I will travel today, so can't discuss your proposed merge. Luther wrote a German hymn, most of his and other hymns are in German, see {{Lutheran hymns}}. I translated the German article, without looking at the other, prompted by a discussion on my talk. If a merge, it should be merged to the German title. Compoesers set the German text, most of them at least. - I think there may be enough to be said about the English to keep two separate articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bach, Reger and the others who set it and used as a political statement thought of the German. In this particular case, I think we should have both, - but see that they don't overlap too much. I am all for a merge in the other case. English-German was discussed there. - Three German hymns are on the Main page right now, all in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the talk is again all over the place except where it should have started? Re. "...you might have discussed..." – didn't need to: was already discussed over a decade ago at Talk:A Mighty Fortress Is Our God#Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, and subsequent sections at that talk page, making clear that there is currently a consensus on keeping both pages merged. You should have discussed before going against that established consensus (consensus can change, but not without talking first).
(talk page stalker) The question of what language the article title should be in on EN-wiki is a valid one, and if pursued should proceed only via an official WP:RM. The question of whether there should be two articles on the exact same work is, in my opinion, patently ridiculous, any way you look at it. Any further discussion on the matter should occur on the pre-existing single article's talk page. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it further, I think I agree with GA that we could justify a 3 separate articles: one on the German hymn, and one on the translation--and of course one on BWV80. Sometimes both an original and a translation are independently notable. For example, I'd Like to upgrade Pope's Homer from a redirect to an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, you made my day! How to achieve that?? We have one on the cantata (I started a peer review, and I heard it yesterday, on our extra national holiday.) In case you wonder where the suggestion about the German is ("Fragst du, wer der ist"): in an archive of the English. Not transparent, if you ask me. We have two articles on another hymn, Vater + Our and discuss. Could we do the same here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In order to avoid a continuation of the "all over the place except where it should have started" effect I'd recommend to close this topic on this user talk page if you see a reasonable chance that the split idea might garner consensus, and:
post a notification like {{Split portions|portions=content on the German version of the hymn and its tune|Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott|discuss=Talk:A Mighty Fortress Is Our God#Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott}} at the top of the A Mighty Fortress Is Our God page.
If someone wants to initiate a WP:RM, per Softlavender's suggestion above, I suppose I'd try to avoid to start it as long as a split suggestion tag is up in mainspace. Conversely, best not to post the split tag when a WP:RM is up and running: either discussion (split or RM) would allow to discuss the other option too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, during this year of the Reformation, I translated several hymn articles from German, see? I had no intention to "split" the mighty fortress (so have no reason to appear on that talk), just to add something for those contexts that have nothing to do with the English, such as a Reger setting. - I am afraid that the history of Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott is now hopelessly lost: there seems to have been an article in 2006, according to the talk, but you wouldn't find it in the history which begins in 2017. (late signature) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the others, and you & others are the experts not me; I would never push my own POV in a field like this, where the few of us interested need to cooperate and have tolerance for each other. And I try not to get into disputes about article titles and such, where there's usually good argument for any of the positions. But I will try to find the older material you mention and put it somewhere rational. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Completely different question: I have good relations with Joefromrandb (like Bishonen, look for that name on his talk): can you perhaps think about your stance in the arb request? Every editor is a human being ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ina Vandebroek
Hi DGG. Thanks for looking at Ina Vandebroek's page! You have made a lot of good edits but have also removed meaning in some cases. For example, you changed "New York Botanical Garden" to "Botanical Gardens" which is not accurate. There are several areas I would like to edit, and I would like to work with you on these changes so that we are on the same page. If you are amenable, I will send you my edits. Let me know what you think.
I got this really aggressive notice on my talk page, [1]
I have been really keeping to myself and trying to just improve Wikipedia for the past 1.5 years. I have mostly ignored most of the deletion notices or fixed the pages that were up for deletion. But this one was just to much. I posted on her page, I fear that I will be stalked by this user now.
I commented there, and emailed you also. And, pleas, it is essential that you keep to one user name. For now, ,put the connection on the user page of each of them, and make up your mind which to use. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ The Met will be the Metropolitan Museum of Art's second edit-a-thon, hosted on Sunday November 19, 2017 in the Bonnie Sacerdote Classroom, Ruth and Harold D. Uris Center for Education (81st Street entrance) at The Met Fifth Avenue in New York City.
Following the first Met edit-a-thon in May 2017, the museum is excited to work with Wikipedia Asian Month for the potential to seed new articles about Asian artworks, artwork types, and art traditions, from any part of Asia. These can be illustrated with thousands of its recently-released images of public domain artworks available for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from the museum’s collection spanning 5,000 years of art. The event is an opportunity for Wikimedia communities to engage The Met's diverse Asian collections onsite and remotely.
I nominated Bobby Fuller Died for Your Sins for AfD back on Feb 10, 2017 - I can't find any record of it so it was obviously deleted. What I did find is that the article was created again a few months later on April 24th, and I can't see where anything has changed. Wikilinked to that article is the independent singer/songwriter Chuck Prophet who doesn't appear to pass N, either. One of the sources used in his bio (wordpress link) includes him in their "top ten guitarists list without some of the best guitarists in it. We accept that, but what we wanted to do was create a list that didn’t have the same, boring faces on it and instead honour those that often fail to make the usual top tens." Yep, that's what it says. Atsme📞📧13:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, if I'd stumbled across the current version, I'd have speedied it on sight, but since I was pinged here, I'm happy to go along with whatever you consider appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. So you rejected also my Draft about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Catherine_(Juliette_Benzoni) I must say I am speechless. The other moderator said I did not have enough sources and "Catherine (Juliette Benzoni)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference.
Then you copied that again and deleted the issues from above on the draft from August 30 ! Splendid.
I get this message from you why you rejected it: you need to first clarify if you are writing about the particular book, or the series. If about the series, name the article appropriately and discuss as a series, giving the overall plot in one paragraph. After that, about one paragraph per book might be sufficient. It would clarify matters not to call them book 1 [etc] but to use the actual titles.
Did you really read my article? Are you sure? I wrote on the article underneath the title This page is about the Catherine Novels. For the television series, see Catherine (1986 TV series). So I made it clear what it was about.
Let me say this, when I started to correct the Draft, I went to see many other articles about famous authors. I took them as example's - just as I took the French Wikipedia for example when I wrote this article the first time. It was rejected because the other moderator said it did not have enough material and sources! I even agree nowadays with that.
My article is about the seven books concerning CATHERINE by Juliette Benzoni. Each book had another title. I thought it was easier to understand if I wrote book 1, book 2 and so on... This author sold over 300'000 books in the whole wide world. The Catherine series (7 books!) was the authors first Bestseller, not just in France as can be read on the Juliette Benzoni Wikipedia page. I have no idea what to do now. If rejecting this article again and again means to demoralize me, it starts to succeed... but first please be so kind and give me an example how I would have to introduce book by book.. because I am afraid that should I really use only one sentence for each book, the next moderator will tell me it is not enough... Yours friendy Laramie1960 (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When reviewing AfC, we judge by only one criterion: is it likely to pass AfD. In my opinion, it was not likely to pass in the form submitted. This is based not on my own feelings about what an article on literature should be, but my experience with what happens at AfD, where it is much easier maintaining extensive articles on currently popular game universes than on serious contemporary or classical fiction.
I found your draft confusing, and I think others would have reacted similarly. Rereading yesterdays version, even in view of your explanation, I still think i twas confusing. When an article begins "Catherine: One Love is Enough, first published in France as Il suffit d'un amour,[1] is the first of a series of seven historical romance novels " the expectation is that this book only will be discussed. For a general discussion of the technique, see WP:Summary Style.
But I realize there was a better way to handle this particular article, which is to have avoided actually reviewing it, but instead write a comment suggesting the changes. I sometimes do it, and I should have done it here. I give you my apologies.
The French (and German) Wikipedia accept much longer and more detailed articles of serious subjects than the enWP. Among the reasons is the relative shortage of contributors at enWP who can write high quality long articles.
I've accepted it as is. the earlier review should have specified: details of plot can & should be taken from the work itself -- but anything in the way of opinion requires a citation. What it mainly needs now is a copyedit for sentence fragments and word choice. I fixed a few of them. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G5
I'm mystified by thesetaggings. I thought G5 only applied to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block (i.e. after they were blocked, not before). This article wasn't even started by the user in question, and I would say it has substantial edits by others. Note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikieditions isn't even closed yet, and from what I can tell, Richardaldinho was blocked for logged-out editing that's unrelated to that SPI. Sro23 (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sro23, I've deleted the second article you linked to under CSD G5. I also would have deleted the first article under G5 if you had not removed it. There is an emerging consensus that large sock farms/UPE operations where it is clear they are connected and impossible to find an original named master, it is within the discretion of an administrator to delete the article if it is tagged for G5 because we can have moral certainty that the master has been blocked in the past or that the accounts are proxying. This has been reaffirmed in multiple deletion reviews. John McPhee (Ret. Special Forces) also has the complicating factor of being a BLP, which makes me even more confident in that deletion.David, I did remove the G5 on Waterlogic per Sro23's statement above. It is obvious UPE, but the original account isn't blocked and is stale, so I think it is stretching G5 a bit too far given recent discussion surrounding G14 for UPE. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the interpretation you and I and many other admins have been increasingly using for G5 is not as fully accepted as we have been thinking, perhaps we do need to revise the policy behind G5, that any article ever written by anyone shown to an editor blocked for undeclared paid editing must be deleted. The prior interpretation was based on the assumption that banned editors would be blocked for specific misbehavior, and that what they had written before that misbehavior was not necessarily affected. But now we're dealing with cases where the more recently discovered information casts very strong doubt on all previous work. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sro23, that is a fair point, and I can see how this would be controversial so I've restored the article and PROD'd it because of your concerns. I typically agree with DGG on things such as this, and given the history here of obvious undeclared paid editing over the past few months, and the intersection at that AfD, I think DGG's taggings were within reason.David, I agree we need clarification here, but I am not hopeful that we can achieve much more in terms of CSD criteria at this time. I think G5 works in the vast majority of these cases, but I get the concerns on this specific one at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at NYU ITP Tisch School of the Arts (4th floor) at 721 Broadway in Manhattan.
We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants.
We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.
We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.
After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) ~~~~~
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Suspicious users/possible socks
It's a little hard to tell... I think these two accounts could be WP:SOCKs but I don't think there's enough evidence to open anything at SPI. Suggestions?
User:TORaptor - falsely identifies as an administrator on his userpage
Well, you can't win 'em all. Hopefully any negative trends as far as reviewing (or reviewers) goes can be reversed before we start accepting real junk. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We will never get things 100% correct at AfC any more than we do at NPP or AfD. But certainly the error rate at AfC remains higher than elsewhere, and the only way to improve it means following up editors who consistently make wrong decisions there to remind them of the standards. I have actually received negative criticism for checking up on people's accepts and declines, but I think people who concentrate of checking up are necessary at all decision points--and that is in fact the primary reason I gave in asking to be an admin. (One thing that can help is a quick screening of drafts the first day they are entered to remove obvious copyvio and promotionalism before they get any further. I've started doing this for G11, and I see others are also, especially for G12.) DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! (The page in question went the way of all good spam.) If there is a tool/method to help me screen drafts the same day as they are entered, I would enjoy using it. And screening is needed to assure quality. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, to continue on from a thread in another location (and to ping off your "higher error rate" comment) - is your comment based on statistics or just "I see a lot of AFC-accepted pages at AFD"? It seems like everyone except me (who is the one tracking all of these stats) thinks that AFC has this huge error rate in acceptances, and I cannot figure out why. I haven't run the numbers, so I cannot comment on how accurate we are as a group. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried tp collect figures for many years now, because there is too much ambiguity in what to measure. There are 3 ways to define error-- a/ a decision which is reversed at a later stage, b/ a decision which is hopelessly wrong, and c/ a decision which I think should have been otherwise. I usually mean by error a mix of criteria b & c, thinking of c as violating the consensus, not just disagreeing with what I think the consensus ought to be. There are also Type I and Type II errors--in this context, I think of a type I error as an incorrect rejection of an article, Type II as an incorrect acceptance. Going by impressions, I consider the rate of errors at AfD to be between 5 and 10 % in each direction. At NPP, probably about 10% incorrect acceptance and 5% incorrect rejection, as Speedy is applied very conservatively; At AfC. I think there's about 5 to 10% incorrect acceptance, and about 10 to 20% incorrect declines, as the unfortunate practice has been to decline for trivial reasons. The prevailing type of error there is the opposite of NPP, because NPP besides being conservative, are systematically reviewed by an admin. But no, I do not have numbers.
The real problem is not the error rate, but the disagreement on whether to fix or delete promotional articles. Before paid editing became so conspicuous, always tried to err on the side of fixing, and now I do just the opposite. Bad articles are less of a danger than paid editing, which corrupts the entire process of building an encyclopedia, and trying to decrease it is a greater priority. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar
I'm interested in your take on this deletion discussion. You stated when endorsing the 'Keep' at deletion review that "All comments except one were keep". I don't believe that is accurate, since neither Cordless Larry, nor Pburka – nor I for that matter – made comments that could possibly be interpreted as "keep". In any case, I thought that AfD was decided on the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes.
You also claimed that "all the arguments were sufficiently policy based", and yet every single keep vote was a variation on the theme "the school exists therefore it's notable" or "we always have kept secondary schools in the past, so we should keep this one". Are you aware that the February 2017 RfC specifically discredited both of those arguments? In addition, the keep arguments were based on an earlier version of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which is not even a guideline, let alone policy. Even being charitable, WP:NPOSSIBLE is a guideline, not policy. And yet the 'delete' arguments were firmly based on policy: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." and "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ... Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability." The article was written by a serial adspammer using only the school's own website to create the content. Since then, there has been found nothing more than the entries for the school in a couple of directories and a two brief sentences in The Hindu noting their exam results one year. That is nowhere near enough third-party sourcing to base an article on.
If you feel able to, I'd be interested on how you feel you can refute (i) the strength of argument where policy disagrees with an essay; (ii) the results of an RfC; and (iii) the policy requirements that all articles must be based on reliable, published secondary sources. --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1)The effectual policies and guideline are the way we agree to interpret them, not what is written. What is written is not system, sand there are many contradictions. Given these, and given also the differences in how people interpret, at any AfD except the most obvious it is possible to construct a decent argument in any direction. I think people generally make a global opinion on whether WP should or should not have the article, and then look for the appropriate arguments.
(2) The RfA, as I said , did not say what you assert it said. It said there was no consensus to change the practice of keeping school articles. It also said there was no consensus that commonoutcomes was a sufficient argument. I do not know of any way to really harmonize these two conclusions, so confusion about them is not just understandable but inevitable.
(3) My view that we should continue the practice of keeping articles on secondary schools articles is an empirical compromise with not keeping primary school articles. It needs no other defense than being a workable way of avoiding spending most of our AfD energy on the the disagreements. The goal is to build an encyclopedia, and sometimes that means not focussing on issues that we cannot settle. The secondary reason is that some degree of consistency is a virtue, and back when I first came here and we did debate every primary and secondary school, the results were not much better than random. You will notice I am not arguing that either primary or secondary schools do or do not meet the standard of GNG--back when I did, the argument was that if we had sufficient access to local sources, we could show notability, but that the effort in obtaining them was not worth it in either case.
(4)It comes down to a choice--either accept the compromise or debate not just every secondary school in the world, but every primary school in the world also.
Further discussion should go elsewhere. But I don;t really see the point of it--we are both going to repeat what what we have already said.We are not goign to convince each other, and anyone coming to this question for the first time already has available many full arguments in each direction. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2nd opinion please
Hi DGG. I was wondering if you could look at the article on Roy Moore. I will be the first to admit that this guy is controversial (extremely), and that he kinda scare the... out of me. But this article looks like a thinly disguised political hit piece. Am I off base in seeing a POV COATRACK here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I commented there. But normally, I avoid articles on American politics. I don't like the intellectual contortions I have to go through to make them neutral. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. I was wondering if you could look at the article on Roy Moore. I will be the first to admit that this guy is controversial (extremely), and that he kinda scare the... out of me. But this article looks like a thinly disguised political hit piece. Am I off base in seeing a POV COATRACK here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I commented there. But normally, I avoid articles on American politics. I dislike the intellectual contortions I have to go through to make them neutral. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! I would like to see if I can appeal for this page to be reinstated as I believe I can prove and give the sufficient and amount of sources. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Isaacs Thank you! FiendYT★
You can use [[WP:Deletion Review[[, but I would not advise it. There was no other way I could have closed the AfD, given the comments, so the deletion is not likely to be reversed. You've done paid editing, and I assume that this was a paid article, so in any case you must use Draft space. I did not block re-creation, so if you write an article that gets approved at AfC, if it is different enough to pass speedy, it can be considered again--it will almost certainly be nominated for another AfD discussion. It was not not weakness of sources that was the problem, but promotional content, and I am not quite sure a nonpromotional article on this subject could be written. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.
Noteable Faculty and Biomedical Engineering Page JHU
DGG, I am a little confused. Can I add references to Nitish Thakor page for example, and is it ok
for me to update with more references the JHU BME page? I am currently the Director of Biomedical Engineering
and wanted to do for BME what Stanford Computer Science has done and Oxford Computer Science, both have wiki pages
and are demonstrating very coherent easy ways to have undergrads and high schoolers just find them easily through Wikipedia.
I dont think I have added anything to date that is not accurate. It isn't our business in the Academy to speak about things we don't
have published. Anyway I appreciate reading your notes about "Noteable faculty"; that was very helpful. My criteria which was in error was
National Academy. I think essentially it is suggesting
the Associate Professors and Full Professors will all likely be noteable because all of them in our department have H-indices that are very high and many publications.
Thank-you in advance.
Mim.cis (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do have an obvious conflict of interest; according to common sense you are not the best person to evaluate the appropriateness and balance of the content in the articles about your own organization. According to our rules in WP:COI, you may only make suggestions of the article talkpage, except for fixing obvious errors or updating. Adding the references for the plain facts of Thakor's career is the sort of thing you can do directly; adding references for judgements about him, do on the talk page. ( Be careful about adding content--we give only a brief description of the research and list only the 2 or 3 most cited papers. We regard Research Career Development Awards and the like as grants, not awards, and we do not include them; we also do not include alumni awards from his university. There's no need to pad the CV--Fellow IEEE is sufficient proof of notability.
As for the Department article, I started by restoring some refs to the Department articlefrom earlier versions of the article) Since member National Academy is notable, I found the proper way to add some additional names, even though the articles have not yet been written. However, the history section is still a little heavy with internal detail. It could use some copyediting for compactness. I'll give it a try if I can. You might note the extreme plainness of the other articles you mention.
when you proceed to write articles on the other faculty, do it in Draft Space using the WP:Article Wizard, Make sure you declare your conflict of interest. And I strongly recommend that you do them very cautiously, one at a time, starting from the most notable, and seeing if you run into opposition before you start the nest one.. In judging citations, the key factor is not the h factor by itself-- person A with 50 papers each with 50 citations has h=50; so does person B with 20 papers with 200 citations and 30 with 50, but only person B is likely to be notable. I give you advice to the best of my ability about what is acceptable, but I cannot make final judgments. Anyone who wishes can bring an article deletion request at WP:AFD , and the community consensus makes the decision. Do not be surprised if some people oppose.
(Talk page stalker) I am curious why you have not withdrawn your Olga T. Weber AfD nomination, considering that you placed it less than two weeks after the previous AfD was closed, and therefore the nomination is in clear violation of policy. Newimpartial (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not often that I would do this--but there is no policy preventing it. WP:RENOM is an essay, and the guidelines it gives are considerably longer thana our actual practice. I see however it may have been strategically not a very good idea. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you are an admin, DGG, which is why I was taken aback. The relevant policy text from WP:DELAFD is as follows:
Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.
Hi DDG! I have some concerns regarding your recent speedy deletion of Sabrina Ho. I feel the deletion occurred a bit haphazardly and I'd appreciate the opportunity for a full discussion amongst the page's editors to gain a consensus on your decision. I hope this is not too much to ask. Although certain portions of Sabrina Ho do appear to be an advertisement or promotion, I'd contend many portions are not. There are about 70 reference links to credible news publications directly citing Sabrina Ho and her work. Several of her siblings also have Wikipedia articles including Pansy Ho and Lawrence Ho. Sabrina Ho is as notable as these two individuals. While the article can use improvements, I'm not sure a complete rewrite is required to achieve neutrality. Thank you.
MacauWizard1 (talk) 07:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was , as you say, deleted as entirely promotional. I do not think it can be fixed without complete rewriting, which is the standard. Whether she is notable is a different issue.
You write "discussion among the page's editors". The only significant editor is Angrylala (talk·contribs), who has only worked on this article and those of her family. (It was started by Kelvinlei,who has written nothing else. You have never contributed except for this note to me. What is your connection with the other editors? Have you any connection with her or her family? DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Kornelija Slunjski
DGG,
I am a bit confused with your deleting the page Kornelija Slunjski (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Everything that was stated in the article was supported with coverage of multiple sources and news outlets. I wrote to the admin who originally deleted the content but never got a reply in which they can explain what specific part is considered advertising as nothing had a positive context?
Would you be kind enough to help me adjust the article so it gets published?
Sincerely, --TheGalaxyMan (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me so quickly, I appreciate it!
The references are from relevant Balkan news outlets that are interested in Kornelija's life and career, as well as platforms in the States (in which you have to submit evidence of eligibility) that support her status as an Influencer.
There is also multiple magazine publications that show her relevance in the industry in Croatia but are in a tangible format and not sure how to add that to the sources.
I've been reading other Wikipedia articles that have similar content (makeup artists etc) , and I really don't see how this one is considered a promotional one since Kornelija is not "praised" in any way, it just stated facts about her education & career so far.
Looking forward to hear back from you or another admin.
There are indeed several hundred thousand WP articles which are equally defective, or even worse, and need deletion or great improvement. Most were accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower, but some get entered even now because of inadequate review. It will tak us many years to deal with them. But the least we can do is not add to them.
Since the deletion came from you, please don't mind if I ask a few other questions.
Did you "pass on" this case to a specific admin?
Is your suggestion to reach out to someone else or wait to be messaged?
My concern about waiting is that I sent inquiries to an admin who deleted my page prior, and never got a response or explanation.
It would be useful to see an example of a "not defective" page of someone in my niche to see what is Kornelija's profile lacking. I would be happy to improve the page, but I am afraid I am not finding any constructive advice in how to improve it.
(Talk page stalker) I am curious why you have not withdrawn your Olga T. Weber AfD nomination, considering that you placed it less than two weeks after the previous AfD was closed, and therefore the nomination is in clear violation of policy. Newimpartial (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not often that I would do this--but there is no policy preventing it. WP:RENOM is an essay, and the guidelines it gives are considerably longer thana our actual practice. I see however it may have been strategically not a very good idea. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you are an admin, DGG, which is why I was taken aback. The relevant policy text from WP:DELAFD is as follows:
Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.
Hi DDG! I have some concerns regarding your recent speedy deletion of Sabrina Ho. I feel the deletion occurred a bit haphazardly and I'd appreciate the opportunity for a full discussion amongst the page's editors to gain a consensus on your decision. I hope this is not too much to ask. Although certain portions of Sabrina Ho do appear to be an advertisement or promotion, I'd contend many portions are not. There are about 70 reference links to credible news publications directly citing Sabrina Ho and her work. Several of her siblings also have Wikipedia articles including Pansy Ho and Lawrence Ho. Sabrina Ho is as notable as these two individuals. While the article can use improvements, I'm not sure a complete rewrite is required to achieve neutrality. Thank you.
MacauWizard1 (talk) 07:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was , as you say, deleted as entirely promotional. I do not think it can be fixed without complete rewriting, which is the standard. Whether she is notable is a different issue.
You write "discussion among the page's editors". The only significant editor is Angrylala (talk·contribs), who has only worked on this article and those of her family. (It was started by Kelvinlei,who has written nothing else. You have never contributed except for this note to me. What is your connection with the other editors? Have you any connection with her or her family? DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I have no connection to the editors, nor to Sabrina Ho, or her family. I am simply an observer of the page (and many other pages of Asian “celebrities”). I used to edit Wikipedia a year ago but I lost my password and can’t access the account since there’s no email address associated with it. This is my first new post on Wikipedia in 12 months.
Sections of the article were inherently promotional such as “Trivia”, however other portions about Sabrina Ho’s life and work were written about in a more neutral, encyclopedic fashion and well sourced with lots of credible publications such as South China Morning Post etc
Therefore I’d appreciate the opportunity for other 3rd party editors not associated with the Sabrina Ho page to weigh in if there’s consensus for deletion. At the very least, the page’s creator or Angrylala (talk·contribs) should be able to access their edits on Sabrina Ho’s “early life and career” to use them as a foundation to create a new stub with her name. These sections do not require significant rewrites for complete neutrality. Thank you.
MacauWizard1 (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As there was not unilateral consensus this article was acceptable for deletion, please restore it to my Sandbox so that I may use neutral portions of this article (of which there are many) as a basis to create a new one. MacauWizard1 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused with your deleting the page Kornelija Slunjski (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Everything that was stated in the article was supported with coverage of multiple sources and news outlets. I wrote to the admin who originally deleted the content but never got a reply in which they can explain what specific part is considered advertising as nothing had a positive context?
Would you be kind enough to help me adjust the article so it gets published?
Sincerely, --TheGalaxyMan (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me so quickly, I appreciate it!
The references are from relevant Balkan news outlets that are interested in Kornelija's life and career, as well as platforms in the States (in which you have to submit evidence of eligibility) that support her status as an Influencer.
There is also multiple magazine publications that show her relevance in the industry in Croatia but are in a tangible format and not sure how to add that to the sources.
I've been reading other Wikipedia articles that have similar content (makeup artists etc) , and I really don't see how this one is considered a promotional one since Kornelija is not "praised" in any way, it just stated facts about her education & career so far.
Looking forward to hear back from you or another admin.
There are indeed several hundred thousand WP articles which are equally defective, or even worse, and need deletion or great improvement. Most were accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower, but some get entered even now because of inadequate review. It will tak us many years to deal with them. But the least we can do is not add to them.
Since the deletion came from you, please don't mind if I ask a few other questions.
Did you "pass on" this case to a specific admin?
Is your suggestion to reach out to someone else or wait to be messaged?
My concern about waiting is that I sent inquiries to an admin who deleted my page prior, and never got a response or explanation.
It would be useful to see an example of a "not defective" page of someone in my niche to see what is Kornelija's profile lacking. I would be happy to improve the page, but I am afraid I am not finding any constructive advice in how to improve it.
JPL's editing on the article was indeed very questionable, and it might be appropriate to pursue it in the appropriate venue, but it doesn't affect the result. I do not restore advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like edit history access so I can pursue this. Personally, I believe there is a reasonable case to establish notability as co-chair of Wolf Pac. I'm not sure how that would be accomplished while a campaign is going on (while I might not mention it, others will pick up on it quickly). Of course, I made that argument in the AfD, which you chose to ignore. Trackinfo (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
personally, I think the section about her in the article on the PAC needs looking at also for promotionalism. On the other hand, if she does win the primary I am very willing to try an article on her myself to challenge the idea that major party candidates for the USSenate do not have a presumption of notability. but yes, I will userify it. I don;t like to be stubborn late at night, because I know I'm more prone to error. See User:Trackinfo/Alison Hartson For one thing, the history might be useful. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Islam and Christianity in Balance
I have realised that you were the deleting administrator of the page I created 2 days ago on accounts of promotion of the product and it benefiting a single person/company. Sir, the reason I had created the page is that the book, about which the article was written, has been listed as a "treatise" in the domain of inter-religious dialogue and the reason I aspire to have this article retrieved is that it was not done for advertisement or promotion because the book hasn't been issued to any library or bookstore for the people to buy. Therefore, even if readers want to buy it, they can't. Hence I don't think it comes under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, and should be re-instated as soon as possible. I can use your guidance to balance the article if it seems more one-sided. Stjt (talk) 02:04 November 16, 2017 IST.
"A galaxy of intellectuals and scholars from academics, civil society, government services and the media attended the event." and about half the article is devoted to the various tributes given at the reception for the book.
The remainder of the article is just the table of contents.
The references are some press releases published in GreaterKashmir, bu they do not really represent independent reviews.
There is already a section on the book in the article on the author, a section which is also quite promotional
And looking at that article, the various quotes, which seem mostly derived from letters of various notable people to him, are not encyclopedic content.
The article itself is full of praise for him in a very similar style, much of it cited to similarly non-independent sources. "Iqbal's contributions in upgrading Education in Kashmir drew admiration but while serving his mission he did not wait for any award or reward. Instead, he had to proceed on voluntary retirement in a atmosphere of ungratefulness" is actually referenced to his own book!.
Nor do we list booklets and similar minor publications.
Dear DGG, thank you for your valuable guiding remarks. I have already made some corrections and modifications to the article. Rest controversial portions shall be settled in due course. It would be appreciated if you also help in improving the article. Stjt (talk) 01:46 November 17, 2017 IST. —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was it a source issue, or....
..BLP issue being the reason you rmvd this as inappropriate? I'm assuming BLP vio? Atsme📞📧 1:53 pm, Today (UTC−6)
I hope you are having a wonderful weekend. I love it in America - so rich life here! I think I will rent a car and go buy things at walmart this weekend.
I appreciate your comments and support. You seem like a very established editor who seems to care about other editors. I am considering creating Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fair Use and I was interested in suggestions on how to go about this, and editors who I can talk to about building this page before it goes live. Any suggestions would be most helpful.
I would advise you against doing this. The enWikipedia policy on how to deal with copyright is not likely to change, and you will be wasting your efforts entirely. There was a deliberate decision early on to minimize the inclusion of material justified only by Fair Use. Part of the reason is that fair use is interpreted much more liberally in US law than it is anywhere else in the world, and we intend our content to be usable internationally. By US law even a full chapter of a non-fiction book would probably be legally fair use in Wikipedia under either the earlier 4 factor balancing test, or the current emphasis on whether it interferes with commercial exploitation. This is more generous than anywhere else, and makes a curious contrast with the US very extended period of protection. There would be sufficient legality to let WP operate legally in the US--it would not be enough to let everyone copy it everywhere. We were also aware that the entire principle of a open license website like ours would be both in principle and in execution very dangerous to some businesses that depend on intellectual property lawx for their commercial existence, and we wanted to take no chances in letting them attack us. There is also the realization at the very beginning that we intended to use the US very generous rules on other aspects of free speech to the limit, and that these principles were much more important to us and to the world than fair use. So we wanted to show that we were being zealously law-abiding. And, by and large, this strategy has been enormously successful. It is much too important to take risks that might affect it.
Myself, I do think enWP went to ridiculous lengths in the interpretation. I don't want to go into details of what I think would be a safe rule. because I think there is no chance whatsoever of getting it changed. Every person who works on copyvio to a significant extent in enWP follows the current interpretation, and if you did start an RfC, and a vote were taken on whether to continue it, I am as certain as one can be around here that the current guideline would be strongly supported. (I'll even guess the % result--depending on just what you suggested, it would be between 75% and 95% against the change. A result like that will only harden the guideline, and prove extremely counterproductive.
Sometimes there is a reason to challenge something even though knowing that one will be totally defeated. The most important reason is to maintain general awareness of the problem, in the hope that there will be eventual change. If one is going to do this, it is only sensible to either select instances where there is in fact continuing gradual change in opinion sufficient to indicate the real possibility of progress, or to select causes which are fndamentally important enough to be worth it. This does not meet either criterion.
As for your own writing, if you are going to use quotations, use them only when we actually need quotations--to establish someone's opinion. Don;t use them for sections of articles where your own summary would be as helpful. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.
It appears that most long term administrators do not share the same views that you do on treating new editors contributions with the same respect that you mention on your other personal page.
I was interested if there are other administrators like you? If so, who? Thank you in advance. I appreciate all your time and all you do. How can i give you an award? Moscowamerican (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, soon after you finally removed the close-connection/NPV tag from the entry for Stevan Harnad (a tag which had been left there since 2014), User:Duffbeerforme has now put the tag on it again, just after putting the same tag on the entry for my journal Animal Sentience (journal). (I don't think it is necessarily a symptom of non-NPV if one has a connection with an entry. I don't think anyone reading the text of either entry itself would have thought it non-NPV from the text alone: it is clearly because I have identified myself that WP editors have this suspicion. I think it's unfortunate, because it just encourage users not to remain anonymous. Can you help me again? Best wishes, Stevan User:Harnad 06:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Stevan, the question of whether a connected contributor tag should remain indefinitely even after the article is NPOV is currently undecided. We are under a greatly increased attack from actual promotional editors, many of them undeclared paid editors, and the view that we should in all cases of any possible doubt apply and keep the tag is very widespread. Consequently, if another good faith editor here insists on retaining such a tag, I will not dispute it. If the text is written so it is clearly NPOV, it does no harm. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciation
I don't think I have adequately conveyed my appreciation for your patient explanations of 'how things work' around here. I have learned so much from you. Thank you and Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉06:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 233.4 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
neither can I, so I reverted the close, uncollapsed, and re-closed. Please check that the removal of backlinks came out right. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing is the dozen of backlink removals which actually removed links to Studio71 instead of the intended page. If you look at your contributions chronologically, from "Collective (disambiguation)" to "Producers Guild of America Awards 2014" need reverting Ben · Salvidrim!✉00:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-user-talk notifications are now expandable. [7]
AfC decline template
Hi there, I was mentioning to primefac that I felt the current templates we use for declining submissions could be made more pithy. Seemingly people aren't reading them, or, more likely, ignoring them; and I feel if they were either trimmed up, or made more specific (pointing to SNGs, for example) it may help. Either way, primefac mentioned you also have an interest in this, so I figured I'd reach out to get your thoughts. Thanks in advance. Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk04:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, thanks for reminding me. I write write at least a sample in the next week or two. Not reading, because I know that when I receive obvious boilerplate that seems to contain material not directly helpful, I stop reading. Also not understanding, because only someone who actually knows how we judge articles could understand the significance of the advice--and only someone with experience here could understand the pages being referred to. And, to be sure, ignoring -- sometimes they don't care in the least about what we require--but I am not sure any change in wording can help that part. . DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I’ve seen you’ve protected Jan Doblado page from creation.
I would like you to unprotected from creation please. A draft page has been made so it can be reviewed before being published. If you would unprotected it from creation please, that would be awesome!
-Thanks in advance. Annonymous4 05:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymous4 (talk • contribs)
Well, the draft at least gives some information, which the repeatedly deleted article versions did not. I would however be very surprised if it is accepted-- Idon;t see how it is likely to meet NMUSIC. But if an experienced reviewer wants to accept it, I will unprotect. Even so, do not be surprised if the article is again deleted--neither the reviewer nor I make the final decision. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support your conclusion about the validity of Medical Hypothesis as a RS. However, much of Ramachandran's work is highly speculative; he tends to formulate exciting theories that are not backed up by any research. I am not certain what the best way is to handle what could be defined as pop-neuroscience. Neurorel (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't list it for problems with notability, but promotionalism. I didn't refer to NBOOK because that's not the basis of my nomination. In fact, I think it most likely is notable. If I thought it wasn't I would have said so. I did enough WP:BEFORE to confirm the notability. I am fully aware that I can not discuss the notability of a book without looking at least for library holdings, which are quite high--and having seen that, I assume that there are reviews also.
As you must know by now, I currently care much more about promotionalism than notability. I rarely send to afd any more if notability is the only concern, unless it's really clear. I send promotionalism that doesn't fall under G11. There are enough people dealing with notability , and in any case I consider lack of notability a less critical issue.
I make mistakes. By my estimate, somewhere around 2% of my AfD nominations are errors. (as distinct from those where the consensus disagrees with me) Criticize me when I make the errors--I want to try to reduce my error rate to 1%, and I need the criticism to do that. But not when you just assume I make an error without looking at what I actually said. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so this is the crux of the disagreement. Deletion is not cleanup. I would love to just go around deleting articles I don't like. We have a bunch of articles about minor athletes and movies no one saw and the articles remain because the subjects are notable. So it must be nice to ignore WP:N. I don't think you made a case for WP:DEL4 and it's your job as nominator to make that case. So my charge isn't that you made a mistake, but that your beliefs about deletion are wrong, hence my utter contempt for you as an editor. You are one ARBCOM candidate I definitely regret supporting in the past. Chris Troutman (talk)00:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: How is it a personal attack? I have seen AfD noms like what DGG has done considered "bad faith." I'm pointing out that Wikipedia actually has agreed-upon criteria for deletion and DGG seems to think himself above mere community consensus. I agree with Aristotle's adage: He who has never learned to obey cannot be a good commander. Anyone who purports to enforce and define the law has to obey the law. Contempt for guidelines and policies indicates unfitness for leadership, in my opinion. Clearly, I am in the minority in my views, which is sad. Chris Troutman (talk)03:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most actual disagreements involving policy are not about what it is, but how to apply it. Sometimes the consensus is pretty stupid, but each of us has a their own view about what that applies to. NOT ADVOCACY is basic policy, but the dividing line between which promotional articles to fix, and which to remove, is a matter of judgment, with a very wide range of plausible views. I do not have contempt for those who take a different view here than I, tho I certainly continue to oppose them as opportunity offers, and I certainly intend my arguments to affect the general consensus on interpretation. WP would not be much harmed by disagreements on whereto draw the line about notability ; it could be destroyed by being used for advertising.
I don't see what ArbCom has to do with it; it is rarely concerned even indirectly with what articles get kept or deleted; there have been a few arb cases about deletion behavior, but they were before my time on the committee. If, hypothetically, there were a supreme board to decide what articles were kept, then people would appropriately vote for the members based on what they thought about deletion-related questions. Whether I'm an arb adds no weight to my !votes at AfD, and I don't see that it discourages people from disagreeing with them. It would be more relevant to ask my views about what constitutes a personal attack, for that arb com does have jurisdiction over.
If I had deleted the article as G11 single-handed without a second admin's confirmation, you might have at least an excuse for a question about my general judgment. But this is just a nomination for a discussion. As I tell beginners, if your view is considered right by the community, the article will not get deleted. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"But this is just a nomination for a discussion. As I tell beginners, if your view is considered right by the community, the article will not get deleted." The problem is, this is simply not the case. All it takes is a nomination by a highly influential admin (you), and lack of participation (AfD is already a ghost town and has been for years as the noms pile up beyond anyone's ability to track), or participation from deletionists, non-neutral participants, or people with an axe to grind, for a notable article to be deleted simply because nobody, or insufficient people, bothered to do WP:BEFORE, or bothered to click the search links at the top of every AfD. The proper response to a promotional-sounding article is to (A) edit it, or (B) tag it with {{advert}}, {{cleanup}}, or similar tag. The proper response for an article whose citations appear to demonstrate insufficient WP:N is to do WP:BEFORE. It cannot be over-stressed that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. That's why we have cleanup tags.
All of that said, Christroutman's vicious personal attacks here are way out of line and are in violation of the final warning he received here: [8], so by all rights he should be blocked. Softlavender (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavendar, that is not how I see my experience at afd. My record of success is not particularly high, partly because -- having no real need to have a perfect record -- I can try to see where consensus currently lies by sometimes nominating what I suspect to be marginal cases; the way we work, there is no other way to find out except to try and see & then adjust expectations. I'm perfectly willing to withdraw a nomination or suggest an alternative, as I have done with the one that started this thread. I consider AfD misnamed--it should be seen as Articles for Discussion, and with the current variety of closures, that is more and more what it has become.
There are many regulars who have not the least hesitation in telling me that I'm wrong -- I think in fact some of them find it particularly satisfactory to be able to do so. Many beginners do also, and they can be sometimes correct as well. Of course, it is possible that I may be an adult gorilla who does not realize my own weight--I have never been all that good in judging what people think of me. .
Participation at AfD has been even lower in the past. But even as it is, it's the only process here for quality control that actually works. Again, I may be misperceiving this because I am overestimating how well it works because I have long enough experience there to know how to use it.
But here is the real problem: I am now much less concerned with notability than promotionalism. I do intend to use whatever fair methods I can find to put an end to the practice of undeclared paid editing--and if possible, to convince the community to end all paid editing. The most effective method at my disposal is deletion. (SPI also helps, but I'm just not good at it and have to depend for that part on others). Variations in notability do not actually matter very much, but paid editing will destroy WP by reducing us to an advertising medium. Even if by some miracle we could get paid editing of decent quality, it would destroy WP by driving away the volunteers. That includes me--I will not work here if it stops being a volunteer project, any more than I would work here if it were censored, or if it did not have a free license. Those are the things about WP that are actually important to me.
Consequently, I no longer fully agree that "The proper response to a promotional-sounding article is to (A) edit it, or (B) tag it with {{advert}}, {{cleanup}}, or similar tag. " It remains the proper approach for an article from a good faith editor (GFE). For an article in violation of the TOU, the proper course is deletion. We could remove these from AfD--I will support a speedy criterion; I'd even support it also applying to draft space. (I recognize there are some problems here, because sometimes a GFE will not know better than to copy the style of one of the hundred thousands of promotional articles thinking that's what is actually wanted. The solution is to remove the bad examples--all of them, regardless of how long they've been here, just as we dealt with the unsourced BLPs. It will take a few years.) For good volunteer editors to try to fix such articles makes the matter worse: they're facilitating the undeclared paid editors, they're preventing a real solution, they're doing the work so the people who want to destroy our principles can earn the money. That's suicide, not altruism.
Nor do I fully agree with the essay Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The most effective way --sometimes the only way--to get an article cleaned up over opposition for fans or promotional editors is to list it for deletion. It shouldn't be the first step for an article by a good faith editor, but it works. clumsy as AfD is, the alternative is 3O, which rarely accomplishes anything, or RfC, which can be really messy. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then, in my opinion, you are, or could be accused of, nominating in bad faith. If you feel or realize that a subject has notability, but are AfDing anyway, then you are nominating in bad faith as many people understand it. Unlike other XfDs, AfD is not "articles for discussion", as you have stated/implied above. It is "Articles for Deletion". By AfDing you are stating or implying that an article on the subject should not exist on Wikipedia. If you are too lazy to edit, and unwilling to tag articles (we also have the {{coi}} and {{undisclosed paid}} tags for the issues you address), but want to remove them entirely based on your subjective opinion of how they are written rather than the notability of the subject and the well-established thresholds of inclusion established by the community, not by a single person .... then you are, in essence, taking "the law" into your own hands. I understand why you are doing it, but it subverts a lot of the established community processes under which the encyclopedia operates. They may be inefficient, but they have been established by community consensus. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavendar: WP:N is clear that simply meeting the GNG is not enough for inclusion. Failure of WP:NOT is grounds for failing WP:N, and that includes WP:PROMO. WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14 also apply here: a notable subject that is promotional can and should be deleted from Wikipedia under existing policies and guidelines, including the notability guideline itself, even if it does not meet the strict G11 criterion. Your view is certainly a view that many in the community hold, but so is David's. The point of AfD is for the community to decide how to apply the principles of Wikipedia as expressed in our policies and guidelines to the case of a specific article. David is making good faith deletion nominations based on promotion. While the community might not always agree with him, it often does. Consensus is built organically through local discussions such as AfD, and the work David is doing here is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Essentially advertising" is an incredibly weak rationale for sending something to AfD. If he had said "I can find reliable sources for this, but there is so much promotional content, I think we're better off blowing it up and starting over, and as this isn't my topic of expertise, I'm not comfortable doing it, and I can't see anyone else coming forward" then I might be more understanding. If a brand new admin candidate did this, and somebody noticed, they'd get opposed and possibly their RfA would tank. So why should an existing admin get away with things a new candidate won't? You should agree with WP:NOTCLEANUP, as the deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You ping didn't work. Please enable your preferences settings to warn you when that happens. I only ask for userfication when the consensus is delete so I won't be touching the article, otherwise.Chris Troutman (talk)15:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, "essentially advertising" is one of the basic reasons to remove an article. Of all the rationales at WP:NOT, NOT ADVOCACY is one of the most important, as the very basis of NPOV. (By comparison, NOT INDISCRIMINATE, the basis of Notability guidelines, is much less critical) Articles that amount to advocacy must be removed, and the mere promise to fix it is just as inadequate as the mere promise to fix copyvio or BLP violation. How we do this fundamentally simple thing is of course complicated, and is adjusted to circumstances by changing the written rules and the interpretations--normally, the written rules lag by a considerable amount. The interpretation is whatever consensus has it--there is no other basis for deciding content in WP. It is reasonable of anyone here to try to influence the interpretation, and I knew from the start hat my main purpose here was to do that. In some things I have been successful. I always realized success would come slowly, and I think in terms of years. Sometimes change come surprisingly quickly, and there has been a major change in the last year in the extent to which we reject promotionalism and its usual correlate of paid editing. Having already changed what we do, the rules will follow. My style is to let others write them, once I've gotten the change started.
Softlavender, "Nominating in bad faith" is a remarkable term to use for giving my opinion, and then asking the community to determine just where the present boundaries of consensus lies. I have never nominated without the intent and hope of getting something deleted because of WP:NOT. Nominating in bad faith means nominating maliciously or to be a nuisance, or based on prejudice, or relying on spa or sock support, not merely having an opinion others disagree with. It can also include nominating repeatedly and persistently despite knowing that the consensus is firmly against one. I try not to do that, tho sometimes I make an error in moving more quickly than the circumstances turn out to warrant. More often I think I make an error by letting things slide, but both are inevitable in anyone doing a large amount of non-obvious work here.
If we are to trade charges, those who try to fix the work of promotional editors, especially promotional paid editors, could be considered complicit in helping them destroy WP. I don't go around accusing my opponents of doing that deliberately, though I do sometimes remind them that such will be the effect of what I consider their misguided work. Perhaps eventually they'll realize; I've changed myself, as I too did not realize the danger initially, and I hope the continuing revelations of the extent of promotional editing might affect them, as it did me.
one of the prerogatives of one's own talk page is the ability to have the last word in an exchange. There will be dozens of opportunities each day to continue elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG Hi, I found a letter in my inbox saying that the /wiki/asketic article is deleted without any comments on improvements. The article was made after the danish branding studio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Types which is live and well. As I understand, users are encouraged to create articles if they have historical value. In the case of Asketic, it is a branding studio in a small country Latvia (less than 2 mil people) and has earned noteable recognition by creating historical Typeface and participating in Riga city branding and also doing work in Latvian design scene through academia.
Please provide constructive feedback so I can amend the page. Also, I see the page has been deleted already, so should I open a new one or can I amend the delted one?
the references for the article are entirely links to their own work, or links to WP pages--which are not allowed as references, for how can you reference WP to WP. There is thus no real evidence for significance, and it is simply a promotional list of their projects, none of which are important enough to have gotten really substantial coverage. That's what you see on a web page. ``
