Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Hi @all,

i create my first article. Whould you please help me to finish it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Knights_International_Firefighters_Motorcycle_Club

Lots of greetings from Switzerland

Schweizerlaender (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Schweizerlaender

At the moment the article does not establish notability... the problem is that all the sources in the article are in some way connected to the club (club web pages and videos created by people associated with the club). What you need are sources that are "independent of the subject" (ie you have to show that someone not directly associated with the club has noted the club's existence and talked about it). Suggest you search for news and magazine articles that discuss the club and its activities.

If you are worried that the article may be nominated for deletion before you can find proper sources, I would suggest copying the article to a draft page (in your "user space"). You can continue to work on it there, even if it does get temporarily deleted from the main article space. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am here to inform anyone interested that there is discussion underway at WikiProject_Television_Stations regarding the notablity of subchannels. Given that discussion is well underway that responses should be posted there (unless an administrator believes it should be moved here). Spshu (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Marvis is the author of the Amazon Best Selling book, The Insiders Guide to a Free Ride and has been featured on various news mediums. He is a Detroit native. He attended Cranbrook Kingswood. He holds a degree from Cornell University and is currently obtaining his MBA from Wharton. He is the founder of a non-profit, Young Leaders for Excellence.

Needs more media references (from outside the Detroit area). Articles about living persons have especially high standards. Also, if you are Marvis Burns (or closely connected with him), please see: WP:COI, WP:BLPSELF, & WP:PROMOTION. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 10:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a Wiki page for all sorts of university professors? Looks like they want to feel a sense of importance and start their own pages. Professors should be really famous (and not just in their circles) to merit a Wikipedia page. Can someone comment on this please and also point me to any prior discussion on the topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.92.170 (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

For more appropriate guidelines for professors, see WP:PROF. It outlines criteria that should be met for any members of academia to be included in a Wikipedia article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A page I made about reacting games was marked for notability issues. I've since added several references about reacting games from peer-reviewed scholarly journals and from news outlets (e.g. USA Today, The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education). How do I go about removing the flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrider (talk • contribs) 21:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing stopping you from removing it yourself (just delete the first line in the edit window), although you might get reverted. The best course of action would probably be to ask User:Shirt58 why he added the template in the first place, and if he'll remove it. It does have a fair number of quality sources, I'd say just enough to establish notability under the general notability guideline ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.") Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 22:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm at the right place, but I have a quick question about neologisms. In short, when are the notable/worthy of their own article? I have a case (or a few cases) where one academic source coined several terms, but as far as I know they have not been used anywhere else (about 5 google hits per term). No other academic source uses these terms, nor does the general public. Should we have articles about said terms? We can source them just fine, after all. On the other hand, unless things change, we'll never be able to have more than a dictionary definition of the term, so I'm not sure what to do here. --Conti|✉ 22:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There's this, which begins with: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted." If they are only used by one source, and can't be found anywhere else, they're almost certianly not notable enough for their own article. If only one source uses a given term, how could we source articles about said terms "just fine, after all"? Wouldn't there be a "This article may rely too heavily on sources with too close a tie to the subject"-type problem? Of course, you could always try adding them to Wiktionary. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 22:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is important to remember that this policy provision relates to the question of whether we should have an article about the neologism... and does not relate to the question of whether we should mention the neologism in some other article. For example, suppose we have an article about a particular illegal drug... let us assume that the drug is clearly notable (discussed by multiple reliable sources... both academic and non-academic). Now, in that article we might wish to mention that the drug is given certain slang names by various groups of people (such as gang bangers located on the West Coast). Those slang names may qualify as neologisms... but as long as the use of the neologism (by West Coast gang bangers) is verifiable we can state the fact of their use. Such mentions need to be placed in context - in most cases, by being attributing the usage to the person or people who use the neologism... "On the West Coast, gang bangers refer to the drug as "Slag" or "Mind-kill" <cite to reliable source that mentions this slang usage>)

In other words... there are limited situations where Wikipedia can include mention of a neologism... even if we don't have an article devoted to it. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, this says that "They [neologisms] should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last." which would seem to preclude most of what you wrote (unless there are a lot of independent sources for a given nelogism, in which case we might actually be able to have an article devoted to it). Even a well-defined mention like: "On the West Coast, gang bangers refer to the drug as "Slag" or "Mind-kill" may have to be updated in a few years to: "In late 2011 on the West Coast, gang bangers referred to the drug as "Slag" or "Mind-kill" Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 14:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In light of some of the discussion here; I agree "there are limited situations where Wikipedia can include mention of a neologism", but stand by my "...they're almost certianly not notable enough for their own article." Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 14:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As a licensed therapist and director of mental health crisis teams, I was interested in connecting physical fitness and emotional fitness. I develop a series of exercises needed to strengthen the six major emotional fitness skills. My book Parents Are People Too detailed those as an Emotional Fitness Program for Parents. I write E-books about emotional fitness and operate a small Emotional Fitness Training business--self help. Am I correct in assuming I cannot then write an article about either emotional fitness, emotional fitness training, or emotional fitness exercises? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emofikat (talk • contribs) 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be looking for the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Writing an article about a book you wrote, a program you developed, etc, may be viewed as a conflict of interest. However, if you can write from a neutral point of view, people probably won't mind. The purpose of this noticeboard is to determine whether or not a topic meets Wikipedia's criteria for its own article. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. If you cannot find enough independent sources for a stand-alone article, you could try adding a section to an existing, related article. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 23:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am looking for information about general considerations involved in determining the notability of academic articles. This search was brought on by my participation in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. My thinking is that, by default, if an academic article has significant coverage --- much more than just a citation --- in reliable sources, then it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Other editors, in good faith, think that an academic article must be a "classic" or "path-breaking" to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. What do you think? Surely, this debate has come up before on Wikipedia. There are certainly many other articles about academic articles, i.e., The Use of Knowledge in Society, The Market for Lemons and so on. Yfever (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

First, if this is at AfD, then the appropriate place to discuss it is at the AfD discussion.

That said, and taking the discussion beyond a specific case, I think the key here is to determine whether the actual work (the article in an academic journal) is what is notable, or whether it is really the theories presented/discussed within that work that are notable. Generally, I think it is the later, but I could see some instances where it might be the latter (or both). Perhaps the inclusion criteria laid out at WP:Notability (books) could be applied?

Remember, there is more than one way to "include" something in Wikipedia... a) we can have a stand-alone article devoted to it... and/or... b) we can discuss it within the context of some other (related) article. The first form of inclusion is limited... governed by our various notability guidelines... but we are much more flexible when it comes to the second form of inclusion. When it comes to inclusion within the context of a related article, the criteria for inclusion are essentially relevance and WP:DUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My goal is to see if there is prior discussion of this topic or relevant pointers. The brief discussion at Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Academic_and_technical_books is interesting. In this particular case, it is more that the article is notable, or at least that we do not have a situation like, say, Prospect theory or Hotelling's rule where a single article led to the creation of a broader topic. I understand that there are are multiple ways to include something in Wikipedia, but, since there are two authors of this article, my plan was to link info from the summary to the articles about each of the authors. Anyway, I would be interested in hearing from others as well. Yfever (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be grateful for some eyes at Michael C. Seto for his notability as an academic/expert. I have a very long and difficult history with the tagger, so could use some outside opinions. Thanks in advance.— James Cantor (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I recently came across these two articles, The Scissor Fits and The Oregon Song and have found them to barely meet the Wikipedia stub requirements, although not fully. Both the articles have been on Wikipedia for almost 4 years since the end of 2008, but hardly any major article development or improvement has been done in both the articles. Also both the articles do not have any reliable sources and references, none so far. I am not sure if theses articles should be tagged for deletion. Therefore i have requested help of more experienced users on this noticeboard for article development and improvement if it is possible. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

in reality the founder of Punjabi language is Shri Guru Ravidass ji Maharaj which is having a birthplace in varanassi up and manage by Dera Sach Khand Ballan, and Dera Sach Khand ballan is having website www.derasachkhandballan.com and newspaper website www.begumpurashaher.net for punjabi varanmala you can see some links here

http://www.gururavidassguruji.com/gurmukhialphabet.htm

http://jaigururavidass.com/guru-ravidass-ji-2/35akhri-punjabi-varanmala/ http://derasachkhandballan.com under Publication and can check in books

uru Ravidass Ji coined Gurmukhi Alphabet.

The community in which Guru Ji was born was in the shackles of discrimination, untouchability, poverty and ignorance. He cherished to change the entire scenario of the community. He wanted first to take up educational aspect.

He preached – Madho abidiaa hit keen Bibek deep maleen

The untouchables were strictly prohibited from reading Devnagri script. Even a glance of the devnagri letters by them could mean damage of eyes and as such blindness. It was all horrible. To save the ignorant people Guru Ji invented his own Gurmukhi alphabet consisting of 35 letters.

Nana Khiaan puraan bed bidh(i) Chautees akhar manhi

Education was spread by Guru Ji. The people of his community started learning. Giani Gurcharan Singh has written a book ‘Gurmukhi Akhar Bhagat Ravidass ne banaai’. The author says that originally there are only 35 letters of the alphabet. With a view to make education difficult the selfish people have increased the letters to 52. It proves that 35 letters of Gurmukhi alphabet have been coined by Guru Ravidass Ji. He has also mentioned in the book that untouchables were not allowed access to Devnagri script. He felt necessity of Gurmukhi script so that the untouchables could be educated. Before partition of India and Pakistan, a Lahore court had adjudicated that the gurmukhi alphabet was coined by Guru Ravidass Ji. He was not only religious leader but a literary luminary also. Dr. Krishna Kalsia, author ‘Guru Ravidass Kav Kala’ has mentioned in the book that there is sole influence of Punjabi in Guru Ravidass bani. This also shows that Guru Ji has coined gurmukhi alphabet. The Indian Supreme Court agreed to the fact that Satguru Ravidass Ji coined the letters of the Gurmukhi alphabet. This case was re-opened for 4 times because of the contradiction of other casts in India, all the hearings had the same decision of the Supreme court: Satguru Ravidass Ji coined the 35 letters of the Gurmukhi alphabet. The hearings were in these 4 years: 1857, 1933, 1977, 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.208.122 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This article doesn't meet the criteria of WP:BIO as it lacks reliable sources apart from only using primary sources, contains original research and is written like a WP:SOAP. Also, the article name should be Lito Tangonan not Lito Cabacungan Tangonan, as per WP:COMMONNAME. Woofygoodbird (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering if we might have a few more eyes on Tony Nicklinson to determine if a stand-alone article is warranted, a rename to Death of Tony Nicklinson, or a redirect to Locked-in syndrome#Tony Nicklinson per the article's history and WP:BIO1E. Location (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been tagged for a while with no RS for NOT. It is also wikilinked from Duct tape and seems to be advertising in an Avon, Ohio section. I would AfD it myself but I seem to be wikihounded right now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be better to merge it to Duct tape, since Duck tape as a brand is one of the most well-known manufacturers of that product. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Does 1635: The Papal Stakes satisfy WP:BKCRIT#5? I considered prodding or taking to AfD. A quick Google search turned up nothing that would help establishing notability on regular grounds. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

One might ask the same question about all the WP articles on Eric Flint's novels. I would say definitely not. --Aspro (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I recently attended an invited talk by this guy, and was surprised to see he's not on WP. He's a very new professor, but it appears that he may already meet WP:PROF under point 1 for his work in identifying and characterizing exoplanets, which have been widely reported on. However, I'm not in the field so I would appreciate others' input. (Rather than linking a bunch of articles and NASA press releases here's a google search to get anyone started]. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I draw your attention to this page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Imran Bisthamin, which is an AfC pending review. If the subject fails WP:NRU, but seems to pass WP:GNG with the first few sources provided (the remaining sources are mostly about his injury, so I'm not sure whether they would satisfy the criteria of GNG), does that mean the subject deserves an article? TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 04:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

After some thorough discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nimo (3rd nomination), I believe it was decisively concluded that specific criteria like WP:NRU are secondary to the more general WP:GNG. The purpose of the more specific cases is to make decisions easier; but there are always cases where notability is established by less traditional means. (Indeed, these would make for the more interesting encyclopedia articles.)

The first two sources provide a broad background on Bisthamin's life. The second starts with the words: "The life story of a rugby idol called Imran Bisthamin…" A number of other sources also verify the facts in the Wikipedia article.

I think this subject clearly and unambiguously passes the notability threshold. -Pete (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have written a basic bio of Eldad Matityahu, the founder of Net Optics. Other editors have now twice added a notability flag, without commenting on the talk page. I removed the flag myself the first time, after increasing the number of references from 2 to 11, with an explanation on the article's talk page.

I'm reluctant to remove the flag myself again without any discussion or input from others, but I believe notability is not a problem. The article is based on 11 independent citations. Several are general profiles about Eldad. Coverage also ranges beyond his role as an entrepreneur -- including his interest in classic cars and his philanthropic endeavors.

Could somebody take a look and remove the notability flag if you agree, or else share your views in the thread I started on the article's talk page? Thanks, -RonnyG1 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to create an article on the recent banning of women from 77 university courses in Iran, namely those related to "accounting, engineering, pure chemistry, English literature and translation, hotel management", among others. I'm fairly certain the topic is notable, i'm just not sure what to name it or anything like that. Because the Women in Iran article is...well, crap. And Education in Iran just has a short, badly written, summary section of the Women article and links back to that. And I don't want to have to go and improve all of the Women in Iran article, i'm not good enough at article writing or the history involved to do that. And a section on the recent events would be undue weight, I believe, for the current state of that article. Which is why I want to make a separate article. But what should I name it? Iran university course ban? Iran female course ban?

A few sources for perusal:

• Male-order education: Iran bars women from 77 university courses - Russia Today
• Nobel laureate calls on UN to protect Iranian women - Radio Zamaneh
• Iran Universities Reportedly Ban Women - Huffington Post
• Miss-education and mass control - The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles
• Iran Barring Women From Atomic, Oil Fields Draws Rebuke - Bloomberg L.P.
• Universities in Iran Put Limits on Women's Options - New York Times
• Anger as Iran bans women from universities - The Daily Telegraph

Thanks for any help that can be given. Silverseren^C 00:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That looks notable to me. How about something like Iranian restrictions on female university students for a working title? Remember, too, that you don't have to get the title perfect the first round. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's true. I guess i'll just go with that for now then and it can always be renamed later if someone thinks up something they feel is more appropriate. Thanks for your comment. Silverseren^C 02:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There we go. It now exists. Silverseren^C 02:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

My concern would be with WP:NOT#NEWS; in short: will the notability last? Education_in_Iran#Women_in_education suggests that the trend (in education) has been against suppressing women (as does the Huffington post article: "But in the classroom, girls have had the upper hand."), which leads me to conclude that the main reason this has recievied news coverage is that it's such a strange move. If it were to be undone (which seems somewhat likely, given the uproar), it would loose all notability (except mabye for a passing mention in Education_in_Iran#Women_in_education) Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 02:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In such a case, I would probably be fine with merging it somewhere else, though it depends on what exactly results from this. If there are protests and people get hurt, I believe that would fuel the notability of the topic. Silverseren^C 02:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In my view, it would be far better to write about the education of women in Iran, with this incident discussed in context in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I discovered this article by accident, as it was incorrectly added to a list on my watchlist (name was added, but the title wasn't linked, so I assumed there was no article). The subject is a former county DA and now County Commissioner (i.e., no positions higher than county level). I am very unclear, therefore, as to whether this meets WP:POLITICIAN or not. That is notability item one. Number two is that much of the news coverage for his "notable cases" comes out of local newspapers within the county, which, while RS, cannot be substantiated for length, nor am I entirely convinced that the article creator is not embellishing with unsourced information from elsewhere. Compounding the problem is that the article creator focuses primarily on that county's politics, and thus has a very different view than a general readership would have of the same topic. So, could someone look this article over to see if it meets the necessary criteria? MSJapan (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a feeling about the notability of casting directors? Specifically, I saw Paul Weber (casting director) which (currently) has an IMDB link, a personal webpage link and a link to a seminar being held by this individual. There does not seem to be much about this individual outside of IMDB but there are a substantial number of credits. Is this sufficient for notability? My feeling is no, but I'm very open to a counter-argument.

And more generally, what about casting directors in general? I would say that most (Hollywood film) directors with a non-trivial career would be notable, but I'm unclear about other individuals involved in the production of the movie (or television show for that matter). While a casting director is more prominent than the guy bringing people their coffee, does being a credited on a film or even a good number of films confer notability? I doubt that casting directors commonly have fans like directors (or even producers) can often have. And most lack substantial coverage, but it may be unfair to minimize their contribution in this way. PantsB (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

General notability guidelines should apply. Casting directors aren't normally discussed in the mainstream media or academic study of filme, while directors, screenwriters, and cinematographers get far more coverage. There's not even an Oscar for casting (unlike other trades like art directors or sound editors); I'm not aware of any widely-covered awards for casting directors that would be likely to confer notability. So unless someone gets a lot of press coverage or is the subject of a biography or other in-depth reliable sources, I'd assume they're not notable, even if they've worked on multiple highly notable films. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the subsection within it at WP:BASIC, the latter of which states (in part):

“

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability...

”

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have an editor who keep adding a notability tag to Susan Stryker, and lately has taken to adding {{cn}} tags as well. This was after they did a prod tag that I removed as being a bit ridiculous. This is a widely quoted trans scholar and historian, author, and filmmaker who has won numerous awards including an Emmy, and a Lambda Book Award. Reliable sources abound. Could someone uninvolved weigh in on what looks to be a recurring issue? I can't believe her article would ever be deleted but apparently there is a concerted effort to do so. Insomesia (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am, of course, said editor. I cannot find, and User:Insomesia has not provided, any clear evidence of exactly which notability guideline the subject meets. (The "Emmy" award was not an actual Emmy Award, and the Lambda book award was not for a work the subject actually wrote, etc...all detailed at Talk:Susan Stryker.) The subject has multiple low-level honours, but none that would appear to meet WP:BIO, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTHOR. Uninvolved eyes would indeed be helpful.— James Cantor (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I left a note at Talk:Susan Stryker#Notability. I think this is a borderline case, but sufficiently notable for an article. Further opinions from uninvolved Wikipedians would be helpful. -Pete (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(I've commented there with mention of several reviews of her books in scholarly publications.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these have been very help. The remaining issue (which may be a discussion more appropriate to this noticeboard than to that talk page) is that the one book which received multiple reviews (two) was a book that Stryker edited. If editing a book of other people's works counts, then Stryker would meet WP:AUTHOR#3, but I cannot find any indication whether that is what is meant by that guideline. Thoughts?— James Cantor (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Responded there, noting that the reviews clearly treat the work of editing as significant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor User:Buttchunker has added many stubs for performance venues (see Special:Contributions/Buttchunker), which are largely unreferenced and, IMO, not notable. I have PRODed some of the stubs, but the author has reverted me without explanation. Am I right in pursuing non-notability, or have I got it wrong? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion about Susan Stryker (and thanks again for the input) has led to a broader issue of whether editing a book counts as authoring a book for purposes of WP:AUTHOR#3. At ‎Roscelese' suggestion, I posed the question at WP:ACADEMIC. For those interested: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Does_editing_a_book_count_like_authoring_a_book_for_WP:AUTHOR.233.3F.— James Cantor (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the subject of Doctors Opposing Circumcision meet WP:GNG? My review of the sourcing in the article as it currently stands:

• DOC PR/press release -- Denniston GC. Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.). NOCIRC Newsletter. Spring/Summer 1996.
• passing mention -- Miller L. BeliefWatch: First Cut. Newsweek. May 6, 2007.
• brief quote from DOC president Denniston -- Ostrom CM. The circumcision decision: Merits of procedure debated. Seattle Times. July 9, 2003.
• brief quote from DOC director Geisheker -- Ostrom CM. Circumcision foes doubt practice can halt AIDS spread. Seattle Times. August 23, 2006.
• passing mention -- Skidmore S. Circumcision case: What does boy want?. Seattle Times. January 26, 2008.
• letter to the editor by Geisheker -- Letters Editor. Times article on circumcision in Washington draws ire. Seattle Times. August 18, 2006.
• brief quote from Geisheker -- Ostrom CM. Circumcision benefits outweigh risks, pediatrics report says. Seattle Times. August 27, 2012.
• letter to the editor by Geisheker -- Ceisheker JV. There's good concern for not circumcising boys. Washington Post. January 21, 2010.
• no mention of DOC -- Boldt v. Boldt. 176 P.3d 388 (SC Oregon 2008).
• passing mention -- Davis D. Fathers, foreskins and family law. Lahey Clinic Journal of Family Law. 2008;16(2):4,7.
• no mention of DOC -- Diekema DS. Boldt v. Boldt: A pediatric ethics perspective. J Clin Ethics. 2009;20(3):251-7. PMID 19845198.
• no mention of DOC -- Dolgin JL. Where Is the child? Circumcision and custody in Boldt v. Boldt. J Clin Ethics. 2009;20(3):244-50. PMID 19845197.
• DOC selfpub -- Anonymous. [Genital Integrity Policy Statement]. Seattle: Doctors Opposing Circumcision, 2008.
• DOC selfpub -- Anonymous. http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf...

All I see is brief mentions and one-sentence quotes from individuals associated with the organization, but not "significant coverage" of the organization itself. The article itself suffers from COI editing, lack of sourcing, WP:SPIP, and WP:SELFPUB #5 (the article should not be based primarily on selfpub). The usual remedy is to edit the article and use the significant coverage in reliable sources, but they don't exist. My attempts to find better sourcing on Google News and Google Scholar turned up next to nothing. The best I can come up with is a merge and redirect to Circumcision controversies. Input please... Zad68 19:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There was discussion about what to do with this topic, the speech. When I read the Responses section, these comments were directed to the author of the speech, Barack Obama. This speech is sufficiently explained at Wikisource because it is of all on-duty government works, which are ineligible for copyrights. Jon Stewart, Fox News, and other commentaries are used to prove notability of the speech. Nevertheless, this topic is too recent to substantiate importance of this speech. In fact, some skeptics assumed that this article is created out of campaign advocacy. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, reading up on guidelines etc here [and here] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations

Facebook outlines the community pages here http://www.facebook.com/help/?page=168393039888715

"Community pages are built around topics, causes or experiences. Many community pages display Wikipedia articles about the topics they represent, as well as related posts from other people on Facebook in real time. "

I read that Wikipedia will allow an organization to list notable services and publish an article as long as it meets requirements, non self-promo, no advertising etc. My question is how can I go about adding a company page to improve the Facebook Community page?

Thank you in advance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarmerson (talk • contribs) 16:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been reading through the site and I have yet to find a simple doorway to "Start Here" or any thing in this manner. I wish to enter a page on a businessman's accomplishments and deeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loanman57 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:Articles for Creation. (You may want to read WP:Notability, to determine if the topic is notable enough for it's own article; WP:Biographies of living persons, if applicable; and possibly WP:COI.) Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 01:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to editing Wikipedia. I wanted to know if an article on the siege at John and Al’s Sporting Goods in Brooklyn in 1973 would meet your notability rules. See http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/a-1973-hostage-situation-revisited/. Thank you, "User Coretheapple" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coretheapple (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Unpublished Articles In Science (UNAIS) is a new scientific repository collecting unpublished articles.

UNAIS ' scope is to contribute to put a light on hidden science and connect scientists with ideas/theories trough their unpublished papers.

Have a look on www.unais.net

Alessandro DIANA UNAIS Director — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro.diana (talk • contribs) 20:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to read & comment here. Thank you. Marketdiamond (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Last night I created a new article entitled International yard and pound. Within 20 minutes User:Sopher99 put a Notability tag on the article without leaving a comment or giving a reason. I'm wondering if someone can come over and take a look. Thanks. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think Fernández-Morera, a Harvard associate professor in literature, is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria? I find his work interesting enough to set up a bio page but maybe this clouds my judgment as to his real notability in WP terms. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Lee Byberg obtained the republican endorsement to run for Minnesota Congressional District 7. Is he notable enough for an article? Ryan Vesey 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no article for Half Byte Loader (HBL). This is an open source project that allows users to execute non-signed code (a.k.a. homebrew) on Sony's PSP and PSV portable consoles.

Here are some links:

http://wololo.net/hbl/

http://wololo.net/vhbl/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-05-08-half-byte-loader-the-psp-homebrew-tool-thats-hacking-vita

http://www.neogamr.net/news/vita-half-byte-loader-the-first-homebrew-application-loader-for-the-psvita

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/half-byte-loader-creator-talks-homebrew-and-sonys-fight-against-pirates-on-vita/

http://hackaday.com/2010/06/21/psp-homebrew-using-the-half-byte-loader/

http://www.dashhacks.com/psp/psp-hacks/half-byte-loader-project-announced-a-homebrew-loader-for-game-exploits.html

It is also referenced by Wikipedia's PSP article.

I'm the creator of HBL project (known as m0skit0 in the PSP scene) and I can start writing an entry for this if it's noticeable enough.

--M0skit0z (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As the creator of this software, it is probably best that you do not try to write about it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand the point but I'm pretty sure I can write a pretty much neutral article about it (it's not the first time). And as the author, I know how this was created. Some sites cite a wrong story or wrong authors for it. I want to avoid this. Anyway, it's just to get it started. Anyone can verify its neutrality later--M0skit0z (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Say, Ryulong; I think you might be at the wrong noticeboard. I say that only because I cannot divine from your comment any input on the question of whether Half Byte Loader is notable enough for it's own article. While it's true that being the creator of the topic, he might be predisposed to a conflict of interest, that doesn't mean he definitely can't write from a nuetral point of view.

As to whether or not Half Byte Loader is notable enough for it's own article, I would say it just passes the relevant guidelines (see: here and here). I'd like to see some better sources (the first and second seem to be WP:SPS, and Hack a Day is effectively a blog). My recommendation is that you (M0skit0z) work on the article in your sandbox and submit it to articles for creation when you're satisfied with it; they will either create it, or point out any serious flaws. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 16:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am simply providing another bit of input regarding M0skit0z comment that he wishes to create the page himself.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

First thanks for correcting my answer to Ryulong, I'm pretty new to MediaWiki syntax. As of the first and second being WP:SPS, it's a no. I'm not wololo, and wololo is not the creator of HBL, although he's one of the main contributors and maintainer of the project now. That is one of the reasons I want to write a Wikipedia article about it. And I will do as you suggest submitting it to articles for creation. And I definitely did not feel "bitten" by Ryulong. Thank you both for the help.

I think you missed the point about WP:SPS. That doesn't mean that you wrote it yourself, it means that anybody who self-publishes is free to write anything they want, so self-published sources are not reliable. It has nothing to do with whether or not you have any connection to them, it's about the fact that Joe's Blog has no editorial oversight or journalistic accountability, so these are not acceptable sources. There are exceptions when a blogger is a published author and a subject matter expert, but these aren't common. Dementia13 (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

But underground things like software hacks never get such "specialized" articles, and thus it is impossible to write an article with acceptable sources about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M0skit0z (talk • contribs) 08:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is largely a self-promoting article. Most references provided in the article are self-published/unreliable, although there are some very reliable references. This organization, without doubt, received nation wide recognition, but this was temporary and a one-time event. Harsh (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This organization was covered in international news dozens over times over a period of at least six months. "One-time event" typically means something that happens for a few days, not continuously for months. Times of India, Washington Post, and BBC are reliable sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Power Rangers Megaforce currently redirects to Power Rangers. User:Ryulong is suppressing any attempt to start an article for this forthcoming TV series, saying that all we have so far is a press release. Surely that is a reliable source that proves it's notability? It's not like we're just assuming it's going to happen because the Sentai exists, it's been officially announced. There's even a logo out. Digifiend (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A press release by the creators is not conducive enough to say something will affirmatively happen and be notable; this is NOT social media. Tag it on to Power Rangers for now, if need be, and if and when its in the making and released an article could be goodLihaas (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It was unveiled at the International Licensing Expo, so there's more than just the press release. All the details are here: http://blog.samuraicast.com/rangercrew-interview-with-saban-brands-about-power-rangers-megaforce/ One of the blog posts even includes an interview with the production company, and there are a number of images. Digifiend (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In all likelihood that won't be considered a legitimate source for the press release. But I'm sure this one would be: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/saban-brands-power-rangers-megaforce-to-premiere-on-nickelodeon-in-early-2013-2012-06-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.75.227 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

74.77.75.227, that is still a press release just posted on another website. Here are some independent reliable news sources that talk about Power Rangers Megaforce.[1][2][3] With that, I think Power Rangers Megaforce should have its own acticle. Powergate92Talk 01:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Saban Brands has confirmed that Power Rangers Megaforce will be airing in early 2013. There are several press releases, the logo, marketing teasers, and articles that have supported this fact. User:Ryulong is preventing actual promotion of the upcoming season and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.78.83 (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Press releases have been known to fail to deliver. Announcing that a project is "in the works" in no way equates to it actually being available to the public as viable media. This article fails WP:SOAP and WP:PROMOTION as that is exactly what you are asking for...a venue to promote and bring attention to something that is in development and not released to the public. Try this later when it is. Ren99 (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? I suggest you take a look at http://www.powerrangers.com, where you'll see on the homepage a picture advertising something called Super Fans Power Force. The picture shows 20 rangers. Only 19 have appeared on the show so far. The 20th, at the far right, is the Megaforce Red Ranger, which the marketing materials confirm. As for not being released to the public, did you sleep through San Diego Comic Con? They had the Megaforce suit actors there along with other publicity materials. It has been announced to the public and thus does NOT fail WP:CRYSTAL as you implied. Also, I see an article for Primeval: New World was created on September 15 last year. At the time guess what we had? Less than we do now for Megaforce, a press release from the makers and news articles quoting it. It was February before we got more information about it. Double standards! And by the way, WP:SOAP and WP:PROMOTION are the exact same thing. Digifiend (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Still no page? The cast was unveiled at Power Morphicon 3 last weekend, surely that's enough to warrant a page? Digifiend (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a few more reliable news sources to add to ones I posted above.[4][5][6][7][8] Powergate92Talk 07:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

All of those articles simply state that the show is going to air sometime next year. Digifiend wants to produce a fully fledged article containing information from various sources that are not reliable. We can say it exists but there's no way in hell we can have an article that goes beyond saying "Power Rangers Megaforce is an upcoming television series that will serve as the 20th anniversary of the Power Rangers franchise in the United States". We have no other information at this time, even though there's been information released at a recent convention. However, no one is reporting on it other than fansites and we can't use fansites as sources.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The news articles I posted above should be enough to meet WP:Notability#General notability guideline. Now as for the show's plot, we can use the press release for that, although it's a primary source, it can used as long as it's use is with with care per WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources which says "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Also, it could be noted that the other Power Rangers articles, as well as other TV shows articles, use primary sources for the plot. Powergate92Talk 16:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Another link - and no, it isn't "fucking Samurai Cast". Pretty sure PR Newswire is a suitable source. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases-test/saban-brands-power-rangers-megaforce-to-premiere-on-nickelodeon-in-early-2013-158462995.html Digifiend (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the same press release that's in the MarketWatch link posted by 74.77.75.227 above. We don't need more than one link to the same press release on different websites. Powergate92Talk 02:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing new has come out since June. So nothing else can be stated beyond what's listed on Power Rangers at the moment.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Notability#Notability is not temporary says "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Therefore just because there's been nothing new since June, does not mean the article is not notable. As for "nothing else can be stated beyond what's listed on Power Rangers at the moment," for the reason I said above, we can use the press release as the source for plot. With the article intro and plot, that's more than what's in the Power Rangers article. As well, the Ledger-Enquirer had an article tonight about Harris County being cast as the new blue ranger in Power Rangers Megaforce.[9] Powergate92Talk 06:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Typo, should say John Mark Loudermilk. Powergate92Talk 02:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Notability is not temporary", yes, but this is still a bit of a WP:CRYSTAL issue. It's not going to be of much help to basically copy everything from the press releases and have it sit stagnant as a stub for the next 6 months.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The stuff revealed at Morphicon means that CRYSTAL surely no longer applies. We have more info than just what's on the press release. The cast is confirmed (one of them has been mentioned in the press, you can't claim that isn't a suitable source!), we know that footage from both Goseiger and Gokaiger will be used, and some toys shown there have revealed things like the names for some of the zords. Since the toys should be out by Christmas, therefore revealing more arsenal and character names, the page will NOT remain stagnant for six months. Digifiend (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet we have no reliable sources covering anything that happened at PMC so we can't cover anything that happened there either. And we don't know any of that other shit you are claiming. The most we can say is that one cast member has been named, and a basic understanding of the plot. Neither of which are good enough for a stand alone article now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're talking about #5 under WP:CRYSTAL. From what I said above, the article will consist of more than just "only of product announcement information." As for "the most we can say is that one cast member has been named, and a basic understanding of the plot," there's no Wikipedia rules against an article a being short WP:Stub. As well, there's more that can be said in the article than that. We can also say that it's the 20th Anniversary season and that it will air on Nickelodeon in 2013 per the above news articles. Also, you don't know that it's going to be a stub for the next 6 months, more news articles with more info can come out within the next 6 months. Powergate92Talk 02:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Power Morphicon can not be used as a source becuase it's not a published source. See WP:Identifying reliable sources for info on what can be used as a source. Powergate92Talk 02:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's some more news articles with more info.[10][11][12] As well, another reliable news source, this time WRBL, has posted an article about John Mark being the new Blue Ranger, Noah, in Power Rangers Megaforce.[13] Now, if there's no other oppression, I think it's time to create the Power Rangers Megaforce article. Powergate92Talk 02:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a misunderstanding here about what notability means. From above, on this same page: "The acid test is that people who genuinely are uninfluenced by and independent of the subject have decided that it is significant enough to write substantially about, and credible reliable publications feel it is of wide enough interest to write about it too. This could also mean that the subject was chosen over many alternatives or has gained unusually clear recognition such as a major award or position. That interest is what notability is actually trying to assess, not just the fact of coverage itself." Press releases are not independent of the subject, they are advertisement. You're trying to claim that something has had an impact on our culture, when in fact it hasn't even been released yet. What real-world impact are you going to demonstrate? What critical reception? What awards? There's plenty of free web hosting available, if a fan page is what you're trying to establish. Dementia13 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

1) "The acid test" above is not part of WP:Notability, it is a suggestion for people who are unsure if something is notable, to use to decide if that thing is notable for an article on Wikipedia. Therefore it is not a valid reason to question the notability of an article on Wikipedia. 2) There is more than just a press release, see the 11 references to reliable sources that are independent of the subject in the article. Powergate92Talk 03:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems to pop up every time there is a new Power Rangers/Super Sentai/Kamen Rider/Ultraman etc. series, which Ryulong frequently edits. A press release is not a strong enough source to support an article. Fansites are not reliable sources. A news article saying that an actor won a part is WP:OR to assume when (and if) that show comes out. We can wait until there are more concrete sources, it isn't a race to start the page. Livewireo (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

1) Please read WP:No original research as two news organizations reporting that an actor will be playing in an upcoming TV show is in no way original research. 2) As I said above, there is more than just a press release, there is more than just fansites, and no fansites linked in the article. Right now there are 11 references to reliable sources that are independent of the subject in the article. Powergate92Talk 04:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I put a notability tag on this article; the person's notability seemed possible, but iffy.

Subsequently, the article's creator questioned my decision at User_talk:A. B.#Reconsider notability issue (permanent link).

I left a response there going over the references one-by-one. As I see it, the main support for Mr. Peizer's notability might come from interviews with him, not articles about him. This left me scratching my head as to whether interviews counted towards notability.

Anyway, I'd appreciate others' looking at this and letting me know what you think. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Is creating an Wikipedia article for Achraf Almouloudi who is the ownner of Achraf52 startup, using their own Wikipedia account, permissible ? if not, would someone else volunteer to research and create content for "Achraf Almouloudi" and "Achraf52" pages then we'll provide the photos and extra information by editing it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achraf52 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Oakleaf Village Elementry Is A Really Nice Public School. It Has Grades From Pre-K To 5th Grade. It Has 5 Differnt Resoruces. Health,P.E(Physcal Education),Computers,Music, And Art. The Website Is www.clay.12.fl.us/ove/index.htm It Says That It Is "A"School On Its Website.That Is Oakleaf Village Elementry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temple1121 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it meets WP:WEB. Harsh (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Le_Meridien_Limassol_Spa_%26_Resort.) (PLEASE INCLUDE THE LAST DOT AT THE END OF THE URL) was marked as "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline".

This hotel is certainly much bigger and famous than Le Meridien Chennai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Royal_Meridien,_Chennai) which belongs to the same hotel chain and Le Meridien Chennai has its own Wikipedia page. It is also much more well known than the Le Meridien Cyberport Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_M%C3%A9ridien_Cyberport_Hotel) and this hotel also has an article on Wikipedia.

Given the above, I do not see how the article I wrote is less worthy to be included than the two hotels mentioned above. Please review.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmanoli (talk • contribs) 20:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Subject of the page is a blogger and author. I question the notability of article, and would appreciate opinions from someone other than the subject of the page. Subject's claim to notability is:

• Publication of a book (Amnesia) in 1992.
• Publication of a book (Delirium) in 1998.
• Two self-published YA books on Amazon (date not provided).
• Freelance articles written for "many magazines" (not specified).
• An award from the "Society of American Travel Writers".

The author has provided the following sources:

• A 1994 book review of "Amnesia" in the NY Times.
• A 1998 interview on the writerswrite.com [[14]].
• A dead link allegedly to a Random House author profile.
• An interview on the authors website from "Parachute Magazine". It is unclear whether this is the Parachute Magazine that is a student newspaper at the University of Minnesota. [15]
• Numerous external links to the author's own website and blog.

As the key to the notability requirements is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," I feel that the page does not meet notability guidelines, and is, in fact, self-promotion. Additionally, the author has created self-promoting pages for his books which also fail to meet notability guidelines. Third-party arbitration would be welcome. JohnDopp (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm copying this over from what I wrote in the talk section about the entry on "Douglas Anthony Cooper". I see that the entry has already been corrected to deal with the trumped-up notability issue. Not by me, but by a professor with no connection to the animal welfare world. (Despite what I said below, I intend to leave it alone, as it really is a conflict of interest.) JohnDopp still needs to be dealt with though.

---

Mr. "JohnDopp" (or shall we say Mr. John Schiff) currently is very active vandalizing the Wikipedia entry about Douglas Anthony Cooper. Mr “JohnDopp” is pretty famous for trolling forums under a pseudonym on behalf of PETA and the Humane Society of the US. His concern is not that Douglas Anthony Cooper isn't notable enough. His concern is that Mr. Cooper is TOO notable. Mr. Cooper has been writing a long series on the Huffington Post, exposing the unethical euthanasia practices of PETA and Ingrid Newkirk. It's probably the highest profile coverage yet of Nathan Winograd and the No Kill Movement, PETA's fiercest critics. PETA hates Mr. Cooper with a passion. I'm allied with the No Kill Movement, so I have my own biases. I think it's important to add a section to the entry, talking about Mr. Cooper's animal welfare writing. I may do it myself. If I do I'll try to keep it as neutral as possible, but other people will want to look at it to make sure. As for his lack of notability as an author, I just wrote to him and here is what you should know: Mr. Cooper tried to have this entry removed himself a few years ago, because he and his girlfriend were being stalked. The guy who tried to erase it for him was told that he couldn't take it down because Mr. Cooper was too notable. The friend noted that Mr. Cooper was being stalked, and it didn't help to have a Wiki entry about him. The response is still in the edit history below: "06:30, 28 July 2007‎ DGG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,213 bytes) ‪(-315)‬‎ . . (neither will removing the article. He seems clearly notable." Mr. Cooper says that he would in fact happy to see the entry erased, but not because of the efforts of PETA thugs. Meanwhile, this entry should be protected from vandalism. It's only going to get worse when Mr. Cooper writes further articles about PETA. "JohnDopp" should be tagged as an unreliable editor. I'm going to go through JohnDopp's other editing work on animal-welfare related entries to see whether he's distorted other entries. 15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

---

One of the things I've since noticed is that Mr. John Schiff (JohnDopp) did actually try to vandalize the entry, by removing the link to Mr. Cooper's Huffington Post page. This is the page that links to all of the PETA criticism. In case there's any question about Schiff's motives. Micropitt (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Flagging a page as insufficiently notable when there is a clear lack of external references is not vandalism.

Further, your admission that there is no objection to the content being removed, and your irrational assumption that I am a "PETA thug" demonstrates that your actions are not motivated by an interest in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, but rather furthering your own political agenda. (For the record, I am not affiliated with PETA in any way, nor do I support the organization.)

Please cease your personal attacks and harassment. They are childish and inappropriate. WP:HOUND JohnDopp (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

---