Talk:Douglas Anthony Cooper

The article is discussed by the Douglas Anthony Cooper himself in Wikipedia Cuts on the Bias. — fnielsen (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability tag

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article does not meet guidelines for notability. I will repeat my objections: The sum total of the subject's achievements are two little-known novels published more than 15 years ago, and two self-published YA novels with no critical success or recognition. The majority of references on the page link to the author's own blog or website. Since the key criteria for notability is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I feel this article does not meet the requirements for notability. WP:GNGWP:SPIP JohnDopp (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC) (Micropitt comment on the "Douglas Anthony Cooper" entry, copied from the notability discussion page) - '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. (Redacted)) currently is very active vandalizing the Wikipedia entry about Douglas Anthony Cooper. (Redacted). 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 (Redacted). It's probably the highest profile coverage yet of (Redacted) 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)' For the third time, cease your harassment. I have tried to avoid an edit war over a trivial dispute and have instead asked for clarification on the issues raised. Rather than improve Wikipedia, you have engaged in: Personal attacks Wikihounding Posting of personal information Conflict of interest editing This is unacceptable, immature behavior. This is my final request for you to cease your harassment. JohnDopp (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I'm pleased that this is your final request. And I hope that you received the clarification that you so very sincerely desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.186.149 (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I was involved in the stuff mentioned above, and have kept a close eye on this article since. You should never interpret an admin not deleting something to indicate it should not be deleted. If you want to propose this article for deletion, the correct forum (after any appropriate edits or discussion here), is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The notability of this article has not been tested there as far as I know. I am not one to judge whether it would pass, but I can tell you we delete stuff like this every day. Meanwhile I would be grateful if no one started with the POV pushing and stuff. This article, like any other biography, will be afforded any necessary protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC) One has to wonder about the personal interest of JohnDopp to constantly try to discredit or delete Cooper's Wiki entree. JohnDopp doesn't do that by anybody else. Just a observation. Micropitt (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Micropitt, placing a notability tag on a Wikipedia page is not a personal attack. I'll do it for any Wikipedia page I see which has a legitimate question of notability. Furthermore, I contribute to a number of topics with the purpose of improving those pages -- not just defending self-glorifying edits to one individual's ego page. Wikipedia is a community. It's not a place for puffery and self-promotion. It's not a place for unsubstantiated claims. And it's not a place for someone to stake out territory and drive off opinions they disagree with. Please get over it. JohnDopp (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC) You asked a legitimate question, and I dare say the article has had too few eyes over the five intervening years. So, notability tags. They are not a permanent fixture. They lead to either a better article, more appropriate tags, or a deletion. It soon comes time to shit or get off the pot when you put one on a biography. What are your plans, JohnDopp? -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Honestly, I feel the article has been improved drastically since the original placement of the notability tag. A half a dozen credible references have been added to the page, there are now independent sources outside of the author's own blog/website, and they are verifiable. The additional sources address my original concerns, and I'm inclined to remove the notability tag. JohnDopp (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Now that the issue of notability is resolved and the entry has been edited to reflect a more neutral point of view, I think that unless anyone else has an edit to make, the autobiography tag should be removed. --Atelantix (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Agree.  Done.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Excellent, thanks. -- JohnDopp (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Amnesia?

I'm removing the merge tag from Amnesia (novel). There are more than enough RS in that article to show that it deserves its own article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)