User talk:DGG/Archive 108 Jan. 2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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

DRV to AfD[edit]

Is it considered standard procedure to ping prior editors involved when an DRV is closed as relist, are there any examples of this happening in the past? Valoem talk contrib 16:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I consider it good procedure. I don't know if it is actually required, but it should be. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has happened (including where I was actually notified) and I myself would like to be, especially if it was a subject I frequently comment at such as businesses and companies, biographies, etc. SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I haven't seen it before so it could be utilized more. I am not sure what to do anymore in regards to this AfD, obviously if this fails I won't touch article again. The amount of heat and off wiki harassment is enough. But I do feel that authority is the only way to override this going forward. This AfD highlights mobbing at the highest level, when editors see the number of attempts at restoration they become increasingly defensive with each incarnation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk · contribs) and Casliber (talk · contribs) are the only two editors that had any legitimate reasoning for there vote to delete and I appreciated that. The rest of the editors appear to be there to attack me and the article and have created an environment so hostile that editors supporting this concept are afraid to speak their mind. Editors appears to have ignored the fact that I went through DRV and garnered overwhelming support from even Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) himself who not only favored inclusion, but strongly supported it. The inherent bias now makes this AfD flawed. Cunard (talk · contribs)'s strong sourcing and well reasoned policy based inclusion seems to be ignored. Any editor reading the wall of text before his post is going to be bias or reserved about supporting this. I am not sure what to do next and have considered pinging all Arbcom members to see if they consider this entire debate historic to improving Wikipedia. Valoem talk contrib 20:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's personal. Besides any particular prejudice against this particular topic, WP can show a remarkable degree of prejudice against some sexual topics. Like many individuals and organizations, WP's willingness to accept such things is in principle very broad, but in practice is limited to what people are familiar or comfortable with. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpay[edit]

Thanks for your constructive criticism of Pushpay. I would welcome some constructive suggestions to address some of the perceived issues with my initial post on the page. VCandPEInvestor (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commented on the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016[edit]

Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahboub Baccouch[edit]

Hello DGG, please provide your opinion on this AfD: Mahboub Baccouch. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, DGG![edit]

Happy New Year!

DGG,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Happy New Year (UTC)[edit]

Happy New Year!

DGG,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 00:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Question for you.[edit]

Hi, DGG. I've been watching you on Wikipedia for a while, and it led me to ask this question: Does WP have a mentorship program that you know of, and if so, where? I'm not new to the project, but I still feel like a new editor and never really have any idea how or where to contribute. The Teahouse seems geared more towards general "welcome to Wikipedia" topics, whereas I'm not sure that would help. I came to you because you seem rather knowledgeable about the inner workings of this place ... any ideas or suggestions you could offer, I would greatly appreciate. Thank you for your time. Lithorien (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Happy New Year, DGG[edit]

Pratyya (Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2016. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2016 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2016 go well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

2016 year of the reader and peace[edit]

2016
peace bell

Thanks for your support in 2015, - ring the peace bell often! - Look for hidden music by Bach, Sibelius and Verdi! Love the latter especially, great to begin the new year with Verdi's wisdom ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI/N on OzBioMan articles[edit]

Hi, you left a message for User:OzBioMan raising a concern about potential COI. In addition, the users' articles have no third-party sources. See User talk:OzBioMan#Need for third-party sources. --Macrakis (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:OzBioMan#Need_for_third-party_sources

Happy New Year, DGG![edit]

Happy New Year!

DGG,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

y]]

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, David![edit]

David, I wish you and those dear to you
golden days of love and joy in a

Happy New Year 2016!

Best regards,
Sam Sailor Talk! 04:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pass on!
Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages.
Information icon Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Mendelsohn House[edit]

I noticed you just moved The Mendelsohn House from AfC. There is already an article at Mendelsohn House, however, created after the AfC was first submitted. Station1 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Station1, sorry, this is one of the glitches. The AfC programming will pick this up automatically when it's the same title, but it doesn't alert for slightly different titles. I should of course have checked this one manually. The two articles are different--the one I just moved is much inferior, but it does have additional information. I'm going to mark it for merge, though the merge should be selective. If you don't want to do it, I will, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just wanted to bring it to your attention. I'm not especially familiar with the topic and don't have time to merge at the moment, so I'll leave it to you, but there's certainly no rush. Station1 (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huljich Brothers article needs some work[edit]

Hi DGG, thank you for your patience in assisting me with previous edits relating to New Zealand businesses and businesspeople. There is a page that I feel needs some significant work, but I am mindful that the page has been previously subjecting to some kind of edit war and evidently, some sock puppetry as well (it would seem someone with a direct interest has been trying to use the article to create newsworthiness). The article is Huljich brothers, who are a very high net worth family in New Zealand involved in some large NZX listed companies. I have suggested on the Talk:Huljich_brothers page a number of proposed edits I think are useful, but no-one has yet responded. Should I go ahead and make the edits I have suggested, or is there a better way you might suggest? PragmaticOutcome (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that an article on the family is justified. We already have articles on one of the three Paul Huljich and on the family firm Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd. But the edits you propose would improve the page, so make them, and ask me to look again. The article on Paul needs some major attention, from considerations of BLP and advertising, as well as whether he is actually a notable author. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I have made a number of changes as I outlined. Would appreciate your thoughts. Hopefully there is enough there to justify a page rather than outright deletion (or reversion to the old article that was warred over). PragmaticOutcome (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Deletion of EduMind[edit]

Hi DGG i want to create a page called EduMind which is my passion, please help me out how to proceed, previous attempt it has been deleted. talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edumindinstitute (talk • contribs) 05:30, 4 January 2016‎

Judging by you user name, you apparently are the same person as User:EduMind, blocked a few days ago for adding advertising to Wikipedia; I am consequently blocking you also. . The firm is a tutoring company providing exam preparation, and is very unlikely that an article could be writtten, even by someone without conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A man who planted a forest[edit]

Hello, happy new year. Could you check this and this There are many such articles. I was thinking to write an article on this person. Could you tell me if it passes GNG or it is a single event? And if I create this article, what should be title -- Abdul Karim (forester)? --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title would be his name. But I consider both references to be press releases. The first one in particular comes from a publication that prints "positive news", an euphemism for public relations.If you have better references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, try in draft space. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

06:22:25, 5 January 2016 review of submission by DwayneJAlexander[edit]



Hi DGG I am Dwayne Alexander , let me know if you have time to review the massively reduced article on Andrew Howard Barnes, particularly the philanthropic focus on impact on war medals etc.

Happy to discuss

Regards

Dwayne Alexander

I will look tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

restore Dredging Corporation of India for Userfy into my area[edit]

I would like to work on this and resubmit for evaluation once done. Devopam (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK,Devopam, you will find it at Draft:Dredging Corporation of India. Remember that you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG:, thanks for restoring the same. I know there is a lot of work that needs to be done. I know this won't have any hiccups with WP:NN. Someone didn't do justice to the article earlier resulting in its AFD nomination and inevitable fate. Shall do my best to revamp the draft before submitting it for AFC/move via proper process. Devopam (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, hope you don't mind me bothering you again on this one. Can you please have a look at Draft:Dredging Corporation of India when you get some free time ? I believe this should be okay now for restoration, in good faith. thanks and regards.Devopam (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Devopam, do you think the list of individual dredgers helpful? Might it be better to give something about the capacity of the largest machines? And, why is this company the only one allowed to do the work by govt. regulation , if I understand correctly what you've said? DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

I believe User:Whoopssorry is a sockpuppet, because his/her first edit was a controversial edit on the article, Elagabalus, and is now trying to start an edit war making controversial edits to change the subject's gender. Maybe he's not a sockpuppet, but I think he needs a warning or something. One can't just change a person's gender. Psychotic Spartan 123 20:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving the message on his talk page and sorry for jumping the gun. It's just been a little tense lately. Psychotic Spartan 123 22:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What to do[edit]

In regards to this Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination) accusation, I am not sure how to proceed. I've left Spartaz a message, and sent Arb Com an email though I am not sure I used the right email. I think it is vital to the discussion that I find out who the accuser is. Is it an anon IP or is there an established user behind this and can this information be provided? Just for the record whatever "evidence" their is has been completely fabricated I've never heard of those editors and I never go to random inactive editors for advice. Any established editor knows that these thing harm a discussion not help it. This accusation is again going to distort the AfD, perhaps that was the purpose. Canvassing for this always occurred in favor of deletion not inclusion. Valoem talk contrib 17:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

Hi DGG: Your recent edit at User talk:SwisterTwister removed around 28 kB of content there (diff). Was the content removal in error? North America1000 03:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fixed DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Vitek[edit]

What happened to the history of Milan Vitek? --Hegvald (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

will fix DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kalahari Debate[edit]

If you are in the process of doing history mergers, would you mind moving Draft:Kalahari Debate to Kalahari Debate and merging its history there? The original author, Losskakel (talk · contribs), bypassed the AFC process by pasting the article directly into main space (which is fine in itself) but the draft version that was copy-pasted into article space included several substantial edits by Ninafundisha (talk · contribs) who isn't given due credit now. --Hegvald (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about this. I have asked Bishonen to fix it. --Hegvald (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ishag[edit]

Please reinstate the Wikipedia page entitled Daniel Ishag. We believe you falsely deleted it and are happy to edit it again to more accurately reflect wikipedia's Ts&Cs. If this cannot be done we would like the text back.

has been emailed to you. I remind you about our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure If you have any conflict of interest, please write it in Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I certainly will. Please could you reinstate the page to my account workspace so I can take a look and make the necessary edits.

Sheldon Ilowite[edit]

Hi DGG. How did Sheldon A. Ilowite get deleted as an unsourced BLP? Isn't that the hockey novelist I just added sources to in the last couple of days?--Jahaza (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Jahaza (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My error. restored. But despite the source, it may not pass AfD unless you add more fairly quickly. Look for reviews of the individual books. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Spaces in Freiburg[edit]

Hi DGG. In class we talked about our site Green Spaces in Freiburg being up for deletion. As we are all new to Wikipedia: Do you have any suggestions what we can do to keep the site? Thank you very much in advance. Evemuriel (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evemuriel, I commented, and what I said should settle it, though the community decision at an AfD can be unpredictable. The most important thing you can do now is to add the references from the de WP article. The en WP always wants the actual references there, from the very start. They should have been added immediately; do it as soon as possible, and then go back to the AfD and say so . It might also help to use a little less detail, and more descriptive writing. And don't include really minor events just because you have a reference for them, since you do have good references. (German references are perfectly OK, but they do have to be put in our format--the fields in the deWP reference structure will give error messages if they are just pasted in DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common Movement for Development[edit]

Hello DGG. I think you might have misread the prod rationale on Common Movement for Development. The party did not win a seat in the elections, which is why I prodded it (I agree that any party that does win seats is notable, but this is not the case here). The information in the article is false and unreferenced (a reference to the actual results was provided in the prod). Could you reinstate it please? Thanks, Number 57 17:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see from Paul Biyoghé Mba that it needs to be reworded. Perhaps . Paul Biyoghé Mba, elected to the parliament under the PDG, retained this seat after he split from the PDG to form the MCD in 1994 & held the seat until 1996 . As a member of the party he won a seat in the Senate for 1997-1998, and was a member of the party when a Minister, 1999-2002, when it merged back into the PDG." DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, this seems quite odd. The party isn't listed as winning a seat in the Senate in the 1997 elections according to the IPU, but is listed as holding a Senate seat here. I'm happy it's notable now, but there's a lot of contradictory information out there (I've found sources stating it was established in 1990 and 1994...). I'll try and expand the article. Number 57 18:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White Lies (1996 film)[edit]

DGG, are you really sure about publishing White Lies (1996 film) from AFC? I'm not sure why nor whether it would pass WP:NFILMS. Are you just going by the fact there were reviews? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either. I think it has a good chance at AfD, but the only way to is find out is to nominate it. The German article has several reviews, and there are probably more to be found in English language sources. which is the standard for passing AfC--a much higher standard than "just passing Speedy", but less than, "will surely pass AfD. (The German article is also more extensive, but almost all of it is just a detailed description of the plot). I am in general very reluctant to not accept articles that are accepted in the deWP , which has a more rigorous standard of notability than ours.
More generally, how "good chance" is defined is an unsettled question. The actual AfC guideline says more likely than not, which I and almost everyone working at approving AfCs thinks is much too low. What I would give as my advice on this is 75%, but in practice I an be much surer of the likelihood in some fields than others. I have sometimes accepted an article and sent it direct to afd for a determination. I have not infrequently send articles other good people have accepted there also. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to speedy deletion request for THINK Together[edit]

Hi DGG - I'm contesting your speedy deletion request for THINK Together. Besides the Organization section, which was sourced by necessity with primary sources, it's pretty neutral and well sourced with reliable third party sources. Can you comment as to why you feel information about the organization is without merit?Timtempleton (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help required[edit]

I have seen you work at AfCs, so thought of asking you. Your input here will be appreciated. Regards, Yash! 12:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get there today of tomorow DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an edit type classification project[edit]

Hey DGG! I'm reaching out to you for help with a project that I'm working on because I think you'll have some valuable insights. See WP:Labels/Edit types. We're working on developing a practical taxonomy (see talk page for our debates) for classifying the type of work done in an edit so that I can build some machine learning models to predict those types and we can get some fun, new wiki tools. Would you be willing to get on a phone call with us to review some edits in the context of our taxonomy some time in the next couple of days? --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I commented in some detail first. A good time for a phone call would be Friday. My personal guess is that you will be able to tease out some clear instances that this approach can be used for, but not a general purpose tool is everal years ahead. Not that I see anything wrong with working at that time scale. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft prod instead[edit]

Ok, it looks like the G13 thing is going like the prior G13 discussions so I say we think up something new. What about a draftprod idea? It's suggested. It's not a speedy but it'll clear MFD through a different process and I think it can cover most people's concerns. Something like "any userspace or draftspace draft of an article that hasn't been edited in six months where the creator hasn't made an edited in the last year can be proposed for deletion if after seven days an admin determines that the draft has no likelihood of becoming an article." Any draft can be obviously removed by anyone and there's MFD then. Just off the top of my head but one year is WP:STALEDRAFT so maybe one year not six months and make this part of the STALE deletion process. I'm not sure where this complexity of 'what is a draft' is coming from but that's the only problem I'm still seeing. It's enough multiple parts here but we can suggest the idea first and then do a separate exceedingly complicated broken up RFC to offer the idea. What do you think? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strike this whole idea. It's not necessary. MFD, while not ideal, I think could handle this. I may suggest it again if MFD becomes unmanageable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In figuring out to do , we need to consider the purpose. There are three basic classes of material
1. Material that might significant contribute to a plausible article. In my opinion, this should never be deleted regardless of time, or whether the editor is active. What we need to do with these is to make findable. My main concern with these is to make sure that none of these get deleted. I've been spending half my time on that for a year now, and I would oppose anything that makes this harder.
2. Material that is abandoned but harmless, and will never make an article. There's been a lot of activity here lately--I regard this as a rather low priority. When we do clean up, it's more important to clean up the areas of Draft space and WT:AfC/ , which are joint-use non-private work areas, than Userspace or User talk space, which can accommodate a little harmless junk because it is not in the way. Cleaning up user/Usertalk space is in my mind an extremely low priority. The priority is in removing stuff that is harmful, and fixing what is erroneous or outdated. That probably amounts to at least 1 or 2 million articles.
3.Material that is harmful and shouldn't be here. The main types of that are advertising and copyvio. G11 & G12 is what we need here.

The main use of MfD for Draftspace is removing material that keeps getting resubmitted but will never make an article and isn't bad enough to be called G11.

The current attempt to remove variant incomplete article versions that do not contain harmful material is in my opinion unnecessary. It would be more important to check them to se if there is material there that would be useful in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board[edit]

Hello. You declined a draft I submitted about a documentary film, Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board that I saw on the Discovery Channel. I have gone back and added significant reliable sources to the article, but have not resubmitted it yet. I want to see if there is any advice you can give that would help it get approved. I tried to follow all Wikipedia guidelines as well as modeled it after other documentaries in the same area without sounding like a press release. Please let me know the best way to let you see the draft or have someone who specializes in documentaries like User:Bzuk since the movie does contain several aviation experts and compares healthcare to aviation. It also interviews several persons of notability including Chesley Sullenberger and John J. Nance. The analogy is that aviation saw that they had system errors that would doom the industry and they got together to fix the problems by forming the private-public joint tsk force, Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST).[1][2][3][4][5][6] In healthcare, there are 440,000 people dying in the US annually from medical error, making it the third leading cause of death.[7][8][9] There was a fair amount of press about the movie when it came out, so I have added lots of reliable, secondary sources.[10][11][12].[13][14][15][16] Any help is appreciated. --Radom event gen (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not see where you have yet actually added the material you mention to the draft at Draft:Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board. The first step is for you to do so; that is the way to let me see it. I will give you my opinion then. You can then decide whether or not to submit the draft. If you do submit it, any established editor can review it and if they choose accept it. I also point out that if the draft should be accepted, by myself or anyone else, anyone who disagrees can and probably will list the article for a deletion discussion at WP:AFD, and the community will decide. The criterion for accepting at AfC is likely to pass a discussion at AfD, and in my opinion neither the original article nor the article supplemented with the sources you cite is likely to pass.
As advice, I point out that the importance of the issue or the urgency there may be for change, or the merits of the proposal, are all questions of advocacy, and not relevant to an encyclopedia. Similarly, material about the NTSB that does not substantial discuss the documentary is irrelevant. Material about To the extent you include any of this, it will negatively affect the article. The question is whether this particular documentary has been discussed in 3rd party reliable sources.
In the material you cite above, ref 1 is a good source in general but does not mention the film, refs 2 - 6 are about aviation, not health care, ref 7 is advocacy, not news, ref 8 does not mention the film, ref 9 is a reliable source in general though it reads to me more like advocacy than the usual dispassionate medical review. --note the doi goes to a paid source, the free link [1] should be so indicated)-- ref 10 does not mention the film; ref 11, 12 and 14 are press releases related to the release of the film, but do not discuss the film, 13 is advocacy, ref. 15 is an advocacy blog, ref 16 is a mere announcement about the film's existence with a link to it. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. I have found other references that discuss the content of the film from reliable, third party sources. I will focus on those. Radom event gen (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Pronovost, Peter (May 2009). "Reducing Health Care Hazards: Lessons From The Commercial Aviation Safety Team". Health Affairs. 28 (3): 479–489. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.3.w479. PMID 19351647. Retrieved 29 January 2016.
  2. ^ Duquette, Alison. "Fact Sheet – Commercial Aviation Safety Team". Federal Aviation Administration. US Department of Transportation. Retrieved 29 January 2016.
  3. ^ Croft, John. "Airbus, Boeing Set Sights On Synthetic Vision". Aviation Week. Aviation Week. Retrieved 29 January 2016.
  4. ^ Mark, Robert. "Despite plane crashes, it's safe to fly". CNN. Turner Broadcasting System. Retrieved 29 January 2016.
  5. ^ Mark, Robert. "Working Group Outlines Recommendations for Human-automation Interaction". AIN Online. The Convention News Company. Retrieved 29 January 2016.
  6. ^ Griffin, Greg. "Human error is biggest obstacle to 100 percent flight safety". The Denver Post. Digital First Media. Retrieved 29 January 2016.
  7. ^ Binder, Leah. "Stunning News On Preventable Deaths In Hospitals". Forbes. Forbes. Retrieved 29 January 2016.
  8. ^ "Leading Causes of Death". Centers for Disease Control. CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved 29 January 2016.
  9. ^ James, John (September 2013). "A New, Evidence-based Estimate of Patient Harms Associated with Hospital Care". Journal of Patient Safety. 9 (3): 122–128. doi:10.1097/PTS.0b013e3182948a69. Retrieved 29 January 2016.
  10. ^ O'Reilly, Kevin. "Celebrities make pitch for patient safety panel". American Medical News. American Medical Association. Retrieved 28 January 2016.
  11. ^ Hill, Terry. "Actor seeks media aid in sounding alert for health care safety". The National Press Club. The National Press Club. Retrieved 28 January 2016.
  12. ^ "Dennis Quaid Remarks on Medical Errors". The National Press Club. The National Press Club. Retrieved 28 January 2016.
  13. ^ "Discovery Channel to air "Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board" on April 28th Featuring Initial Interview Between Christopher Jerry and Eric Cropp". Emily Jerry Foundation. Emily Jerry Foundation. Retrieved 28 January 2016.
  14. ^ Graban, Mark. "Transcript of Podcasts #203 & #207 – Chris Jerry, The Emily Jerry Foundation". Lean Blog. Mark Graban. Retrieved 28 January 2016.
  15. ^ Holliday, Regina. "The Healthcare Tsunami". Regina Holliday's Medical Advocacy Blog. Regina Holliday. Retrieved 28 January 2016.
  16. ^ "Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board". PSNet Patient Safety Network. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved 28 January 2016.
I have made some changes today to the article so that it is more encyclopedic and not an advertisement for the film. Any statements are directly supported with reliable and verifiable sources including the Journal of Patient Safety and the National Press Club. I feel that the sources used establish the notoritey of the film. Maybe I'm missing something? I know that the approval of this article is independent of the approval of other articles, but I've seen many more articles, particularly about films, with much less sourcing. The fact that the film was aired on a major television channel, written about in the press, and written about in a peer reviewed medical journal would be enough in most cases. Any help would be appreciated. Radom event gen (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lenore Manderson[edit]

Hi DGG. I just history merged Draft:Lenore Manderson into this article. It was pasted to mainspace last year. After that you copyedited one of the sentences, but I had to leave that edit deleted with the later postponement because of overlapping dates (sorry). You may want to take a look. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find my edit atthe time, but I made some edits to the accepted article; further cleanup is still needed--I don't think all her books are include, and each waward needs a reference. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_108_Jan._2016&oldid=1078288966"