and not the actual reference. Please review-as I do believe I had it right and now I'm confused. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffyross (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Those were just details, I consider this a promotional biography(and probably autobiography) that would be rapidly deleted in mainspace. The purpose of AfC is to keep out material written with such a conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings DGG: I'm writing to request a third opinion about commentary at this AfD discussion. I'm not asking you to !vote in the discussion, but I'd be interested in receiving your viewpoints inre the commentary there about source searching. Thanks again for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion has now closed, but the question referred to the use of deletion rationals that do not include a literature search, where you and Voceditenore were arguing, essentially ( that it was necessary to follow WP:BEFORE, rather that use rationales like obviously not notable. Of course I basically agree--I've been suggesting for 8 years now that WP:BEFORE be made policy in discussing notability. But there are many caveats. Key ones include:

1. This applies to the overall process of nominating an article, not each individual argument. In a typical discussion some people will concentrate on the number or quality of sources, others on additional factors.
2. There are other reasons for deletion besides notability -- promotionalism, blp, NOT DIRECTORY, NOT TABLOID, not being a distinct topic from other articles, inherent POV of the topic, etc... In each of these there's the possibility that a literature search may enable us to correct the article, but sometimes the other factors are so strong as to make it unlikely. This is often true for some types of arguments: Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is good reason for deletion. Not meeting the special notability standards are good reasons for deletions. Even those can be overcome by really good discoverable sources, but for these types of articles there's no presumption that sources will exist if.
3. Some subjects are inherently unlikely to have accessible sources. As a matter of form I could do a literature search for saints in Eastern religions, but I know from experience that it is extraordinarily unlikely that there will be any that I am capable of finding. There are similarly unlikely to be sources for a scientist who is still a graduate student, or who has published very little. Exceptions exist, but only rarely. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply, which is appreciated. Yes, a variety of various factors can come into play at AfD. I was just concerned because it appears that you are perhaps mentoring a user in some manner who participated in that discussion, in which they ping you to various AfD discussions. I've politely pointed out WP:NEXIST to the user before, but they seem to just ignore it. As such, I figured it would be prudent to bring the matter to your attention. Thanks again for your input here, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Loriendrew's talk page.
Message added 11:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Should have been WP:G3... ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 11:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the easiest way to base one article upon another is to immediately remove the content that does not apply, leaving only the skeleton. And it's better to do it in draft space. I've done this . You will find it at Draft:Park Avenue South and East 23rd Street I should have actually read the contents more carefully. DGG ( talk )

Hi, could you perhaps have a look at Talk:Entomologica Americana (New York Entomological Society)? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I'm reaching out to you because I know you work well with many people involved with AfD. I am concerned about the lack of WP:BEFORE going on at these AfD discussions (, , ) and others. The thread that seems to tie these together is that they are genre writers or foreign actors/writers. Is there anyway you can intervene and help the nom understand WP:BEFORE? I don't mind improving articles brought to AfD, but there's a lot of pressure involved when it's at AfD instead of just being tagged. Anyway, thank you in advance! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As I just said to the editor "Please in nominating authors and professors for deletion,remember to consider first if they may meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. It's very easy to use WorldCat to check for the importance of published books. " It is not really enough in these cases to do a cursory search of relevant databases. BEFORE is not a magic formula, but has to be used with clear understanding of where information is likely to be found. And then, if one finds some indication of importance, that should be followed up before nominating.

That said, I too sometimes make guesses, tho I would have to admit that it's an unfortunate shortcut, and I try to avoid the temptation to make them in unfamiliar fields. In the instances here, there does seem to have been a string of wrong guesses. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Megalibrarygirl and DGG, i sometimes get annoyed at the number of afds that end up as 'keep' as the subject is notable, especially as WP:AFD encourages nominators to carry out a number of checks before nominating. but as i was informed here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Willcox, WP:BURDEN states "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution", or in these cases, the article creator should have included approriate references, although we also have WP:CONTN ie. "Article content does not determine notability", it can all be very confusing. kitten stalker - meowr! Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree it can be confusing, Coolabahapple. DGG is right that not all searches are equal. Sometimes I don't find evidence of notability until I hit the right database. And it can be a guessing game where you have to balance a lot of factors. Perhaps itvwouk d help to continue to hold dialogue. I think it's very important for Wikipedia editors to be able to talk to one another. Sometimes AfD becomes a battleground. But we don't have to agree to start tslking and understanding each other. I appreciate your time here and I'll check my email shortly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)