Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

I am at a crossroads in a mild edit/revert tug of war over the addition to the cast list of Hill Street Blues of 'one off' or short early appearances by actors who later found fame and fortune. The other Cerberus editors involved; Debresser, JohnFromPinckney, and Drmargi who have ONLY reverted MY additions to the list, cite wp:notability and wp: indiscriminate. I disagree and maintain that notability refers to initial article subject choice more than content and that WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply either. One editor stoutly maintains that notability is a "pillar". The list IS untidy and the section concerned "Other Characters" has too many red links but is worthy of inclusion in my opinion.It may need sub dividing. One editor suggested that the list should be deleted as the WP page is not a "fan page". I found a fan page but it is poorly resourced and maintained. IMDB contains a comprehensive cast list for each episode including these appearances but they are not all listed together anywhere else. Rather than continue as hounds snarling politely over a disputed bone, I thought to go with the suggestion of listing it here for consideration. Thoughts ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hill_Street_Blues

There are 2 discussions on this page about the cast list

The cast-- sortable table? New organization? and

One off appearances by those who went on to fame and fortune

Simply adding back the 10 names each time to a 30 name sub section list seems like a tiresome edit badminton exercise. I would like to see the list restored with both the episode concerned and the time mark included where the appearance is a short one off. Chris Rock in the "A Pound of Flesh episode" @19.51 looks about 14 years old. Having such a precise reference for each such appearance seems to me a useful resource. Any suggestions?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with what Tumadoireacht is proposing is the list amounts to an arbitrary laundry list of appearances by actors who (in his/her own words) "went on to fame and fortune." If that isn't WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FANCRUFT, particularly absent any criterion for inclusion aside from his/her personal judgments, I don't know what is. Hills Street Blues is 30+ years old, and every show of that age is bound it have a group of what ranges from stars to blink-and-you'll miss 'em appearances by actors who went on to greater things to its credit. Heaven knows, we could talk the day away about Burt Reynolds' start on Gunsmoke or Clint Eastwood's on Rawhide, much less the incubator for talent any American soap opera has been. But does that make any of this notable, whether in the Wikipedia sense or in the simple application of the word? Moreover, is any of it encyclopedic? Tumadoireach has yet to address these points, preferring to pick at our application of Wikipedia principles and guidelines as a means to force his/her edits.

The HSB article needs a major cast reorganization. Another editor removed the trivial "fame and fortune" list once Tumadoireach had seemingly left the discussion with a petulant farewell. I then took a first pass at reorganizing the cast list and command structure in such a way that a casual reader at least stood a chance of determining who the main cast and major players were. It needs vastly more work, not addition of more and more names of less and less consequence. Drmargi (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This petal is still here petal, and petulant as ever was.I am delighted that my suggestion of subdividing the list has been taken up but am getting tired of simply adding back the 11(so far) names of characters played by big name actors in early roles. An encyclopedia is a compendium by definition; what one editor might characterize as 'trivia" and of "no consequence" might be the useful detail that a wikipedia reader might delight in finding neatly,clearly and concisely collated. Editors hotly opposed to this inclusion have variously suggested that this should be a separate list away from the cast list, that including the 'wrong' actors or that failing to list some invalidates listing others, that such a subsection of the cast list constitutes a "laundry list" (?), and that this information has no business being here at all. Brandishing guideline articles and actually reading them seem to be two disparate activities for some editors which can create both confusion and heat. "Fancruft" can be both a pejorative and uncivil term as its article reveals to those who read it rather than just mention it. Also "One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world." Listing the actors concerned links to the real world.I am curious to see where this goes. Any big guns got an opinion?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the sarcasm in this and several others of your posts, including your back-handed attempt at insulting me on my talk page (now reverted), I would again invite you to review WP:CIVIL. My position is clear. Unfortunately, the complaining editor has yet to observe the custom of posting notices of this discussion on the article talk page and the talk pages of involved editors. One would hope he/she will do so, and allow all involved and interested parties, as well as the desired "big guns" an opportunity to address the issue at hand. Drmargi (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The position adopted by the honourable member is far from clear and has been far from civil. There has been a sea change since I posted here which is welcome but the accompanying shift from describing my edits as trivial,diluting,meaningless etc to the loud pious moral superiority of injured waiting to "weigh in"(whatever that means) borders on the risible.I have asked for a rationale for repeated reverts of 10 names from a 112 name cast list and the removal of one name from the recurring minor cast members list. No useful rationale has been forthcoming other than vague adjectives such as "watery'" or "we would have to do this for other pages" The cited policy references are bogus. Notability,for instance refers to subject, not content,very clearly and is not a pillar as claimed. I believe a confused notion of notability is being exercised in the fullest sense of the word. I have raised these and other objections but have been repeatedly reverted.This discussion was linked on the article talk page as soon as it was opened.

Given the bristling response to my post on this editors home page, I hesitate to post on others but will attempt to verify whether the assertion of policy and practice is, at least in this one instance not in error.If it is correct I will post a notice on the pages of the 2 other editors who are involved, if they have not chimed in by tomorrow. Yours in WikiJesus--Tumadoireacht (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I am one of the editors who has taken the point of view that one-off appearances are not notable. Unless we are taking about guest appearances, which should be listed properly and in a separate sub-section. I have with amazement seen the posting editor say that notability is not a concern here, and his unbased claim that all appearances are noteworthy. Since he did not want to listen to other editors on the talkpage discussion, where three other editors seem to disagree with him, I referred him to this noticeboard. 04:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

Wrong,wrong and wrong. A confederacy of dunces does not make something right. Guest appearances are another matter.They were not a part of the HSB.It was not that kind of show. I have listened agog to assertions like "notability is a pillar" from Cerebrus. They make me ask once again-have you read the notability article or just heard about it?. An analogy may help -a talk show host is doing a "this is your life" type exercise with an elderly actor -what gets included invariably-a charming clip of early roles(people love it). How about this- a wikipedia reader attends or writes a table quiz or has a bet -Did Don Cheadle ever appear in Hill Street Blues ? Bingo! the notable early appearances list-one happy customer. The laughable part is that the editor leading the charge on this one began by listing the people she felt should be on the list before a u-turn to repeated reversions of it.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is turning into such a disagreement. I've been away from the HSB pages for a while, but historically I have contributed a large number of edits to HSB and HSB List of Episodes, so hope I may just chime in on this discussion. I agree with those requesting that the conversation remain civil! I would also like to lend my support to Tumadoireacht (talk). It would be nonsense to include those who have merely walk-on one-liners or appear in background shots as "film extras", but I do believe that the cast list should include those who had a significant plot role, whether it be across the many years of HSB, or just for one series (which is English for 'season'!), or just for one episode. An encyclopedia is meant to inform, and I am therefore very much an inclusionist. We can't include everyone who ever appeared on-screen in any HSB episode, and we are bound to include the principal characters, so somewhere in between we must draw a line - for me that line comes between irrelevant walk-on or background extras, and characters who had an actual place in the storyline, even if only for one or two episodes. If in doubt, leave it in - it's all information. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 14:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Guest starring roles of size aren't at issue; it's the endless list of walk on's, under-fives (under five lines) and similar minor appearances that are of concern. Drmargi (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What I am proposing is putting back 9 notable names onto the cast list of 112-all had speaking parts. all are now huge stars. This is the first mention of a five line cut off- it seems like a good idea . Some progress at last ! .Thank you Timothy Titus. This inclusionist was starting to feel very lonely. All 9 fit the five line requirement.("Chris Rock" turned out to be Lahmard J Tate) Unless I see compelling arguments to the contrary i will put the 9 famous 5 liners back onto the page.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have consensus to do so. Drmargi (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

do you have consensus for flippant and vindictive reversions ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Although mentioned by name in the first paragraph of this thread, I wasn't notified about it until some 10 hours later, although I was actively editing during part of the intervening time. I see that since I last looked at the Hill Street Blues (HSB) article, much has happened, not all of it civil or productive.

I should point out a misnomer which may seem minor but could confuse uninvolved editors reading here. This isn't about the cast list; the only one in the article is the set of 15 starring roles in the infobox. What we are actually talking about (or should be talking about) is the list of characters on the show.

The character list of this cop show is (surprise!) mostly cops, and the HSB article has a somewhat extended list of them in its "Police officers (listed by rank)" section. Non-cops are listed in "Other characters", starring parts first. I take the character list in each part and in the aggregate to be the significant characters, where the character was either important to the story or other characters, or at least recurring. Clearly, we needn't (and IMO shouldn't) list every credited part ever appearing on the show.

The conflict there is that User:Tumadoireacht wants to add a few names to this character list not because the characters are important or recurring, but because the individual actors later became well-known. I happen to think that's inappropriate. I believe there may have been (or we could have had) consensus to make mention of these before-they-were-stars appearances, but in a completely separate list.

What editors at this noticeboard choose to consider here is up to them, but I don't want anyone (more) confused about what the issues are. I don't think every character is notable just because the actor's career developed thereafter. I also don't think mentioning that Ally Sheedy had a part once tells the reader anything about the show. The actors became notable, but their characters weren't; adding them goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

John dear - they WERE in a separate labeled list when you first removed them on the 6th of January before even checking the talk page). We have come full circle. At this stage we have a swirling spectrum of objections to a very small and useful addition to a big page. The debate text now exceeds the whole page text. That is really funny. The obstructionism and non inclusion fever has spread to adjoining and to new sections of the page(see Guns subsection -currently reverted- an irrelevant part of a cop show page apparently) Sadly the battle over this small cast inclusion has also infected the critical faculties. 1/ a cast list is not about actors ? (by definition and in this case too the cast list lists actors) Let he who is without sin cast the first bone 2/Hollywood stars are not notable? Come on lads ! that dog will not hunt 3/recurring characters may or may not be notable depending on who is wielding the revert conch today-at present Jerome Thor (I know) is "notable' but Ally Sheedy is not.Go figure. Something stinks on the Hill.4/ a show with an ensemble cast and no guest stars should have a guest star listing instead. Needs no explanation.This is 1981 and HSB not 1971 and Mannix. I could go on but the anal obstructionism is clearly apparent, and is the opposite of what wikipedia is about. Wiki is not paper and editing is about MAKING the best use of available material and people. Am I to take it from John of Pinckeys two conditional pluperfects(" I believe there may have been (or we could have had) consensus") that we can include the nine cast members if we list them elsewhere on the page under a label other than cast ? That was, after all, what I was trying to do 5 days and a lot of pixels ago.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess not ! -the redoubtable veteran editor Drmargi just reverted Ally Sheedy again and the vastly improved Guns section without a second thought citing INDISCRIMINATE. The problem is that that guideline has no section that applies in this case just as NOTABILTY does not apply. i have asked Drmargi to be a little more precise about which section of it applies. No reply just yet. Could it be that some editors simply cite an arbitrary policy when they dislike an entry or an editor  ? Both Drmargi and I have just received edit warring warnings so i am at a loss of where to go from here. The Village Pump ? The discussion here seems to have stalled/died. Hello HELLO anyone there ? --Tumadoireacht (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah Lads !! We are on the wrong page ! read the blurb at the top ! Notability is about page subject SELECTION not about mingey edits-which kind of clinches my argument --Tumadoireacht (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside view (never edited a HSB article - only watched it a few times). First, yes, notability in WP generally has to do with the question of whether an article about a given subject is sufficiently notable to even exist. It is not about whether a given piece of information is sufficiently notable to be included in an article.

Second, I would support the inclusion, in some form (and I agree as part of the character list is not ideal), of lists of actors who had minor roles but later went on to become famous. Maybe it deserves to be a separate note or section in the article. Regardless of how it's presented, there are many reasons to include such information, but I suggest the most important is it might be interesting. If some actor is listed to have appeared in one of these episodes, then a reader seeking to learn about that actor's early career can learn about that appearance simply by clicking on "what links here" on that actor's page. So it might not be a significant enough role to warrant listing on the actor's own page, but the information is still there, because that actor becoming famous later makes the early appearance on that show, well, noteworthy. While I understand the objection to including this information in the character lists, my understanding is that that was not where the information was first added. I have not seen a reason for objecting inclusion elsewhere in these articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is always a fresh breeze when cycling

Thank you Born2cycle for providing both confirming and supplementary rationale for inclusion. I would like to include that 9 name actor list and a section perhaps on guns as "characters" too but dog in the manger reverts sit squarely and silently across the threshold at present.

I am curious to know your thinking or indeed anybody's on these actors not being appropriate for a subsection of the cast/characters list but I am not hung up particularly on it being placed there.

I think such a list would be further enriched and useful by including the year and relevant episode title for each person. The minimum five lines of dialogue idea mentioned by user Drmargi seems like a good cut off point.

However my life does not depend on the inclusions or on "winning".

What has been most illuminating has been following this thing through and the realization that citers of policy pages are often unfamiliar with the cited policy page contents and repeatedly take the chance that a lesser experienced editor once they see WP:BIGBLUELONGWORD cited in an edit description or talk page will simply walk away assuming the citer knows what she/he is talking about and thus lets the smoke and mirrors citers get on with owning and tag teaming an article. This emperor's clothes mullarkey is more likely to be afoot when 3 or 4 policy pages are cited all at once. It is a funny and unintended effect of initially taking such legerdemain misdirection and tomfoolery seriously that this debate has ended up on a Notability debate page.

Discovering this has encouraged me greatly. I may post something on my user page or elsewhere about it- to encourage others who might falter before such ersatz erudition edits. Asking the practitioner of such obfustification to direct you to the section of the policy page they reckon applies can have a salutary effect. Also, I had a further realization that when such a fever of ownership infects a Cerebrus cabal that patterns and timings indicate canvassing and co-ordination taking place outside the Wikipedia communication system. Blanket citing of "notability" or "indiscriminate" for new content edits are good warning signs particularly in combination. This should not be read as an attack on any particular editor but as a good faith observation on an insidious practice.

I was going to go straight on to the mediation/dispute resolution route to see whether it might help ease this log jam but I may wait a while and keep my powder dry to see if more reasonable folk like yourself come out of the woodwork or there is a thaw on discussion from the now edit-by-silence triumvirate brigade. Mind the Divas. Yours in wikijesus [1].--Tumadoireacht (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems like both Robert Whealey and Alice Whealey are basically self-promotion devices, since neither seems to have reached any particular pinnacle of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.212.73 (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Linares (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, I looked into this for (only) 10 minutes, roughly. I think R. Whealey is a (1) historian (2) expert on one particular area (maybe others) -- area => Spanish Civil War. (3) he's retired. So the article, being very short and unassuming, I think is basically reasonable. Whealey doesn't get huge press, but he's a respectable historian, so if students want to learn about the Spanish Civil War, perhaps, they'll benefit from being able to see this article, in my view. I added a few "references" (not truly secondary sources, rather just pointers to indicate he is a historian). I bet if somebody searched harder they'd find his previous publications, with reviews, so if a PROD was conducted fairly, they'd probably decide to keep him. I feel there are others more blatant cases in Wikipedia which deserve our attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, give your attitude about the article Kommandcore on its Discussion page.

Damir Zakiev (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel like there should be a page about Solace. It's an indie game, but it has won multiple awards, (listed here:http://solacegame.com/?page_id=32 ) and one of them is from the famous PAX 2010. Multiple times, I have come to this website in hope of just reading about it (like I do with any subject that I am intrested during openings in my time) after seeing it on television. G4 TV to be exact. I found it, realized it was free, played it, and it was one of the most unique games I have ever played. (more information here: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/CassandraKhaw/20101208/6581/Solace_Rewrites_Grief_Into_Something_Beautiful.php ) I think this game deserves a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videogamegenius (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not write the article? First check if it's mentioned in other places. If you need guidance, ask moi.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I created a wikipage about SoCS, the Symposium on Combinatorial Search. However, an editor deleted it because he found that it only references primary sources and personal webpages. Although the Symposium on Combinatorial Search is not among the most important Artificial Intelligence conferences in the world (yet!), it is the most prominent reference to all researchers in the field of combinatorial optimization and heuristic search. Thus, I added an entry in section 15 (Others) of List of artificial intelligence conferences with a link to a new wikipage on the conference. Since it has been deleted, you can check its contents in one of my subpages SoCS.

I am not advertising the conference! All I want is to improve the list of conferences in the field of AI and I did like in the case of ECML KDD and created a wiki page which is much the same and I would be very happy if you would give me some feedbackCarlos Linares (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What your article needs is references. First, identify newspapers and journals and magazines that are likely to have posted information about SoCS. Next, reference them. You can use this guide or others. Then float the article. If you need further assistance, ask moi.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to write an article on "Academic Video Management System", thus creating an overview of an emerging niche of software solutions/products helping universities and other academic institutions to deal with the increasing amount of video, created mainly by recording lectures. The reason for writing the article is that AVMS have emerged throughout the last couple of years as a new and unique product range, constituting their own market segment (cf. reports from Frost&Sullivan and Wainhouse). The article is supposed to be part of the "Educational_technology" section where it would help to identify this new group of products. In this, it would be structured very much like the article on "Learning Management Systems" or the one on "Web Conferencing" by outlining the features of AVMS, their role in education and the underlying technology, with an additional overview on existing solutions. The article would also seek to consolidate the terminology in subsuming "Lecture Capture Solutions" (as they are being referred to in the market reports mentioned), "Lecture Recording Technology", "Media Management Systems" etc.). Finally, the article will also relate to "Lecture Recording". Caveat: I'm the product manager for Opencast Matterhorn, an open source AVMS. --Oas777 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a fictional character who was a star of 3 tv series, and has a video game where she is a player character. She once had a page which was deleted for lacking sources, so I've been working on it in my userspace. User:Mathewignash/Blackarachnia It's still a bit long, so I need to trim back some stuff, but is was originally MUCH LARGER and full of plot summary. I've also added many citations. Helpful advice would be appreciated. Mathewignash (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You've put a lot of work into this; good job. My advice => first paragraph should have some sentence explaining why the character is notable -- perhaps first female transformer which became successful in such-and-such a world, etc, or whatever you think the notability is. I think it would be helpful for us non-transformer types (such as me) to get the context of what it was about first, perhaps even a mention of how the transformer-type toys came about, what their impact has been, and where this toy or character fits in with the overall development of related toys. That is, assume people are totally clueless about TV shows, transformer toys, and write in a way to bring them into this world, by bringing them from what's familiar to what's less familiar. Generally the article needs much trimming; good writers know that less is more. Particularly chop stuff that looks promotional such as links or references to toy sites. My sense is the quality of references can be improved, that inline ones are better than uncheckable ones (such as a reference to a book). The general problem is that there isn't a lot of good secondary source material about things like toys or fictional characters so what happens is that standards for references must sometimes be lowered. Good luck with this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a tidbit about her being the first reoccuring female villian Transformer, and added the years of broadcast to the tv series. Mathewignash (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good. Reoccuring => recurring. Villian => Villain. FYI. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There will be spellcheck of the whole article next. ;-) Mathewignash (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I wish to find out if the non-profit organization and street newspaper in Nashville, The Contributor, meets eligibility requirements for a Wikipedia. It is run by a non-profit organization -- newspaper vendors are homeless or formerly homeless individuals and much of the content is submitted by homeless authors/poets/artists as well as many articles by people in the community, outreach workers, and students. As of December 2010, The Contributor became the largest street newspaper in the country, circulating over 100,000 copies a month. This organization has been featured on many news stations, filmed for documentary purposes, covered in a story by NPR, and much more. The founder, Tasha French is a leading community outreach worker and business woman in Nashville. IN the past year, this paper has grown exponentially, but has yet to have a Wikipedia page. For even more information and details, please feel free to visit the direct website: www.thecontributor.org While there is a Wikipedia page for a Mormon publication, The Contributor, it is in no way related or linked to the newspaper.

Thank you very much.

68.53.56.36 (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's received as much media attention as you say it has then yes, I would say it meets general notability guidelines. You may want to compare against some of the other articles we have on street newspapers, see: Category:Street newspapers. -- œ^™ 07:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have marked the new article Salus Alpha as patrolled but have also attached the Notability tag as there are no outside sources establishing notability. I would judge that the subject is notable, but the whole article reads like company propaganda rather than an encyclopedic article and I do not know Wikipedia policy on this or how to tag it appropriately. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it for being a copyright violation, it was copypasted straight from the company webpage. In the future if you come across articles like this you can tag them with {{db-spam}} or if you can confirm it's been copied from a website, use {{db-copyvio}}. -- œ^™ 11:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will know better what to do next time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add a new page on Peter Armstrong. best known as the founder of the BBC's Domesday Project often cited as the first multimedia project. He was a producer at the BBC for 25 years, founded well-known series like Everyman, Songs of Praise and Global Report as well as writing/producing one-off series and programmes including The Sea of Faith which led to the formation of The Sea of Faith movement. He went on to set up the BBC's first MultiMedia Unit and then his own company, MMC, the Multi Media Corporation. He co-founded oneworld.net in 1995 [2], the first internet portal devoted to global justice and development and received a Lifetime Achievement BAFTA at the Interactive Awards [3]. Any comment welcome ... Madsy19 (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add a new page on Adam Wishart. Author / director. Has written Leaving Reality Behind, co-authored with historian Regula Bochsler, and "One in Three: A Son's Journey Into the History and Science of Cancer" published in 2006 by Profile Books in the UK, by Grove Atlantic in America and translated and published into German, Finnish, Chinese, Icelandic and Japanese. The book was nominated for The Royal Society Book Award in 2007. As a Director, he made "A Class Apart" for the "Back to the Floor" series, for the BBC, which won The Royal Television Society "Best Feature" in 1997. He directed one episode of the BAFTA-winning "Blood on the Carpet" series and was Series Producer on the "Trouble At The Big Top" four-part series following Peter Mandleson as he pushed through the Millenium Dome project. In 2006 he wrote, directed and presented "Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing" for BBC2, which followed the battle against the Oxford Animal Lab, and which went on to win the Grierson Award for Best Science Documentary in 2007. In 2008, he directed "Warlords Next Door?" for Channel 4, which won the "Best World Political Documentary" at the Banff International Television Festival in 2009. In 2009 he wrote, directed and featured in "The Price of Life" for BBC2, about the rationing of high cost cancer drugs by the British "Death Panel", which was nominated for Best Science Documentary in the Grierson Awards of 2009.

Phew ... ! I think he definitely deserves his own page! ;-) Madsy19 (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to make article about Zoran Abadic. Architect and works at Faculty of architecture in Belgrade. He is one of the leading contemporary architects in Serbia, highly awarded and founder of 1x2studio. References can be found on Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade, 1x2studio.com, The Association of Belgrade Architects... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusan Milovanovic (talk • contribs) 13:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Article is alredy created, and valid for stay. No need for this noticeboard. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on a shorter, more to-the-point version of the article that was deleted for the Transformers character of Jolt. Advice appreciated. User:Mathewignash/Jolt (Transformers) Mathewignash (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Use references. If need help, use WP:Referencing for beginners with citation templates. Or ask on my talk page. Good luck.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I added the templates you suggested, and a few more sources. Any more advice? Mathewignash (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there some presumption that bus routes are automatically notable (like there is with human settlements and living taxa)? For example, consider the pages in Category:KMB routes, such as KMB Route 71B. This article (and the other ones in the same cat that I've looked at) are either unsourced or sourced only to primary sources. I started editing a few of them, because they have info that is in violation of WP:NOT (like fair information and stop times), but I'm wondering if the lot of them (and any similar categories) should be deleted on notability grounds. Any thoughts or precedent on this matter?

Well. My sense is you might be able to get them deleted, but I hope you won't, since bus routes are (1) not heavily trafficked in terms of daily readership totals (ie 10 readers per day roughly) (2) a few people use them and find the information helpful (3) the articles are not promotional or slanted (4) the information is probably right (5) some contributor worked hard to try to bring this information to Wikipedia. Generally bus routes are not a contentious area such as politics or religion. It feels to me that the category as a whole should be relaxed, somewhat, in terms of notability rules. I've seen articles on highways, rail routes, and such -- I can see there being a purpose to each. It's helpful information if you're needing to get somewhere. I bet if you PROD-ed the articles, you probably could get some of them deleted, because there are people in WP who love to delete stuff, but then Wikipedia would have fewer people working on this obscure subject. And you might find yourself needing to ride a bus someday, and not knowing where to get this information. So I'm hoping you'll let it go.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bebe_Zeva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.56.186 (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

References check out. Did a mild copyedit, wikilinks, removed unnecessary section headings; article needs infobox & picture.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Dhanapal is a rarely used given name used in India, Sri Lanka. The word Dhanapal is derived from the language Tamizh/தமிழ் word Dhanapaalan/தனபாலன், literally meaning "Wealthy person" or "செல்வன்" in tamil. Or literally, you can consider 'Dhanapal' as the lord Venkatachalapathy at Thirupathi.

It may refer to:

What?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The name is written in different ways in the various scripts of South Asia: Devanagari (Hindi, Nepali, Marathi): तानपाल, Tamil:தனபால், Telugu: తనపాల్ , Kannada: ಥನಪಾಲ್, Malayalam: തനപാല്‍, Urdu: ٹھناپال , Bengali: থানাপাল.

What is this?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at SFX (magazine)? It appears to justify a notability tag and I'm unable to find any independent sources but its not an area where I have expertise. Sorry don't know what happened to signiture. JRPG (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

SFX Magazine is legitimate. But WP article is promotional.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is notable and I just made some copy edits to remove the POV and improve the tone of the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. It's in better shape now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Loads of issues with this one. Looks like self-promotion, seemingly no credible sources. Not sure what to do with it, I'm not very Wikipedia-savvy but I did manage to put a notability flag on it. --Hst20 (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree fully. Thanks for calling this to our attention. I trimmed substantially, removed much of the unsourced promotional material, found essentially two references, moved material to talk page; I kept the notability tag. My sense he's borderline notable but that's up for the community to decide.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this article meets the criteria for notability so I'm posting a message here. Warren L. Carpenter served in the Marine Corps as a doctor and the article goes into specifics about the awards he won, where he studied, and where he was stationed at but that's basically it. There's nothing significant beyond the fact that he was an officer in the Marines. There's nothing in the article that warrants him being on Wikipedia more than any other Marine doctor. I don't think this article meets the notability standards in WP:GNG. WLC doesn't seem to have significant coverage because only four sources as used. Not sure whether or not the sources used are reliable because only one of them has an web link which verifies the day he died. Overall, there aren't enough sources to verify what is stated. It looks like a resume in paragraph form. Comments are appreciated. //Gbern3 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

After a quick review of the article, its sources and a search on Google and Google News Archives it appears that the subject is not notable. The current sources also seem to be non-notable except for the Colorado Springs, Gazette which is an Obituary. The other sources are primary in my opinion. I would suggest you nominate it for deletion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I didn't nominate the article for deletion but I did place {{notability}} and {{verify}} templates at the top. I want to give the primary editor the opportunity to find secondary sources. I will let them know about the article's issues on their talk page. //Gbern3 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Chestnut Williams was an American hockey player born in Billing, Montana. He briefly played in the NHL for the Tampa Bay Lightning but was sent back to the AHL after less than a season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff crosier (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Williams has no record in hockeydb.com. While playing in the NHL is an assertion of notability, it failed verification. —C.Fred (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Reads like an academic resume. No references. Many external links. Many problems with this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the resume-like content. I think WP:AfD may be a good process to use here. BTW, for future reference, we have a specific tag for instances like this, {{like resume}} -- œ^™ 14:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Very high reputation in his local area of England. Mentioned numerously in local papers for various sporting accolades. If granted would make him extremely happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwattlufc (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a question or issue for the Notability noticeboard?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

High schools seem to be notable by default, and I was wondering if the same applies to elementary schools. This recently got prodded, and I'm inclined to remove the prod but wanted to check with the community first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway85 (talk • contribs) 07:41, February 14, 2011

No, elementary schools generally are not notable, and should only have an article if there's something exceptional, or historical about them. There's a notability guideline for schools which seems sensible, Wikipedia:Notability (schools), but was apparently rejected as an official guideline by the community. -- œ^™ 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I would comment that the usual practice is to redirect/merge data to an article on the relevant local school district, or the municipality. Feel free to go ahead and do that here. Ray^Talk 16:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:ORG, which covers educational organizations (e.g., schools). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Portland Trust is a registered charity. It has 2 sources, its own website and a one line extract from a scathing Telegraph article following which the paper reported it to the Charities commission. My concern is that it appears to be just a tax avoidance mechanism with added puffery. I have drafted a few sentences about it (to be improved) at User:JRPG/Draftonly to go in a section on its founders article. Does it merit its own article? Any advice would be appreciated, thanks in advance. JRPG (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly notable charity. Many sources in The Guardian and elsewhere. Important subject. Clearly merits its own article. If you're seeking advice to improve it, do a google search with one of the terms being ("portland trust") and the other term being (site:guardian.co.uk OR site:telegraph.co.uk OR site:economist.com). You'll find many. Let the references guide your addition. (Luke; may the fours be with you).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. I had searched using quotes but didn't see much 3rd party sources other than the Telegraph articles I was familiar with.

I edit Ronald Cohen who founded the trust but won't update the section in his article based on the very negative Telegraph item. I'll also specifically search the Guardian in future. JRPG (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have these banks of references which I cut and paste into the browser search bar, organized by subject heading. It screens out most of the junk on the web, leaving only (hopefully) (usually) sources which work on Wikipedia. It vastly improves researching, although it doesn't always work neatly. I may attach a special page to my user page showing the references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Litcast looks like advertising building on what the author of the article suggests was a neologism. google suggests that the word has been used before as a generic term for a particular podcasting genre. -- 79.198.112.185 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I did several fairly extensive searches and found no instances of the word "litcast". Low article readership. Article creators didn't make much of a case for notability. Deletion proposed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it fair to assume that fraternities and sororities are not inherently notable, and must show evidence of reliable sources (beyond their own webpages)? I thought this question would have arisen before, but I did not find an answer in a search of the archives.--SPhilbrickT 19:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. Haven't come across this issue before either. My sense is that fraternities and sororities which are national in character will be notable, since they will have much influence; I'm less sure about a local chapter house unaffiliated with any broader organizations. A local organization within a college may get significant press coverage from the college newspaper which would be a credible source. My guess is a mere website isn't enough to show notability, but I'm wondering what others think, or what rules there might be on this. Which particular instance are you thinking of?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried several times to write an article on Rafael Ábalos, a spanish author, but the article always gets deleted because I did not indicate his importance. I think that I did indicate his importance by saying in the article that he is a Spanish author that wrote the book "Grimpow: The Invisible Road". I also put sources so I have no other idea why it keeps getting deleted. Someone please help. Mr Rex (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See es:Rafael Ábalos at the Spanish Wikipedia. If that is the same person, then translate that article and make sure to cite those references. Also indicate on the talk page that it is a translation from eswiki and link to it using {{Translated page}}. -- œ^™ 12:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly notable author. Wrote bestseller. Found references. Floated article Rafael Ábalos. Please don't mess with this article without checking with me or OE (I'm assuming previous tries to write the WP article made mistakes which got it deleted -- please don't repeat mistakes). I've got in on my watchlist; if it gets deleted again, maybe I can make a fuss somewhere.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. I'll keep an eye on it too, but I don't think it will be deleted again, now that it's properly sourced. -- œ^™ 16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks OE.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read that football players etc would normally be expected to have played professionally in order to meet the notability criteria. Does the same apply for football clubs? For example, Sunken_Garden_United play in a semi-pro league - there are other issues with this particular article but I don't really want to spend too long sorting them out if the thing is likely to be deleted anyway. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone has now PROD-ed the specific article above, but I'd still appreciate thoughts on the general issue. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Basically notable (imo) team, but botched article. I trimmed it hoping that it will survive deletion, added references. Contributors should see the talk page of the article for ideas about how to restore the article (material is there, with info about sourcing.) My sense is to leave Sunken Garden United alone for a bit to see whether it gets deleted; learn WP's rules. Let's see what happens. Good luck.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I put a {{notability}} tag at the top of this article a couple weeks ago. The article is about a paymaster/quartermaster. I posted a message here because I would like to generate more discussion about the subject's notability on the talk page. I don't see how Thomas Carpenter is notable after reading the article. It looks like three of the references used are primary sources i.e. deed records, marriage records, genealogical records. Article also mentions that Carpenter "witnessed a land transaction" and worked in glass manufacturing. Neither of these actions I think constitutes notability. It's a stub article at the moment so it shouldn't take much of your time to read and respond. Comments are appreciated. //Gbern3 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Generally agree -- notability is borderline or nonexistent -- but at the same time this is one of those subjects which doesn't justify getting too worked up about. I think a compromise is to whittle down the article to one or two lines max, or else delete it, but keep the information on related articles (ie Carpenter's descendants.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The last discussion on notability for Harriet Klausner was in February, 2010 and there was no resolution, the best I can tell. The article is currently on the watchlist. I do not believe this article falls under notability guidelines for the following reasons: There have been no significant news articles about Klausner in about 2 years. There was a short article in Time in 2006, she was listed in an article in Time in 2007, and there were a few articles in 2009; however, I could find nothing since then save for a few brief mentions of her name in articles which were not strictly about her. Also, I believe many sources used on this article are problematic. Right now, 11 of the 15 sources are simply links to online reviews she has written or to her self-made profiles on commercial sites. Another source is an informal blog entry from 2003 with unsourced, unverified, and often unsigned comments about Harriet Klausner. I do not believe the mere act of writing a lot of online reviews merits notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia, especially since the sources in the article are problematic, and there has not been continuous or extensive mention of Klausner in the media. Input from others on the notability issue is very much welcome. Clockster (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. She's notable (imo). Time Magazine described her as a "mover and shaker" and I agree. She has done a massive number of reviews. She wasn't paid. She's influential since those reviews have in all likelihood affected book sales and readership. The other sources (Amazon etc) aren't the best but they help the reader, and I hope they are kept.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Being an unpaid reviewer versus a paid reviewer doesn't seem to be pertinent to the issue of notability. There is nothing to indicate she is influential or has affected book sales or readership. Of course, if there were sources that indicated such things, they would be extremely helpful and useful in the entry and should be added. I do want to note that, per WP:BIO, the person in question must receive "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject," and I do not believe this person qualifies. Clockster (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's what Time Magazine wrote about her in 2006: "she is one of the world's most prolific and influential book reviewers. At 54, Klausner, a former librarian from Georgia, has posted more book reviews on Amazon.com than any other user—12,896, as of this writing, almost twice as many as her nearest competitor. That's a book a day for 35 years." Time is a mainstream source focusing an entire article on her and describing her as an influential book reviewer. For me, that clinches it. Whether she's paid or unpaid doesn't matter much in my view since she's influential in terms of book selections. She is a force in book publishing whether you or I like it or not. Further, she is an example of a new trend away from professional book reviewers, towards popular do-it-yourselfers, and an argument can be made that that, too, is notable. Look, if you feel strongly that she's not notable, why not PROD the article or do an AfD -- either way, my guess is you're wasting your time, since Wikipedians will most likely keep her article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, your contention that she is "a force in book publishing" is unsourced. Is there a source? As I have said, I am completely willing to believe Harriet Klausner is notable, but I spent significant time looking for articles about her and reviewing the sources in the article as it stands, yet found very little to directly indicate notoriety or influence. I'm trying to determine if the article is notable for Wikipedia, not for various individuals. My opinions on the subject are not about Ms. Klausner but whether the sources and the consistent notability guidelines of Wikipedia are met with this particular biography. If my prior comments made you believe I have some personal vendetta, I apologize, because that was never my intent. There is no reason for you to adopt a contentious tone with me with the "she's notable whether you like it or not" comment; further, the claim that I'm "wasting my time" and will be voted down by "Wikipedians" is not only contentious but unnecessarily personal. I am not someone working against Wikipedians, I am a Wikipedian making a good-faith effort to discuss the issue and get input from others. Clockster (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm only offering my two cents about this article, that's all. I think you're doing a good job of contributing here. I appreciate your concern.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC) And battling over articles and notability is one of those things Wikipedians do, just like Monty Python demonstrated. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Yet another self-serving page created by the person it's about.

Kip Kay makes videos on Youtube about how to play with magnets and increase the power of flashlights. He is not an 'internet celebrity', and he is not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.157.85 (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Researched Kip Kay. Agree article was somewhat promotional, but basically factual; not sure who was writing the article. There are references in Wired as well as Wall Street Journal about him. I didn't check the YouTube hits, but if there are over a hundred million views, it's hard to argue that that's not notable. Not sure if he should be called an "Internet celebrity", but I changed it in a copyedit to something like "Internet personality". Generally I think he's notable but I'm wondering what others think. I copyedited the article to try to remove unsourced promotional stuff. Removed tag. Wondering what OE and others think about this article; I'm leaning towards KK being notable. One more thing: the WP article gets about 100 hits a day (an unofficial sign for me that he's notable).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made further edits to remove the puffery and get down to the facts. The subject's notability is marginal. His mentions in WSJ and Wired are minute. I'm on the fence on this one.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being WP:BOLD and trimming. I too am on the fence, but leaning slightly towards keeping him because he's interesting & doing something different from the day-to-day stuff. I'm the type that might like to try some of these gadget hacks to see what happens. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Plus, the spy sunglasses YouTube video by KK thingie is rather cool when you think about it. I didn't know that a camera could be that small. This video alone gets millions of hits, and for a pop culture junkie like moi, it resonates.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tom, thanks for your contributions. However, I don't agree with your approach to the article content. For me, a BLP is about the life of the subject, not about the content of his creations. So I agree to disagree :-) Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Keithbob, that's cool! Wikipedia gets good when people dispute over what this project is about; it helps us all think, and the overall product improves (imo). I agree the focus of the BLP should be about the person; but sometimes, like in this instance, what the person does and makes, particularly if it's peculiar or interesting, is relevant in my view. Like, if you were to ask me -- who's this Kip Kay guy -- for me not to talk about the flashlight or the sunglasses, well, you might feel I'm leaving something out. But, this stuff is nebulous, really; all a matter of opinion. No big woof. I'll support your changes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, Wiki is collaborative so compromise and respect are needed and you have these good qualities. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Etan Ilfeld Although, there are some verifiable events, I am not sure that the article meets the criteria for notability and I saw that it had been tagged once and deleted without comment and there is no discussion page.

The only real claim to notability would be the poker result but although it can be confirmed it is not clear that the event is notable enough to warrant a profile. I could not find any reference to the result in the press. For example there are backgammon world champions without profiles.Poker fan31 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat agree with your analysis. Thanks for posting. I did a search through US newspapers, British papers, Jewish media; essentially, I found one reference London Evening Standard saying he's an American who owns an art gallery in London; not much else. So notability can be questioned. I did not go through the existing references. Wondering what OE thinks or others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki rules for Poker Champs is that one title does not warrant an article. However, I think the subject is notable because of several other of his activities that have been reported by the media including one source that calls him an American film producer. I posted three potential sources on the article talk page. So keeping the article is OK with me, but I'm open to the suggestions and opinions of others.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards notable, but the article includes dissatisfactory references with some unsourced content which is causing negative attention (ie deletionists). Generally I think a shorter, tighter article will be stronger; right now it looks promotional because it isn't following WP standards.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you write an article about a Teacher/mentor who you find inpsirational? Or is that not Noteable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinlg (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Consult WP:NOTE for notability guidelines; generally subjects that have been written about in newspapers or magazines are notable. If you need help, please write the name of the person you'd like to write about, where they live or what they do, and I can do a quick search. If it's a local person, give names of local newspapers or magazines where they may have been written about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Game Crafter page looks like a promotional site for a business without sources to show notability. The business offers an unusual service in game creation but I don't think it would pass the notability test.Tetron76 (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's borderline, and seemingly created by an WP:SPA to boot, but I'd say it does squeak by WP:GNG in my opinion, and if it came down to an AfD I'd think the uniqueness factor of the subject matter pushes it in favor of keeping. Though others may have higher standards when it comes to determining notability. -- œ^™ 19:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with OE.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree it may be notable and have spent some time cleaning it up and removing promo content.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Good job removing promotional content. Wondering why you trimmed references to only urls?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and good question, see that talk page for the answer :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I restored the references. Keithbob, I think you may be confused as to how that style of referencing works.. see WP:REFNOTE.. what you did was remove the references and left bare footnotes that point to nothing. -- œ^™ 15:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, here is a better description and example of that particular style of citing sources, it's called Linking to full references from short footnotes (or Harvard citations), and it's normally only used on much larger articles. On a small article like this that style is unnecessary but it's still not wrong. -- œ^™ 15:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Chandu Thota, I believe this artile is for self promoting and violates the notability guidline. I found the entry contains numerous links to the person's company, website, and self intro. Google search returns 65K result, 15K on Bing, no patent filed under this name, historical edits of SF area IPs contains cliaming of being a "software technologist" without sustained proof. Additionally, the time of creation of this entry seem too convenient as he was leaving Microsoft (the majority of what he has done as a engineer there) and starting his own small business. Kenimaru (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

He's notable but article was botched; improved; but still a stub; needs work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)